RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Missouri Young Republicans?

["F Vernon Green" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

I need to jump in here.

Raising taxes on the top 1% of earners in this country, how many do you
think there are? How much money do you have to make to be ni the top 1%? How
much of the tax burden do these people already pay? How much do you think
they should pay?

I have the numbers for 2001 to answer those questions. The top 1% of
taxpayers make over 292,000 per year. They pay 33.89% of the tax bill alone.
The top 5% pay over 127000 per year and they pay 53% of the tax bill.

The top 50% of wage earners (they make over 28000 pay 97% of the tax bill if
you make less than 28000 per year which is the lower 50% of the bill you pay
3.97% of the overall tax burden.

Interestingly enough, these poor people have never been asked to pay more
than 4% in 2000 they paid 3.91% and in 1999 they paid 4%. Hmm interesting
1999 was under Clinton and the bottom 50% paid more of the tax burden than
they do under Bush.

http://www.ntu.org/main/page_printable.php?PageID=6

Now I don't know about you guys, but my family income last year put me at a
point in the top 50%. I am in no way rich either, I live pay check to pay
check and I do not drive a new car or have a lot of bills to pay. I got a
benefit from Bush's tax cut, I got the $800 per child back this last year,
so I know that I benefited from the tax cuts. How the democrats can say the
cuts only helped the top 1% is beyond me.

Now I do see that in 2001, the top 1% paid about 2.5% less of the tax burden
than they did under Clinton so I guess one could say that the taxes were
lowered for the top 1%. The question still stands, if paying almost 34% of
the total tax bill if you make 292000 dollars is not enough, what is enough?
Just because they can afford it, does it make it right? Who uses more of the
services? Do you think the top 1% is a larger drain on our economy or do
they put more into the economy?

Also I have said before and I will say again, this hubalou about a deficit
is over rated. Ny government that has a surplus in my opinion is over-taxing
the people.

-----Original Message-----
From: EMAIL:PROTECTED
[mailto:EMAIL:PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Miller
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 7:21 AM
To: MLUG Off-Topic Discussion
Subject: RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Missouri Young Republicans?

Thanks, Jerry.  Your message is very helpful to me.  Like me, you decide 
who to vote for based on what you don't want!  To simplify your message, 
you have three problems with Kerry:

(1) he seems to raise, rather than lower, taxes
(2) he favors ready access to legal abortion
(3) he has changed his mind about the Patriot Act

Regarding 1:  Kerry may raise taxes more than Bush would, but he would do 
so to impact more on the upper 1% of earners.  Bush has been recklessly 
irresponsible.  Sure, he takes in less revenue, but does he spend less 
money?  Clinton, a "liberal democrat," managed to massively reduce the 
deficit, but Bush brought it right back up.  I used to hear often of "tax- 
and-spend liberals."  Bush is a "spend conservative" - no need for taxes 
when he's happy to spend money he don't have.

Regarding 2:  I don't care much about this issue, but I see access to 
abortion as a good thing.  Making it illegal or more expensive will only 
harm the poor.  Wealthy people will go to other countries.  Having more 
poor, unwanted children will not be a good thing for our country.  I know 
that you and others see fetuses as unborn children, and you see abortion 
as murder.  This is not the mainstream view and it is certainly not 
necessary.  If we allow would-be mothers to choose not to carry their 
'baby' any longer, which should be their right, the fetus will die as soon 
as it is born.  There is no need to kill it.  Given that the outcome is 
the same, I have no problem with using a vacuum pump to suction it out of 
the uterus.  This may be unappealing, but so is forcing a woman to 
continue a pregnancy against her will.  I just thought I'd make my case 
for this, but I don't want to discuss it much because it isn't important 
to me.  If abortion were made illegal again, I'd think that is wrong, but 
we could cope with it.  Adoption is a good option.

Regarding 3:  There is nothing wrong with changing your mind.  Kerry's 
statements, as quoted by you below, are perfectly consistent.  He saw the 
Patriot Act as being useful at a particular time, and that time has 
passed.  Surely, many people will agree with him on that.

Mike


On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Jerry Gamblin wrote:

> On the Partiot Act:
>
> Kerry Voted For Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was passed nearly
> unanimously by the Senate 98-1, and 357-66 in the House. (H.R. 3162, CQ
> Vote #313: Passed 98-1: R 49-0; D 48-1; I 1-0, 10/25/01, Kerry Voted
> Yea)
>
> Kerry Used To Defend His Vote. "Most of [The Patriot Act] has to do with
> improving the transfer of information between CIA and FBI, and it has to
> do with things that really were quite necessary in the wake of what
> happened on September 11th." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Town Hall
> Meeting, Manchester, NH, 8/6/03)
>
> Now, Kerry Attacks Patriot Act. "We are a nation of laws and liberties, 
> not of a knock in the night. So it is time to end the era of John 
> Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that 
> protects our people and our liberties at the same time. I've been a 
> District Attorney and I know that what law enforcement needs are real 
> tools not restrictions on American's basic rights." (Sen. John Kerry, 
> Remarks At Iowa State University, 12/1/03)
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion