20663
19189
26226
26200
8132
35058
31057
29164
26640
31355
[citation][nom]10tacle[/nom]I call 'em like I see 'em. Nothing personal.[/citation]
Do you know who else calls people names when they're not getting their way? Small children.
If you want to sit at the grown up table and talk about national policy, then you need to use your grown up words.
Calling people names doesn't support your argument.
[citation]Uhm, no, them's the facts. You need to learn basic math and percentages (and how not to add them up in an attempt to debate). http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who- [...] taxes.html[/citation]
Thank you for providing your source. You seem to be confused by what these numbers actually mean. Since the total percentages do not have a sum of 100, it is implied that these numbers refer to a percentile and not a percentage. The term percentile and the related term percentile rank are often used in descriptive statistics; so the 10th percentile is the value (or score) below which 10 percent of the category (in this case, annual income) is determined.
There are actually a number of ways to calculate this. Sadly, NTU didn't provide a description.
The most common percentile is the "Nearest Rank" method: p-th percentile of N ordered values is obtained by first calculating the rank:
n = (N/100)p + 1/2
In this case, rounding to the nearest integer, and taking the value that corresponds to that rank.
This is the simplest for of a percentile, but there is also weighted and Linear Interpolation Between Closest Ranks methods that are common. Since there are several values needed to calculate an income tax percentile, the Linear interpolation method was most likely required.
But why?
Well for one thing, not everyone within our population has an income, or an income which is taxable. Children, the unemployed, and even those that work in fields where their income is considered non-taxable. In 2007 I was in a combat zone and was exempt from paying income tax.
Yeah, that's right. This person that you so charmingly characterized as a "Libtard" is a combat veteran and lifetime member of the NRA. But you'd find it much more convenient to dismiss me as some dope smoking hippie or something instead of considering, that maybe, just maybe you don't have all of the data needed to determine something as complex as tax policy.
So what data is missing besides non-taxable income earners?
Well, the NTU also fails to specify what the actual p value is for a given income. How many people actually earn more than say, $380,000 matters a great deal. If more people earn this amount than those earning $100,000 for example, both could be taxed at an equal rate, yet the percentile would deceptively indicate that the person earning $380,000 actually pays a higher income tax, when in reality it would just be in reference to the population that earns that amount.
Fortunately, we don't have to guess, because the data is available, thanks to the wonders of the government-funded world wide web.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-09-50.pdf
Look at page seven:
There are six tax brackets ranging from %10 - %35, and in four categories: Single, Married Jointly, Married Separate, and Head of Household.
There is another side to this: Capital Gains Tax. But you may or may not know about that, so I'll leave it alone for right now.
Income is taxed at a given bracket only for each dollar earned within that bracket. So for example, if a single taxpayer earned $10,000 in 2009 they would be taxed 10% of each dollar earned from the 1st dollar to the 8,350th dollar (10% × $8,350 = $835.00), then 15% of each dollar earned from the 8,351st dollar to the 10,000th dollar (15% of $1,650 = $247.50), totaling $1,082.50. This amount is lower than if the individual had been taxed at 15% on the full $10,000. This is because the individual's marginal rate has no effect on the income taxed at a lower bracket. This ensures that every rise in a person's pre-tax salary results in an increase of his after-tax salary.
Are you still with me? Do you understand why this matters?
It matters because the taxes paid by Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates, are at the same rate as someone that owns a bar or restaurant and takes home more than $373,000 annually. Though it should be noted that again, the dollars earned up to $373,000 are all in different tax brackets, and only the amount earned above $373,000 is taxed at the top rate of %35.
Again, this tax rate is historically low:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf
Take a look at that, in 1952-1953 people earning more than $400,000 paid an income tax of 92%! A rate nearly 3x that of today. This was during the cold war, when suspicion of communism got people thrown before congress and charged with treason, yet our own federal government was taxing the wealthy at a rate of $0.89 for every dollar earned over $400,000 annually. Yet there was no Tea-Party hysterics, no misspelled signs claiming that Ike and Truman weren't "Real Americans". In fact, the 1950's and 1960's were pretty good decades for most Americans, and the economy was growing.
Let's move on, shall we?
[citation]WTF are you talking about? English please - and clear English. Mindless liberal psychobabble won't cut it with me.[/citation]
Is anything you find difficult to understand automatically categorized as "Mindless liberal psychobabble"? I've been very clear in both this and my other comments. If you are finding something difficult to understand, please just ask for specifics and I'll gladly provide you with the best answer that I can. But instead you are just calling me names, like a child does when they are upset. This is a conversation for grown-ups and I expect you to act like one.
[citation]What? RACISM??!! Where in my post? WHERE?[/citation]
Well if the pointed hat and white sheets fit...
I mentioned reading books on the subject of taxes as an alternative to watching Fox News, and challenged you to address a specific case of President Obama raising your taxes. You replied with several all-caps words; complaining about lottery winners inability to retain their wealth, and then accusing Mexican immigrants of taking away business opportunities from citizens born in the United States.
When no-one at the table is discussing an issue, and you choose to insert it; that reflects badly on you. The observation of racism is a direct result of your completely off-topic tangent regarding Mexican immigration, so please don't try to act as though it came out of nowhere when I pointed this out.
[citation]What's under that beanie cap of yours? Am I "racists" because the current president is BLACK and I disagree with his socialistic near Marxist policies??!![/citation]
Could you please tell me what legislation he has signed into law which is categorically "near Marxist"? Words have meaning. I rebutted your comment regarding Mexican immigrants, and you are now acting confused and assuming that I am referring to the race of the president. This feels like a dodge, and not a very good one.
[citation]Go ahead and spit it out. All you psychos on the left can do is claim racism at the drop of a hat. Sorry pal, that dog won't hunt with me. You can return to your Daily Kook, Huff & Puffington Post, and other lib wingnut sites, thanks. It's been fun, but you belong in the small ponds with the small minds.[/citation]
Calling someone names doesn't support your argument, or provide you with a credible argument against those you disagree with. What exactly have I said that you find particularly "liberal"? You can pretend that your rant about Mexicans wasn't racist, but you were the one that brought it up in the first place. If you want to convince anyone, you'll need more than generic talking points. Address the facts directly, if you have the courage to.
19189
26226
26200
8132
35058
31057
29164
26640
31355
[citation][nom]10tacle[/nom]I call 'em like I see 'em. Nothing personal.[/citation]
Do you know who else calls people names when they're not getting their way? Small children.
If you want to sit at the grown up table and talk about national policy, then you need to use your grown up words.
Calling people names doesn't support your argument.
[citation]Uhm, no, them's the facts. You need to learn basic math and percentages (and how not to add them up in an attempt to debate). http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who- [...] taxes.html[/citation]
Thank you for providing your source. You seem to be confused by what these numbers actually mean. Since the total percentages do not have a sum of 100, it is implied that these numbers refer to a percentile and not a percentage. The term percentile and the related term percentile rank are often used in descriptive statistics; so the 10th percentile is the value (or score) below which 10 percent of the category (in this case, annual income) is determined.
There are actually a number of ways to calculate this. Sadly, NTU didn't provide a description.
The most common percentile is the "Nearest Rank" method: p-th percentile of N ordered values is obtained by first calculating the rank:
n = (N/100)p + 1/2
In this case, rounding to the nearest integer, and taking the value that corresponds to that rank.
This is the simplest for of a percentile, but there is also weighted and Linear Interpolation Between Closest Ranks methods that are common. Since there are several values needed to calculate an income tax percentile, the Linear interpolation method was most likely required.
But why?
Well for one thing, not everyone within our population has an income, or an income which is taxable. Children, the unemployed, and even those that work in fields where their income is considered non-taxable. In 2007 I was in a combat zone and was exempt from paying income tax.
Yeah, that's right. This person that you so charmingly characterized as a "Libtard" is a combat veteran and lifetime member of the NRA. But you'd find it much more convenient to dismiss me as some dope smoking hippie or something instead of considering, that maybe, just maybe you don't have all of the data needed to determine something as complex as tax policy.
So what data is missing besides non-taxable income earners?
Well, the NTU also fails to specify what the actual p value is for a given income. How many people actually earn more than say, $380,000 matters a great deal. If more people earn this amount than those earning $100,000 for example, both could be taxed at an equal rate, yet the percentile would deceptively indicate that the person earning $380,000 actually pays a higher income tax, when in reality it would just be in reference to the population that earns that amount.
Fortunately, we don't have to guess, because the data is available, thanks to the wonders of the government-funded world wide web.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-09-50.pdf
Look at page seven:
There are six tax brackets ranging from %10 - %35, and in four categories: Single, Married Jointly, Married Separate, and Head of Household.
There is another side to this: Capital Gains Tax. But you may or may not know about that, so I'll leave it alone for right now.
Income is taxed at a given bracket only for each dollar earned within that bracket. So for example, if a single taxpayer earned $10,000 in 2009 they would be taxed 10% of each dollar earned from the 1st dollar to the 8,350th dollar (10% × $8,350 = $835.00), then 15% of each dollar earned from the 8,351st dollar to the 10,000th dollar (15% of $1,650 = $247.50), totaling $1,082.50. This amount is lower than if the individual had been taxed at 15% on the full $10,000. This is because the individual's marginal rate has no effect on the income taxed at a lower bracket. This ensures that every rise in a person's pre-tax salary results in an increase of his after-tax salary.
Are you still with me? Do you understand why this matters?
It matters because the taxes paid by Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates, are at the same rate as someone that owns a bar or restaurant and takes home more than $373,000 annually. Though it should be noted that again, the dollars earned up to $373,000 are all in different tax brackets, and only the amount earned above $373,000 is taxed at the top rate of %35.
Again, this tax rate is historically low:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf
Take a look at that, in 1952-1953 people earning more than $400,000 paid an income tax of 92%! A rate nearly 3x that of today. This was during the cold war, when suspicion of communism got people thrown before congress and charged with treason, yet our own federal government was taxing the wealthy at a rate of $0.89 for every dollar earned over $400,000 annually. Yet there was no Tea-Party hysterics, no misspelled signs claiming that Ike and Truman weren't "Real Americans". In fact, the 1950's and 1960's were pretty good decades for most Americans, and the economy was growing.
Let's move on, shall we?
[citation]WTF are you talking about? English please - and clear English. Mindless liberal psychobabble won't cut it with me.[/citation]
Is anything you find difficult to understand automatically categorized as "Mindless liberal psychobabble"? I've been very clear in both this and my other comments. If you are finding something difficult to understand, please just ask for specifics and I'll gladly provide you with the best answer that I can. But instead you are just calling me names, like a child does when they are upset. This is a conversation for grown-ups and I expect you to act like one.
[citation]What? RACISM??!! Where in my post? WHERE?[/citation]
Well if the pointed hat and white sheets fit...
I mentioned reading books on the subject of taxes as an alternative to watching Fox News, and challenged you to address a specific case of President Obama raising your taxes. You replied with several all-caps words; complaining about lottery winners inability to retain their wealth, and then accusing Mexican immigrants of taking away business opportunities from citizens born in the United States.
When no-one at the table is discussing an issue, and you choose to insert it; that reflects badly on you. The observation of racism is a direct result of your completely off-topic tangent regarding Mexican immigration, so please don't try to act as though it came out of nowhere when I pointed this out.
[citation]What's under that beanie cap of yours? Am I "racists" because the current president is BLACK and I disagree with his socialistic near Marxist policies??!![/citation]
Could you please tell me what legislation he has signed into law which is categorically "near Marxist"? Words have meaning. I rebutted your comment regarding Mexican immigrants, and you are now acting confused and assuming that I am referring to the race of the president. This feels like a dodge, and not a very good one.
[citation]Go ahead and spit it out. All you psychos on the left can do is claim racism at the drop of a hat. Sorry pal, that dog won't hunt with me. You can return to your Daily Kook, Huff & Puffington Post, and other lib wingnut sites, thanks. It's been fun, but you belong in the small ponds with the small minds.[/citation]
Calling someone names doesn't support your argument, or provide you with a credible argument against those you disagree with. What exactly have I said that you find particularly "liberal"? You can pretend that your rant about Mexicans wasn't racist, but you were the one that brought it up in the first place. If you want to convince anyone, you'll need more than generic talking points. Address the facts directly, if you have the courage to.
Facebook
Twitter