On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 12:28:22AM -0500, John D. Giorgis wrote:
> At 06:33 PM 1/28/01 -0600, Erik wrote:
> >On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 02:29:05PM -0500, John D. Giorgis wrote:
> >> At 10:24 AM 1/28/01 -0600, Erik wrote:
> >> >Depending on how they calculated, I suppose that could be. But to be
> >> >fair, they should really take into account the big tax break they
> >> >get for the property, assuming they got a loan to buy it. Which likely
> >> >offsets most or all of the property taxes.
> >>
> >> Which means that if they had found a non-home-owning couple of the same
> >> income, they would pay even more of their income in taxes!!!!!!! Is that
> >> *amazing* or what? This family is working two jobs to make ends meet, and
> >> they are paying *half* of their income to the governments. Whew!
> >
> >Huh? Non home-owners don't pay property tax.
>
> You missed it.
What 'it' did I miss?
> I was talking about two different families. My new hypothetical family
> would not have a mortage payment tax-write-off, and thus would be paying
> even more taxes than the Missouri couple featured.
But they wouldn't be paying property tax either. Lose a tax write off
and lose a tax. Without detailed accounting, your statement that they
pay more is not credible.
> Also, the 46% is all-tax-inclusive - income, property, sales, electricity,
> gas, water, phone, etc.
I still don't believe the 46% number. All those other taxes you mentioned
are fairly small, and will be mostly offset in my calculation by the
things that I left out or overestimated.
If you sample American taxpayers on this list, and neglect college
students, I think you will find that the income level and therefore
the tax rate of people on this list is much higher than average. Even
so, I would be very surprised if anyone on here can give us a detailed
accounting and show that they pay 46% of their income in taxes. Anyone?
--
"Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.com/
