DoubleEagle

The Treasury Department did a study in 2007 that found that less than half of those in the top 1% in 1996 were still there in 2005. One conclusion from this study is that focusing on the top 1%, while convenient, isn't the most accurate gauge of economic inequality as the makeup of the top 1% is constantly changing.

Maybe it is just me, but I'm not going to call someone out for wearing their colors. My wife is an Aggie and several years ago we went to a A&M/Texas Tech game in College Station. I wore my Mean Green gear, just like I always do. If that makes me a ****** then so be it. On the other hand, if you come to a North Texas game wearing UT gear and you never went to UT...then all bets are off.

My family had a great time. Thanks to Todd, Grant and Rudy's for pulling this off. GO MEAN GREEN!!

RV parking will be in the Blue/Red lot (Victory Hall). MGC members may purchase a season parking pass for $400. There are no single game options at the new stadium...only at Fouts.

Rudy's in Allen. Me plus 3.

The federal government does not require the purchase of auto liability insurance, that is a requirement at the state level and is allowed as the regulation of intrastate commerce is within the purview of each state. Also, auto liability insurance is only required of car owners...not all citizens.

The wealthiest 1% of Americans paid 38% of all federal income taxes in 2008 (latest data available) and their effective tax rate of 23.3% was the highest of any income group. At the same time, their share of AGI was 20.0%. You obviously think they aren't paying enough, so I ask you...how much should they pay? If we all paid our "fair share" shouldn't they pay 20% of the total liability? Also, for the record, corporations don't pay taxes. People pay taxes. Any tax liability assumed by a corporation is simply passed onto the consumer (higher prices) or labor (lower wages).

Nice try, but I don't think so. Here is an example: I earn $100, of which the government gets 25%, leaving me with $75. If I die and pass that $75 on to my heirs the government takes an additional 35%, or $26, leaving my heirs with $49 (assuming the $75 is in excess of the exemption). The government taxes the same earnings twice, taking $51 of the originally earned $100. If I earn $100 and use the after tax proceeds to buy lottery tickets the government has taken $25 of the original earnings and then taxes the INCREMENTAL earnings (lottery winnings). The original $100 is only taxed one time.

My issue with the Estate tax is that it is double taxation. The earnings used to create the value of the estate were already taxed as either regular income, business income or investment income. The same would not apply in your lottery example.

Your description is accurate. In 2007 the gross margin tax was instituted, replacing the franchise tax as the primary source of corporate tax revenues in the state. This change was implemented to replace the tax revenue lost when the legislature cut the school M&O tax rate from $1.50 to $1.00 (per $100 of valuation) in 2006. To date, the gross margin tax has failed to generate as much revenue as expected which is part of the reason for the budget deficit we are currently experiencing.

This is completely incorrect. The table below shows average tax rates cut by income bracket. These tax rates include ALL sources of income (salary, capital gains, dividends, etc.) Year Total Top 0.1% Top 1% Top 5% Top 10% Top 25% Top 50% Bottom 50% 2001 14.23% 28.20% 27.50% 23.68% 21.41% 18.08% 15.85% 4.09% 2002 13.03% 28.49% 27.25% 22.95% 20.51% 16.99% 14.66% 3.21% 2003 11.90% 24.64% 24.31% 20.74% 18.49% 15.38% 13.35% 2.95% 2004 12.10% 23.09% 23.49% 20.67% 18.60% 15.53% 13.51% 2.97% 2005 12.45% 22.52% 23.13% 20.78% 18.84% 15.86% 13.84% 2.98% 2006 12.60% 21.98% 22.79% 20.68% 18.86% 15.95% 13.98% 3.01% 2007 12.68% 21.46% 22.45% 20.53% 18.79% 15.98% 14.03% 2.99% 2008 12.24% 22.70% 23.27% 20.70% 18.71% 15.68% 13.65% 2.59% The wealthiest Americans have always borne the largest federal income tax burden, in the form of the highest tax rates as well as in relation to their % of total income.

Couple of points here: 1. During Perry's tenure, business taxes have INCREASED from $1.9B (3.6% of total state revenue) to $3.9B (or 4.4% of total state revenue). Any way you look at it, business taxes have gone up, not down. 2. Perry's most significant tax legislation was a 2006 bill which decreased SCHOOL property tax rates (paid by us ordinary citizens) by 33%. The problem, which was created by the 2006 tax reform act, is that business taxes did not increase enough to offset the decrease in school related property taxes. Any spending cuts to offset this deficit are naturally going to come from education and health & human services as those two line items represent 76% of total State spending. As a side note, since Perry took office the State of Texas has CREATED 1.2 million jobs, representing an increase of 12.4%. At the same time the rest of the nation has SHED 2.6 million jobs, representing a decrease of 2.1%. (source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics)

I was told that current club level season ticket holders would be able to purchase additional club seat tickets on a per game basis depending on availability. IIRC, the price mentioned was $75 per ticket.

Alright, the top 1% paid 38.02% of all federal taxes, earning 20.00% of all income and had an average tax rate of 23.27%. Also, your referral to "wages" doesn't hold in this analysis as the income figures I quote are AGI...which include wages, dividends, interest, etc. Thus the average tax rate includes all of those income items and the wealthy STILL pay much more than any other income group. To your other point, the income split point for the top 5% is $160K, for the top 1% it is $380K. As for the federal debt (and deficit), the important number is not the nominal amount, i.e. $13 Trillion. That amount in and of itself is meaningless. The important figures are debt (and deficit) as a % of GDP, which are both going in the wrong direction. IMHO, the first step to address this is the reduction in the size and scope of the federal government and a corresponding reduction in federal spending. Functions such as the Dept of Education should be turned over to the states, while the post office, AMTRAC, FNMA and FHLMC should be privatized. Furthermore, the health and pension benefits provided to public sector union members needs to be overhauled, with a move towards defined contribution retirement plans and more member contributions for health benefits. The second step involves increasing economic growth, starting with an overhaul of the corporate tax structure. We currently have the second highest corporate tax rate in the developed world (behind only Japan) and it is a barrier to growth.

According to the IRS the top 5% of taxpayers paid 58.72% of all federal income taxes (2008 results), earned 34.73% of all income and had an average tax rate of 20.70%. The bottom 50% paid 2.70% of all federal income taxes, earned 12.75% of all income and had an average tax rate of 2.59%. If you think taxes should be raised on the wealthy then their percent of total taxes paid will rise. How much should they be expected to pay...60%? 70%? 100%?

You are correct that one seat would cost $1,475, but two seats would be $2,450 because the $500 MGC donation is per account, not per seat.

The $500 is per account, so it would cover both.

That is a gross oversimplification. First of all, NINA and SISA underwriting guidelines (they are not products) are associated overwhelmingly with nonconventional financing. Congress is not in the business of approving products, much less underwriting guidelines, for nonconventional loans. If you want to blame Congress for FNMA or FHLMC expanding their guidelines and taking additional risk, you can take that up with Barney Frank. Also, I have been in the industry many years, both servicing and lending, and I have come to the conclusion that people who are quick to blame 'greed' for the crisis generally have no idea what actually happened. If you are interested in the mechanics of the financial meltdown, I recommend reading about David X. Li and his work around risk modeling, specifically the Gaussian copula function.

Actually, per a study by the University of Michigan, the net improvement in fleet fuel efficiency that can be attributed to the Cash for Clunkers program is between .6 and .7 MPG. http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/20...25/1/102323.pdf Another study by the University of Delaware concluded that total costs related to the program outweighed ALL benefits by $1.4B. http://www.bepress.com/ev/vol6/iss8/art4/?sending=10731

I'll be there.

How about this: The government gives the tax receipts used to fund the "cash for clunkers" program back to the 40% of Americans who actually pay taxes. Those Americans then buy or invest at their discretion. Government then taxes the resulting incremental economic activity via corporate/individual income tax or capital gains tax. Our savings rate is around 5% at the moment, therefore approximately 95% of the returned tax receipts would end up back in the economy, with the benefit being spread to all sectors of the economy, not just an industry hand picked by the U.S. Government.

I'll go out on a limb and speculate that you didn't get a Finance degree.

I was told the shirts will be available for pick up at the fun zone this weekend.