<h3>Late apology from host for posting the following cj2112 quote and directing my questions to him....</h3>....the data in the post is still, IMO, worth displaying....and the question....if we don't restore the previous level of taxes on folks in the described income levels, and above....where will the revenue come from to battle the nearly $600 billion average new annual federal debt accumulation?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cj2112
I wouldn't say the Dems desire to raise taxes on the rich paranoid, and calling anybody that makes 80k or a couple that makes 150k/yr rich is simply delusional.
|
alrighty....who is "rich", then ???
2005 US Census data, based on <b>income survey of 114,384</b> households.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/incomestats.html
TYPE OF HOUSEHOLD
Family households.............. 77,402
Male householder.............. 16,753
Living alone................ 13,061
Female householder........... 20,230
Living alone................ 17,392
SIZE OF HOUSEHOLD
One person................................1,361 = over $100,000 (of 30,453)
$80000 to 82499.............................189
$82500 to 84999..............................98
$85000 to 87499.............................118
$87500 to 89999..............................76
$90000 to 92499.............................153
$92500 to 94999..............................44
$95000 to 97499..............................80
$97500 to 99999..............................50
<b>2169 of 30,453 of surveyed osingle individual households had income of $80,000 or more in 2005.....</b>
...............................income of $100,000 and over:
Two people................................6,589 (of 37,775)
Three people..............................4,230 (of 18,924)
Four people...............................4,641 (of 15,998)
Five people...............................1,956 (of 7,306 )
Six people................................ 645 (of 2,562 )
Seven people or more...................293 (of 1,366)
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/03200.../new01_001.htm
<b>18354 of 83931 of surveyed multi-persons households had income of $100,000 or more in 2005.....</b>
I suspect that <b>the number of households with income of $150,000 or more</b>, is signifigantly less than 18354 households
....so now that the results of a 2005 US Census survey of income of 114,384 households supports that $80000 annual income for a single person, and $150,000 income for a multi-person household is "top tier", if you refuse to endorse tax increases for these high earners (compared to the incomes of the rest of us), and knowing that debt of the US treasury has increased by 3,000 billion in just five years, after a year with a small US treasury surplus, as recently as in 2001, <b>would you advocate for elimination of federal inheritance taxes of the estates over $2 million.....and....who would you designate for tax increases. </b> Consider that, for 25 years after WWII, the top marginal income tax rate was 90 percent, and now it is 30, and the top tax on capital gains has been reduced to just 15 percent....yet you seem to see no basis for rolling back recent tax increases?