> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sam Morris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 3:47 PM
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: RE: Kerry's record in Senate
> >
> > Top 50% of wage earners pay 96.03% of all federal
> > income tax. Should it be 100%?
>
> Sam, you really should get another source for you
> information other than
> rushlimbaugh.com since he likes to present the
> information a little one
> sided. If you'd have checked with the IRS stats,
> you'd realize that the
> bottom 50% of make less than $28,528/year. I think
> that takes the air out
> of that argument.
>
I think not.
Top 5% ($127,904 yr) pay 53.25% of all income taxes.
The top 10% ($92,754 yr) pay 64.89%. The top 25%
($56,085 yr) pay 82.9%. The top 50% pay 96.03%. The
top 1% ($292,913 yr) is paying more than ten times the
federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who
earns what? The top 1% earns 17.53 (2000: 20.81%) of
all income. The top 5% earns 31.99 (2000: 35.30%). The
top 10% earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%); the top 25% earns
65.23% (2000: 67.15%), and the top 50% earns 86.19%
(2000: 87.01%) of all the income.
> > It's a great program that helps seniors pay for
> drugs.
> > Why are you against that?
>
> Even the senators who voted for it say it isn't
> great, but it was better
> than nothing. AARP said that they just wanted
> something done so they
> backed it. They said it was far from ideal, but it
> was the best they could
> hope for. To me that doesn't sound "great".
>
That's a far cry from:
"Approved the bullshit prescription benefits plan,
which was nothing more
than a kick in the balls to all our seniors; many of
which already served
for this country (what a way to say thanks!)."
If your one of the seniors saving 10 percent to 20
percent on prescription, then it's a great plan. It's
a lot more then the previous plan.
-sm
> Marlon
>
>
>
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
