Herman Cain on Hannity now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jnkbortka

several centuries.

i think its better if my exact age is kept a secret

---

Crazy kid, it's in your profile for everyone to see.
And to think I was going to hire you for a spying job!:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jnkbortka

although one thing i don't like is he supports is bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. i don't say we should tax the rich more, but we should at least be taxing them the same as everyone else.

---

Cain is for the Fair Tax.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jnkbortka

since Paul most likely wont win the primary, i'd vote for Cain. the Dems wouldn't know what to do, because their most powerful weapon, the race card, would be rendered useless.

although one thing i don't like is he supports is bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. i don't say we should tax the rich more, but we should at least be taxing them the same as everyone else.

---

they went from 31% to 35% under the Bush tax cuts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fettpett

they went from 31% to 35% under the Bush tax cuts

---

Not quite.

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

Take a look at 2000 and then at 2004.

The highest went from 39.6% to 35%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djones520

Not quite.

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

Take a look at 2000 and then at 2004.

The highest went from 39.6% to 35%.

---

mmmm.....maybe it's the % of Revenue that they pay went up....Rush has it on his website...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fettpett

mmmm.....maybe it's the % of Revenue that they pay went up....Rush has it on his website...

---

*shrugs* Don't know, but I do believe everyones income tax rates went down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djones520

*shrugs* Don't know, but I do believe everyones income tax rates went down.

---

here's the link i was thinking of
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/cy2003.guest.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fettpett

here's the link i was thinking of
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/cy2003.guest.html

---

This is funny math. The rich do pay a larger share of the total tax revenue because they have an extremely high portion of the pie to begin with. Even if it's totally skewed in favor or the top 2 percent it will still appear that they are the victims with this statistic.

Let me give you a very rough example: We have 100 people

You have 98 people making $100. Their tax rate is set at 50%.

You also have 2 people making $10,000, their tax rate is set at 25%

In this example, 98% of the population makes little money and they are taxed at TWICE the rate of the top 2%. However, let's look at the total share of taxes:

We end up with $9,900 in total tax revenue, with $5,000 of that being paid by the top 2%. Oh my god, only 2% of the population is paying for OVER HALF of all taxes. That's totally unfair I guess we should lower their tax rate?


Numbers are very easily to manipulate, be careful. Obviously the real life situation is a little more complex than this, but this demonstrates how using the same statistical measure rush quoted there is misleading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei

This is funny math. The rich do pay a larger share of the total tax revenue because they have an extremely high portion of the pie to begin with. Even if it's totally skewed in favor or the top 2 percent it will still appear that they are the victims with this statistic.

Let me give you a very rough example: We have 100 people

You have 98 people making $100. Their tax rate is set at 50%.

You also have 2 people making $10,000, their tax rate is set at 25%

In this example, 98% of the population makes little money and they are taxed at TWICE the rate of the top 2%. However, let's look at the total share of taxes:

We end up with $9,900 in total tax revenue, with $5,000 of that being paid by the top 2%. Oh my god, only 2% of the population is paying for OVER HALF of all taxes. That's totally unfair I guess we should lower their tax rate?


Numbers are very easily to manipulate, be careful. Obviously the real life situation is a little more complex than this, but this demonstrates how using the same statistical measure rush quoted there is misleading.

---

except you would have to completely change your numbers to even FIT with reality.

we will make this easy and say that the total hypothetical taxes are $100,000 (just to make it easy)

50 people pay in a total of $3,460 or 3.46% of the total bill ($69.2/person)

of the 50 remaining who pay the rest of the $96,540

• top 5 pay $54,360 ($10,872/person)
• the next 5 pay $11,480 (2,296/person)
• the rest (40 people) pay $30,700 (767.5/person)

so the burden to pay that $100k is on the top 5 people, now if we could shift it so that more people from the lower come up to the higher brackets by cutting the % that the top 10 people pay who then create more jobs for those bottom 50 or better yet make it so it's easier for those bottom 50 people to start their own companies to move up into the top 50 which in turn make it easier for them to hire people from below them than the % of taxes gets spread around more evenly between more people.

I support Cain, and have arranged to give monthly contributions.