DoubleEagle
-
Posts
180 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Points
950 [ Donate ]
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
GoMeanGreen.com
Posts posted by DoubleEagle
-
-
Between 1980 and 2005, 80% of all new income created in the US has gone to the top 1%.
Remember folks, its only called class warfare when we fight back.
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.
-
Sorry but people should be smart enough to not wear a third teams gear to a sporting event. I would rather that he was wearing Indiana gear than TU. If he doesn't want to be ridiculed, don't wear the wrong gear.
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.
-
3
-
1
-
-
My family had a great time. Thanks to Todd, Grant and Rudy's for pulling this off.
GO MEAN GREEN!!
-
Where is RV parking?
Mean Green Club members can purchase a season parking pass in the new stadium lot. Please contact the Mean Green Club at 940-369-7284. General public RV parking will be located in Fouts Field and be available for $60 per individual game.
Which new stadium lot?
And if general public RV parking over at Fouts is $60.00 per game, one can only imagine the new stadium lot cost.....wherever that is.
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.
-
1
-
-
So constitutionally, where does being required to buy auto liability insurance fall?
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.
-
1
-
-
Nobody said get rid of anything. If the choice is getting rid of social security which YOU have paid into and medicare which YOU have paid into, or removing the tax breaks given to the wealthiest 1% of americans and corporations. I choose the to remove the tax breaks. I don't really understand why people are arguing this, or why they perfer big businesses and government keep their money. Would you really prefer forture 500 compaines get richier while your money goes to fund their tax breaks?
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).
-
1
-
-
Actually it would as the money used to buy the lottery tickets has already been taxed with the people who buy each ticket sharing the burden of that tax, and the winner of the lottery taking the tax burden on the winnings. While in an estate situation, the person who built the estate is taxed, and the person who inherits it is also taxed.
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.
-
If this tax exemption applied to just property then I wouldn't have a problem with it, especially working properties like a farm or ranch. However, it doesn't and I would be willing to wager that farms and ranches account for about .1% of people affected by this. My wife works at a law firm that specializes in estate planning, and I have never heard her say anything about a farm or ranch. In fact about all she ever says is how rich these clients are and that they are saving about $2 million dollars each on taxes....If you think this exemption was created to help farmers then you are way off....It was created to help the rich get richer, primarily GW Bush's buddies save $2 million per estate....
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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
I thought there was a texas supreme court ruling back in 2005 that ruled the current method of education funding primarily through property taxes as unconstitutional. So the Gross margins tax was created to lower property taxes and cover the cost of education. From reading it seems the gross margins tax has failed in producing the amount of revenue it was created for which is one of the reasons why we are in the education funding problem we are in. Please correct me if I'm wrong and off base. My ignorance may be showing.
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.
-
You are exactly about his salery... BUT it is a minor part to his income.... he pays 15% on his capital gains..... Those working and making a large salery say $250,000 pay 35%..
They are the ones really getting screwed.... Not the super wealthy such Perot and Buffett that get little or no salery compared to their earnings from capital gains.. usually stock...
The rest of what you said is correct. You just aren't thinking what it meant to the super wealthy (not the high wage earners). Of course they pay more, they earn more but they actually pay a lower rate.... only 15%.. same as low wage earners. ..... but you seem to think that is fair.
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.
- Year Total Top 0.1% Top 1% Top 5% Top 10% Top 25% Top 50% Bottom 50%
-
---Some in Texas don't get it either... in 1999 we had a $6 Billion surplus (Bush Gov. and Laney/Bullock controling legislature) ..... Perry walked in after the 2000 Presidential election, gave away a lot of tax cuts to business, not ordinary citizens which pays sales etc. (mostly to contributors ones, three of which gave over $400,000 EACH to him last year, (legal in Texas not in national elections) and now we have a $25 billion problem despite the fact that Texas has the best economy of all 50 states. Blaming the economy makes sense in Wisconsin and many states ... it doesn't here in Texas especially with oil prices and employment figures very good in most areas. So who gets to pay for this mess.. education... losing 1000's of jobs and having larger crowded classrooms... also many social services such as those for the physically and mentally handicaped.
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)
-
1
-
-
If club seats are not all sold out via season ticket sales, will tickets for the club seats be sold for individual games? If so, how will that work, considering the requirements for purchasing club seats?
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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
I received mine as well.
-
I plan to be there and I will forward this information to all of my contacts (I am a volunteer rep for the Allen area). Thanks for taking the time to set this up.
GO MEAN GREEN!!
-
2
-
-
I don't doubt your stats at all . ... but where is the cut line for the top 5%.... It is far below $250,000 and a lot of the high earning "middle class" are the ones getting beat-up with a 33% tax on their WAGES**... not the super wealthy they don't make money on wages and often pay 15%.... Go to the top 1% (the super wealthy) and see if what you state is still holds true...
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.
-
2
-
-
--I don't pretend to know the answers.... but what is happening isn't it. I have a son that when he (or his wife) gets a raise.. they pays 33% in income tax...Ovbviously theya re getting a veryslary and show up at work every day... meanwhile those playing on Wall Street and the Ross Perot types only pay 15% on their capitol gains..... is that right?? ... nope... I pay about more 25% as well on any increased earnings I have. . The super wealthy do pay more than us but they also earn a lot more... but usually pay a smaller percent. The tax deal that was voted down in December and would have helped a lot... would have only raised taxes on those earning $250,000 or more and even then only the part over $250,000.
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%?
-
1
-
1
-
-
Actually the cheapest club seat (Silver) comes out to $1475 per year. For two people, that's just shy of $3000.
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.
-
Do you have to pay the $500 MGC per year for each seat or does the $500 cover both ?
The $500 is per account, so it would cover both.
-
Rumor has it that if you have a suite, then you have booze.
Suites and club seats have access to a full cash bar.
-
--You (in the financial industry) just said what I have been saying..... removing all those controls etc. is the reason we are in this financial mess.... Thank You. After that greed from financial institutions and idiots taking those loans caused the problems. ..... none of which would have happened if Congress hadn't done what they did in the past 10 years.
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.
-
CBL, We spent 3 billion to get an average of 1-3 MPG better? The math, which has been discussed in other threads on this board, have blown that out of the water, making the point that we could have bought the extra fuel for the cars sold under this program with the 3 billion with money left over.
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.
-
I'll be there.
-
Wow...analogies just fly right over your head. The point is that everybody is complaining about the immediate effects of some of these programs, the first step...maybe second, while ignoring or just not thinking through the down the road benefits. The same thing happened with the inane ham thread.
So...a half-ass flow chart for you...I'll find pictures if needed:
- Man has 2002 Ford F-150 that gets 17mpg.
- Man wants new, smarter vehicle...but doesn't find it economically feasible
- "Cash for Clunkers"
- Man now has incentive to buy that 2009 Ford F-150 that gets 22mpg
- Man trades in old car:
- gets "cash"
- gets less efficient vehicle off the road
-child doesn't die of emphysema
- Man gets new car
- saves money on gas
-spends saved money on ham
- Ford sells more vehicles
- creates jobs
- workers spend money on ham, maybe even "cash in their clunkers"
- generates revenue
- Government taxes Ford
- makes back money spent on "cash for clunkers"
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.
Occupy Denton
in The Eagles Nest (There Should be Pie For Everyone Forum)
Posted
In 2009, the top 1% of taxpayers paid an average effective tax rate of 24.01% while the bottom 50% of taxpayers had an average effective tax rate of 1.85%. If you want to raise taxes on the rich, fine, but explain to me why "fair" means the wealthy pay 13X the average burden of the "average joe".
The higher your AGI the higher your tax burden as a percent of your AGI. Period. This data is readily available from multiple sources including the Department of Treasury. If Warren Buffet actually pays 17%, then he is an extreme outlier.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html