Percentage Myth

Published on August 26, 2004 By stevendedalus In Politics

Percentages can drive you crazy. The percentage of Saudis responsible for 9/11 would require carrying the decimal of zeros practically to infinity based on its 21 million population; yet that does not minimize the horrendous impact. That the US is divided down the middle at 45% for each candidate dramatized the tremendous impact that the 10% will have on the election. That Saddam’s tiny minority of henchmen controlling Iraq by no means lessened its world influence which unleashed panic in the US.

Although OPEC produces but 40% of the world’s oil supply, leaving the major production to other nations — the US, for instance, is still the second in production to the Saudis — the fact is that demand is so great that even the tiniest oil producing nation has an effect on supply. To question how in the world could Hitler’s minority party could have browbeat 50 million civilized Germans to engage in savagery is frightening. We think the same when it comes to small cults that are brainwashed by a single so-called charismatic leader — not to mention a minuscule minority spreading worldwide terrorism.

That the wealthiest 20% in the US whose share of taxes dropped from 64.4% in 2001 compared with 63.5% is hardly earthshaking. However when juxtaposed to the low to middle class tax jump from 35.5% to 36.6% it is indicative of the greater influence the money class has over policymakers. Granted if the affluent had unlimited influence the figures would be the converse since the rationale is that a small minority should not be expected to foot two thirds of the tax bill.

That said, the rationale does not take into account the disastrous effects on the economy if the lower classes were to take on two thirds of the tax sharing. Our economy is driven by consumption, which would decline dramatically and consequently drive down entrepreneurial incentives to create supply, ultimately leading to a third world economy.

In short, percentages are deceptive. It seems that only the few behind closed doors manipulate the world.

Comments

The Wardie

on Aug 30, 2004

This is an interesting post, I don't understand what your really saying though. Over the last 4 years the top wage earners got a the biggest tax cut, yet shoulder more of the tax burden then in anytime in history (which simply means everyone got thier taxes cut). Interestingly, the top 1 percent's share fell to 33.89 percent from 37.42 in 2000, even with the tax rate rising from 27.45 to 27.50. The reason is they made a lot less money then in year before. In 2001 though, we see a lot of interesting stats. The top 10 percent (not 20 percent) paid 64.89. Looking at the top 5 percent of wage earners, they pay 53.25 percent of all taxes in this country (half.)

The most interesting number to me is the that the top 50% of wage earners in this country (the group I fit in with mind you) pay 96.04 percent of all taxes. So, half this country pays more then 96 of every 100 dollars the government spends. It is true that the only group that pays more of the burden is the bottom 50 percent, but they don't even pay 4 percent now. But tax brakets don't explain it all, because I am guessing you are thinking that people earn near the same amount every year. The top 50 percent of wage earners made less in 2001 then 2000, and thus paid less to the government, thus, the bottom 50 percent of wage earners have to carry more of the tax burden, (again, were talking about less then 4 percent.)

So what does this tell us? Cutting taxes and making the rich richer, and making more people rich is a great way to reduce the burden on the bottom 50 percent. cutting taxes and allowing people to invest more into their future is a great way to do it (so far, it's working for me.) the bottom 50percent do almost nothing (3 percent and change is nothing.) It also tells us that the more to focas the tax burden on a select few, themore chance you have of having a major issue with taxes. If the top 1 percent loses a major amount of income (like 2001) then you have major changes in taxes collected.

stevendedalus

on Aug 30, 2004

When you include all taxes--payroll tax, state, local, sales--the middle class pays more by virtue of sheer numbers, and directly affects business production because the true tax burden on the average joe does indeed curtail consumption, or is reliant on more and more imported products to survive.

The Wardie

on Aug 30, 2004

ok, your going past the unfairness of fed goverenment, ok. you want to discuss sales tax, property tax etc. Those taxes are not changed by how much you make. Rich people pay the same amount of sales tax as poor. Sales tax is sales tax. Rich buy "more" good, so they tend to pay more tax. The rich have more property, so they pay more then poor, but it's a flat rate? Do you think there should be an adjusted sales and property tax? Are you for elimation of sales tax? Again, your model just shows you that the rich have less money then they did, and thus have less to tax or spend on things to get taxed.

Basiclly, I don't understand your post, your not stateing anything...Middle class people pay a lot of tax cuz there is a lot of them...ok, I am happy with that, lets cut taxes again!

stevendedalus

on Sep 12, 2004

The post was not just on taxes, but the deception of percentages. But since you want to make an argument about taxes, folks like yourself will never understand that it is based on surplus income [taxable income] and therefore financially equipped to pay substantially more, other- wise the middle class dwindles, which in turn causes the upper class to invest in foreign markets since business here declines.

oligarchy314

on Sep 12, 2004

If you want to talk about percentages, why do successful people pay 35% taxes while unsuccessful people (the poor) pay 0%? While were on the subject of percentages, lets not forget that only 0.0003% of the population has died in Iraq. (Texaswahine is gonna give me hell for bringing that up).

ShoZan

on Sep 12, 2004

To question how in the world could Hitler’s minority party could have browbeat 50 million civilized Germans to engage in savagery is frightening.

National Socialism, or just plain Socialism, where they said and did take care of all the German citizens, except the Jews and other outcasts which they used as a Scapegoat. Than reassured Germans that they were doing the right thing, assurance from a Authority Figure is key, and the rest who were not involved with any of the direct dealings the Nazis did, that since it didn't affect them, they did not care.

Sounds sort of like today, we have apathy widespread through the United States, were people just don't care. We have socialism as a viable government process (which the flipside to National Socialism is Community Socialism, i.e. Communism), the United States may have taken down Communism in Russia but the dieing Communist state infected us with Socialism. We have what people find as a bad economy and where we have lost so many jobs that they want the Government to take care of their every needs. We have people pushing a Universal Health Care System (which from my experience of dealing with the VA Hospital System, which is a Universal Health Care System for Veterans, would slow down in how soon you can get an appointment. I.E. That appointment you made today for next week, under a universal health care system, that appointment you make today will be two months or more from now.

Take a good hard look at both Major Party Candidates and what do you see, one pushing for the future of National Socialism, the other pushing for the future of Community Socialism, take your pick for your favorite flavor, but both are the wrong way for America.

I think I read it in a history book that only 10% of Germans were actually Nazis, and if you look in Russia it was probably the same with Stalin and the Communists. So with either party America stands to lose more ground to the Socialist Threat, until we root out the problem America can suffer a future of Socialism, which some people think is a 'Good Thing'. I think you can watch that 'Good Thing' become a 'Bad Thing' because American Politics always has a problem of pulling out the extremes in people. I know the common rebuttal will be the American People will never let that happen, but look at your fellow americans and see how apathetic they have become, and than try to answer the question.

If you tell the American Public that an Pen is a Pencil for so long they grow to accept it, because ultimately it doesn't affect them so why should they care, and that's how it starts, until they are so deep down into it, that they suddenly realize they no longer have any control over their lives, and just give into defeat.

Animal Farm and 1984, were stressing the dangers of Socialism and yet few have actually listened, most just take it as against Communism and against Big Brother Spying on You, and miss the whole point of both stories that Socialism is wrong and should not be accepted no matter how appealing it is, because in reality it is not.

That's it for me -END

FEUER FREI!

Don Bemont

on Sep 12, 2004

In short, percentages are deceptive. It seems that only the few behind closed doors manipulate the world.

An excellent point. We live in an era when increasing numbers of people seek quick numbers to provide them with the information they will then believe whole heartedly. And those that pick and choose the numbers to provide have taken on enormous power.

Another little example of the public getting the government they deserve.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!