How does the absence of a deity

[antiquity]

Exactly how are you defining wealthy to get this magical number?

Department of the Treasury dated 2006.

Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2005, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.

Treasury Department analysts credit President Bush's tax cuts with shifting a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2005, says the Treasury, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.

Since the top 50% paid 96% of all federal income taxes, that leave 4% for the bottom 50% according to the Department of the Treasury Fact sheet.

[antiquity]

Another more up to date source:

Here's a look at individual tax rates and shares by income in 2007, the most recent data available from the Internal Revenue Service:

The top 1 percent: Americans who earned an adjusted gross income of $410,096 or more accounted for 22.8 percent of all wages. But they paid 40.4 percent of total reported income taxes, an increase from 39.9 percent in 2006, according to the IRS.

The top 5 percent: Americans who earned $160,041 or more accounted for 37.4 percent of all wages in 2007. But they paid 60.6 percent of the country's total reported income taxes, up from 60.1 percent a year earlier.

The top 10 percent: Americans who earned at least $113,018 paid 71.2 percent of the nation's income taxes, up from 70.8 percent a year earlier.

The top 25 percent: Americans who earned at least $66,532 paid 86.6 percent of the nation's income taxes, up from 86.3 percent a year earlier.

The top 50 percent: Americans who earned at least $32,879 paid 97.1 percent of the nation's income taxes, up from 97 percent a year earlier.

The bottom 50 percent: Americans who earned less than $32,879 paid 2.9 percent of the nation's income taxes, down from 3 percent a year earlier.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/income...income-tax.htm

While the federal tax burden on the top 50% continue to rise the bottom 50% continues to decline according to the US Government information department.

[BooRadley]

Department of the Treasury dated 2006.



Since the top 50% paid 96% of all federal income taxes, that leave 4% for the bottom 50% according to the Department of the Treasury Fact sheet.

Top 50% is "wealthy"? Are you shitting me? That's 32k/year. If you try to raise a family of 4 on 32k/year in my area, you're on food stamps.

[GanjaFreebird]

I find it amusing that lower income people complain about real tax paying citizens. But I didn't ask you to reveal your taxable income only your percentage you pay in income tax.

It's different every year, as it depends on how much I'm getting paid.

Since you have a medical marijuana card, does that mean you are one of those physical unable to work?

No, I work for living and always have since college. Just because a person has a sleeping disorder doesn't mean he is "disabled", I was only talking about people who really aren't able to work and make a living, not people with minor health issues, which is basically everybody.

Are you a closet gay pot smoker?

I'm an openly heterosexual pot smoker.

[Cyclone Ranger]

I want freedom too. I want the freedom to do what I think is right, I want the freedom to receive my entire paycheck. I want the freedom to plan for my retirement without government interference. I want the freedom to choose to have healthcare. I want the freedom to decide what my kid will eat for lunch. I want the freedom to choose how much water my toilet tank will hold, I want the freedom to decide if, when and who I'm going to give my money to, etc.

The fallacy here is your narcissistic belief that you're entitled to all your selfish desires in a democracy of laws. You have the freedom to vote for a candidate who promotes the above belief set.

[Šñøü†ê®]

It's different every year, as it depends on how much I'm getting paid.

I will pay you up to $20 if you can provide any evidence you have received a 1099 for 2011. Come on kid, stop the madness and quit pretending. That said, let' make it a goal for you to get employed so you get a 1099 next year!

[Freedom&Liberty]

The fallacy here is your narcissistic belief that you're entitled to all your selfish desires in a democracy of laws. You have the freedom to vote for a candidate who promotes the above belief set.

That happened 230 years ago, dumbass.

[antiquity]

I will pay you up to $20 if you can provide any evidence you have received a 1099 for 2011. Come on kid, stop the madness and quit pretending. That said, let' make it a goal for you to get employed so you get a 1099 next year!

My question to ganja was not what he make in personal income but what percentage he paid in federal income tax. Not a hard question, is it?

[Zordar]

Dictating how much water a toilet can flush, what a kid can have for lunch and what light bulbs we have to buy are examples of micro management. When did government create laws that force you to do any of the things on your list?

That is absolutely false, Social programs cost 2.1 trillion per year and rising.

With all respect, these are gripes that are reasonable (depending on your ideology), that can be measured in facts and more importantly, results.

But your first is just... weird. Honestly, it's the kind of statement I'd make if I was trying to troll a board full of progressive, only you're being serious. It's just not based in reality: totalitarian atheist liberals are a subset of a subset. There are a lot of religious folks (leaders even) who are for huge social safety nets, hate crime laws, gun control, etc., etc...

"Some of the biggest socialists I know are Christians."

[Cyclone Ranger]

That happened 230 years ago, dumbass.

And yet, you still fail to understand it.

[Freedom&Liberty]

With all respect, these are gripes that are reasonable (depending on your ideology), that can be measured in facts and more importantly, results.

But your first is just... weird. Honestly, it's the kind of statement I'd make if I was trying to troll a board full of progressive, only you're being serious. It's just not based in reality: totalitarian atheist liberals are a subset of a subset. There are a lot of religious folks (leaders even) who are for huge social safety nets, hate crime laws, gun control, etc., etc...

"Some of the biggest socialists I know are Christians."

I don't give a fuck who they are or who they vote for. Safety nets are unconstitutional. The constitution exists to keep the people from having anything they desire.

[Freedom&Liberty]

And yet, you still fail to understand it.

You fail to abide it, commie tyrant.

[Cyclone Ranger]

I abide by it every day.

[Zordar]

I don't give a fuck who they are or who they vote for. Safety nets are unconstitutional. The constitution exists to keep the people from having anything they desire.

Personally, I'd looove to see some major changes and rollbacks to our social safety nets. Probably not to the extent you do, but I can at least sympathize with where you are coming from. I doubt their unconstitutionality, though. This also doesn't have anything with this being a form of religion for atheists.

OR DOES IT?

[Freedom&Liberty]

The moral implications of safety nets suggest that liberalism is essentially religion without a deity. Given that, safety nets wouldn't exist because they would have violated the first amendment. Even without the first, safety have nothing to do with the general welfare of the union. Claiming that the general welfare clause gives congress the power to do anything it wants, defeats the entire purpose of listing the things congress can legally do. Safety nets were created using corruption and ideology, not the constitution.

[Zordar]

The moral implications of safety nets suggest that liberalism is essentially religion without a deity.

Deity or no deity, can't you have morals without a religion?

[jwreck]

Deity or no deity, can't you have morals without a religion?

This is something that religious people seem to have extreme difficulty grasping. The idea that you can look around you and discern right from wrong without having to consult a book is just beyond their comprehension for some reason.

[jwreck]

The moral implications of safety nets suggest that liberalism is essentially religion without a deity. Given that, safety nets wouldn't exist because they would have violated the first amendment. Even without the first, safety have nothing to do with the general welfare of the union. Claiming that the general welfare clause gives congress the power to do anything it wants, defeats the entire purpose of listing the things congress can legally do. Safety nets were created using corruption and ideology, not the constitution.

How, praytell, do safety nets violate the 1st amendment?

[Zordar]

This is something that religious people seem to have extreme difficulty grasping. The idea that you can look around you and discern right from wrong without having to consult a book is just beyond their comprehension for some reason.

Well, some religious people, at least -- unfortunately, it's the dumb and extreme religionists who are most likely to open their mouths on that subject.

For my part, it's the opposite. I just can't imagine waking up in the morning thinking "Do I rape that hot jogger today?" then checking with the Bible to see if it's OK or not. Fortunately, it is perfectly fine, provided she's young and I can afford to pay her father off.

I wonder if President Santorum will be pushing Congress for a pay-for-rape law in order to more perfectly align our country with G_d?

[jwreck]

Well, some religious people, at least -- unfortunately, it's the dumb and extreme religionists who are most likely to open their mouths on that subject.

For my part, it's the opposite. I just can't imagine waking up in the morning thinking "Do I rape that hot jogger today?" then checking with the Bible to see if it's OK or not. Fortunately, it is perfectly fine, provided she's young and I can afford to pay her father off.

I wonder if President Santorum will be pushing Congress for a pay-for-rape law in order to more perfectly align our country with G_d?

LOL.