U.S. Jobs Protection Act of 2003

[Guest.Visitor]

U.S. Jobs Protection Act of 2003

From an article on what happened to the California budget.

"In fact, those earning between $50,000 and $100,000, while they took in 27 percent of the income in 2002, paid 19 percent of the income tax. People earning more than $100,000, while earning 46 percent of the money in the state, paid 73 percent of the income tax."

Interesting (to me at least ;-)) I think similar principles apply to the Feds too.

[Guest.Visitor]

U.S. Jobs Protection Act of 2003

Brian, In the L.A. Times the a recent quote was: 50% of all federal income tax was paid by the top 1% of income earners. 80% of all federal income tax was paid by the top 5% of income earners. Who says the top income earners don't pay their fair share? chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer. "Brian Singleton" wrote in message news:6ae8e941.61@WebX.WawyahGHajS... > From an article <http://www.sacbee.com/content/politi...y/8123067p-905 5136c.html> on what happened to the California budget. > > "In fact, those earning between $50,000 and $100,000, while they took > in 27 percent of the income in 2002, paid 19 percent of the income tax. > People earning more than $100,000, while earning 46 percent of the money > in the state, paid 73 percent of the income tax." > > > > > Interesting (to me at least ;-)) I think similar principles apply to the Feds too.

[David Abramowitz]

U.S. Jobs Protection Act of 2003

Here, here. To add to your statement, I would reflect on what many economists consider to be a cause of depressions, including the great depression: That wealth (not income) discrepancies between classes grow to the point that the separation distinction is measured broadly rather than by grade. This starts to occur when more than 97% of all the wealth of a nation is held by only 2% of the population. This was the case in 1929. Dave P.S. - We are not too far away from these figures right now.

[dacust]

U.S. Jobs Protection Act of 2003

Chuck, interesting quote. If true, does this include the corporations? Probably so. If so, how do the individuals at the top compare? (Of course, if the corporations are paying that much, then why quibble about the individuals {but if it's not worth quibbling over, why do WE have to pay so much}). What I really wanted to say was what does this really mean? What's the 1%, the top 1% of the people? What if the top 1% of the earners make 70% of the income? I think the top earners pay closer than their fair share than most of the complainers think, but I would bet that the 50% by 1% and 80% by 5% probably doesn't really mean what it looks like. Sounds like somebody's propaganda to me. "There's lies, there's damn lies, and then there's statistics" - sombody famous, sorry I don't remember who... -dan

[Guest.Visitor]

U.S. Jobs Protection Act of 2003

Here's some info straight from the source: ">http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/index.html When comparing corporate taxes to individuals, remember that corporations pay individuals and other businesses, who in turn pay taxes. Also, corporate profits are already double-taxed when distributed as dividends. The corp pays tax on the income, and you, the dividend recipient, also pay tax on that money. It's my understanding that some countries don't tax corporate dividends, which increases their use and decreases the incentive to rely so heavily on the stock price. Maybe we could benefit from that, too. Brian

[Guest.Visitor]

U.S. Jobs Protection Act of 2003

It seems that market, democracy, moral issues (Christian based) all worked as long as the walls were up and the doors were controlled. There was one market, one democracy and one code. We are trying to blend something that we feel is better with things that we feel are inferior, what can we expect.

[David Abramowitz]

U.S. Jobs Protection Act of 2003

We are trying to blend something that we feel is better with things that we feel are inferior, what can we expect. I count four "we"s in the last statement. I, for one, never had the temerity to think that my thoughts on any given subject included the thoughts, or feelings of anyone else. This is why I preceed many of my statements with the IMO acronym. I do hope that my writing has an impact on the reader, but that is for the reader to decide. Since the term "we" was used in the second paragraph, I feel inclined to publicly disassociate myself from the sentiment expressed in the first. Dave

[Guest.Visitor]

U.S. Jobs Protection Act of 2003

Point taken, What I wrote, has my name on it. I was talking about me and my dog.

[Guest.Visitor]

U.S. Jobs Protection Act of 2003

Companies take call centers to prisons rather than overseas http://www.ajc.com/business/content/...isonlabor.html :-)

[Guest.Visitor]

U.S. Jobs Protection Act of 2003

Wow! 'I' sometimes think for 'me' it is better that 'I' stay in the dark. Have 'we' run out of rocks or picks?

[dacust]

U.S. Jobs Protection Act of 2003

ctibodoe: See, you were doing SO good. 'I', 'me', 'I', but then you go and throw that "we' in there. I got plenty of rocks, myself, thank you very much! -dan (Of course the 3 "you"'s in MY post pretty much means you can ignore ME completely.)

[Guest.Visitor]

U.S. Jobs Protection Act of 2003

'I' thought that most of 'us' were citizens and tax paying and prison owners and all that, like also owners of a few documents based on like it or not 'Christian' documents and ideas, and owners of a country that people from all over the globe, ie...globalization, are standing in line, jumping over fences, swimming rivers to get in, not the other way around, so maybe 'I' am the sole owner of all that. Thanks.

[dacust]

U.S. Jobs Protection Act of 2003

Maybe I didn't make it obvious that I was joking! I thought the earlier comments several days ago about your "we" stuff was WAY nitpicky. Now to seriously respond: I agree with you. Mostly. The article makes some good points. My position would be: If there was a job they could do in prison that would: 1. Not take away jobs from those of us "outside". 2. Teach something about responsibility and work ethics 3. Be training that could translate into a job once they got out then I could be behind it. However the program described only meets 2 out of 3: 1. This is accomplished because it only takes away jobs that would be offshored anayway (OK, a long debate could be launched over this, but I'll give it to them for now...). 2. It does sound like it'd teach them some good job skills. 3. However, if number 1. is correct, then it can't translate into a job when they get out. Overall, though, it sounds like it's probably more good than bad. We do far too much in today's prisons of making bad criminals worse. I think prisons are too soft and permissive in many ways, but on the other hand, they do almost nothing to help inmates find a way to not come back. -dan

[Guest.Visitor]

U.S. Jobs Protection Act of 2003

Hey Dan, I knew you were. And I am mostly in agreement with your 1,2,3. 'Slap' I almost said 'we' again. I think we should do things as a country that make sense to us, since we own the dang thing. I thought a forum had something to do with expressing differing ideas. In my idea of how things work, you are not automatically opt'ed in agreement with anyone if you don't specifically opt out. When I agree or disagree with someone I try to do it on the merit of what they are saying, and yes I am rough around the edges, especially around all you college dudes. So I may not pay attention to my pronouns as close as I should, but guess what, I don't care. (If I was getting paid to write this, then all pronouns would be handled a little more carefully) When I have an opinion I look for a forum and state it, the idea not the forum... sometimes I type faster than I think. I think I remember reading that non degree'd pronoun slingers make more money than degreed programmers, all other things the same. I resemble that. We try harder. Lighten up, not you Dan. Have some fun and let us learn from each other. We probably are not going to fix much of this mess. But, it won't stop me from trying.

[dacust]

U.S. Jobs Protection Act of 2003

Yep, often I think many people start nit-picking grammar and the like, when they can't come up with a valid response otherwise. (I don't remember who it was that originally responded to you, so this is definitely NOT a personal comment about them.) I try to listen and read between the lines to see what a person was TRYING to say, and if it doesn't quite make sense, then instead of pointing out their flaws, I ask for clarification. It's amazing how many times I've thought someone had said something dumb, but when I asked for clarification, I found I actually agreed with what they were trying to say. (P.S. I don't have a degree, either. But don't tell anybody else in here, OK? Because right now they all think I'm a genius, and I'd hate to disappoint them. -dan