Political Contributions in Chicago

I won’t elaborate about Wal-Mart’s recent success in the Windy City.  That speaks for itself.

As for the money thing, the only fundamental differnce being:

Wal-Mart made a $100K donation, and something happened that ultimately benefitted WM.

The usual high-profile anti-WM groups collected a lot more money from donors and sent it forward to politicial candidates hoping of keeping WM out of town and nothing happened!

Sounds like envy, to me!

JB

$100K?  Small potatos!

Wal-Mart spent more than $1 million on a PR campaign backing a voter referendum to build a Supercenter in Inglewood, CA ...which failed.

Ken

What is your opinion on organized labor donating millions to Congressional Democrats, who then push legislation written by and for organized labor? Is that a bribe? A quid pro quo?

I want to hear your spin on this.

Also, please comment on Social Democrat efforts to destroy Wal-Mart because organized labor hates Wal-Mart.

I’m waiting.

Also, please comment on Social Democrat efforts to destroy Wal-Mart because organized labor hates Wal-Mart.

You’re asking me to comment on your delusions?

I’m waiting.

I wouldn’t hold my breath.

“Wal-Mart has no constituency in Chicago.  They have no members.  There is no one they can claim to speak for, but they airdrop money from Bentonville anyway.”

WalMart- The Al Capone of retail.

Nick,

How do you feel about the millionaires who contributed over $1 million each to Bush in 2000 and got back more than double that with Bush’s tax cuts for the rich?

Wal-Mart has no constituency in Chicago.  They have no members.  There is no one they can claim to speak for, but they airdrop money from Bentonville anyway.

They speak for the 25,000 people who applied for 325 positions when they opened a store in Evergreen Park.

They speak for the millions of low income families in Chicago who very much could use the low prices on every day goods they need.

It is pretty rich of Labor Unions and their backers, who bank roll the campaigns of of all of those who oppose Wal-Mart, to criticize Wal-Mart for supporting those who oppose the unions.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

...who bank roll the campaigns of of all of those who oppose Wal-Mart,...

I oppose Wal-Mart. Where do I sign up for all this union bank rollin’?

Ken V...YOU are the one that is delusion, no wait, you probably work for the union, so that is understandable.

Don’t forget that unions are businesses too and they are in the market to make money on false promises to the working class.  They cannot garuntee jobs or wages, but they can garuntee a higher cost passed on to the consumer.

Let’s think for a second...U.S. cars are made by the union workers and we all know the quality of those cars and their reputation.  Toyota, making cars in the same country but without unions, much better quality. 

I know what groceries cost in Texas and I know what they cost in Chicago at Dominics and Jewel (which is under the same comany parent Albertson’s).  The price differences are staggering.

Moon

I really hate to engage in name calling but if I don’t vent, I’ll have a stroke. I can’t believe the stupid comments posted by people like yourself. You are stupid, idiotic, moronic and dumb. You repeat the same tired lines and it confirms my belief that the majority of the American people are too lazy and too stupid to think for themselves. In fact, I would venture to say that you and your kind would happily live in slavery if it meant you could continue to live your own little miserable existence.

Let me repeat this, for the idiot majority among us. Your money does NOT belong to the government. If you can’t start from this premise, you will never understand the fiscal and economic reality of tax policy. Government taking less of your money at gunpoint isn’t “giving” you anything. If government allows you to buy 2 cases of beer instead of your usual 1 per day, is government GIVING you anything? Is it GIVING you something to let you keep more of what is already yours?

The “rich” didn’t get anything that didn’t already belong to them. And the “rich” pay much more in taxes, in dollars and as a percentage of the overall tax, than the middle class. The top 5% of taxpayers pay over 56% of taxes. The bottom 50% pay less than 1%. Go and read an economics book and try and make an effort to understand reality before you post here, you stupid hippy.

Brian K,

Good call on the Jewel/Albertsons relationship (though seeing that they nearly went bust, what is left of the Texas Alberstons stores are now owned by a private equity firm—Jewel, and everything-else that was once good about Albertson’s are now part of Supervalu).

You also mentioned Dominick’s, which is (still) owned by Safeway, who also happens to own Randall’s and Tom Thumb in parts of Texas.

Grocery store ownership is like “American” cars—you really don’t know the realtionships until you take a look under the hood (so to speak).

As for Ken, he has stated a few times that he is not affiliated with the union, and I believe him—I think he just has other issues with Wal-Mart (like that time when he got lost in the store back when he was 5).

JB

“Let’s think for a second...U.S. cars are made by the union workers and we all know the quality of those cars and their reputation.  Toyota, making cars in the same country but without unions, much better quality.” [Brian K in Texas formarly of Chicago]

What are the contributing factors that make the quality of a non-union made car better than a union made car Brian?

R E M E M B E R
J O N Q U I E R E
Q U E B E C
Home of Walmart Worker Abuse
We will never forget what you did Walmart.

Alex

The contributing factors that make a difference in quality in a union made car vs. a non-union car are as follows.

PRIDE. Pride in quality & reputation.
SIX SIGMA. Statistical measurement of quality, seen as the gold standard in manufacturing and services quality control.
HISTORY. Corporate history. History of quality control and a reputation for quality.
LEAN MANUFACTURING. Just in time inventory, efficient use of modern production techniques, continued improvement of manufacturing processes.
COST CONTROL. Low cost, efficient management and financial controls.
LABOR. Cooperation of management and labor. An enlightened relationship whereby management helps workers be successful, in the realization that workers are intelligent if permitted to function as such. Workers work in work groups, with each group responsible for production, quality and cost goals and incentive pay based on the efficiency of the group and the plant. Management is not chained to union work rules and can assign work as needed.
LEGACY COSTS. The Big Three, in order to maintain their monopoly in the 1950’s, traded away cost efficiencies for labor peace. The United Auto Workers, under the militant Walter Reuther, demanded a share of the company’s profits, though they did not own stock. The Big Three agreed to high wages, expensive benefits and gold plated retiree health & pension benefits. The unions did nothing to guarantee the future profitability of the Big Three. Today, outside of GM’s Pension fund, the Big Three face tens of billions in retiree liabilities, liabilities that add to the cost of cars and liabilities that Toyota, Honda & Hyundai do not have.

There you have it, Alex.

Toyota does make better cars. Toyota pays the same in Canada as Ford, GM and Chrysler.  I will find out what the benefits package is at Toyota next time I see one of them.
Other than the heavy debt of the big 3, I would suggest that it is the companys (business leaders) that screwed their own market by making cars and trucks that only lasted a few years.  People in snow belt areas remember the “Another Rusty Ford” bumper sticker campain during the 70’s.
Blame your North American management and their arrogant attitude toward the consumer. They lost the market.

ANOTHER WALMART PROPAGANDA/FINANCE FRAUD DECEPTION

A review of Edelman/Bunch fake blogger efforts-

“I won’t elaborate about Wal-Mart’s recent success in the Windy City.  That speaks for itself.”

“As for the money thing, the only fundamental differnce being:

Wal-Mart made a $100K donation, and something happened that ultimately benefitted WM.”

Something like this in the rest of Illinois-

Good Jobs First thinks that the state and Illinois local governments should look carefully before they use or allow the use of tax increment financing and other anti-blight, anti-poverty economic development measures in projects that don’t benefit disadvantaged citizens, either because the jobs created don’t pay a living wage or are not accessible to these citizens.

We also think the state should look hard at providing state and local financial aid to big box companies like Wal-Mart, now the world’s largest company. In 1996 Wal-Mart received over $2 million in Illinois state and local assistance for a distribution site in Olney. There was apparently no consideration of the impact of on existing Illinois businesses and jobs on this public contribution to the competitive infrastructure of a retailing giant.

We applaud the efforts of citizens in Plainfield, Galena and Antioch to oppose, even when unsuccessful, big box construction, and Senator Ronen’s legislation earlier this year to block further big box/superstore development. We think Mayor Daley was right last year to laugh, as the Tribune reported, when Wal-Mart demanded an $18 million subsidy.

http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/illinois/walmart_testimony.cfm

· Illinois cities and state government provided Wal-Mart $115.6 million in subsidies for 15 projects. As of October 2004, Illinois had 153 Wal-Mart facilities throughout the state. Illinois ranks fourth in the nation in the number of Wal-Marts. Overall, there are 78 Wal-Marts, 44 Supercenters, 28 Sam’s Clubs and three distribution centers.
http://www.workertimes.com/ltribune/walmart6.html

Wal-Mart has won big in Illinois
By Steven R. Strahler
May 24, 2004

As the Chicago City Council prepares to vote Wednesday on whether to allow Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to open locations in the city, a study released Monday says that Illinois tops all states in subsidizing the No. 1 retailer’s expansion.

Illinois contributed a whopping $145.7 million in tax breaks, free or subsidized land and other handouts to 29 Wal-Mart deals since the early 1980s, according to Good Jobs First, a Washington, D.C.-based research and advocacy group.

http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=12600

WalMart- Our blogger frauds will now tell you that WalMart never receives subsidies. Never dumps their ‘associates’ onto the states for health care, food stamps, section 8 housing for the taxpayers to additionally subsidize WalMart.
When we don’t pay a ‘living wage’ you the American taxpayers/suckers get to subsidize our labor costs here at WalMart. Just part of our Working Families for WalMart business philosophy.

WalMart- If only we could open Advanced PayDay Loan centers in our stores then we could screw our impoverished ‘associates’ at a 35% loan rate.

SDV,

“Illinois cities and state government provided Wal-Mart $115.6 million in subsidies for 15 projects.”

The dictionary defines “Subsidy” as: Financial aid directly granted by government to a person or commercial enterprise whose work is DEEMED BENEFICIAL TO THE PUBLIC!!!

DEEMED BENEFICIAL TO THE PUBLIC!!!

Elected officials in Cathedral City, Calif., gave Wal-Mart $1.8 million in tax rebates 10 years ago. Last year, when the city finally began getting its full $800,000 in annual sales taxes from the two stores, Wal-Mart decided to close them in 2005 and build a new supercenter in nearby Palm Desert. Cathedral City officials learned Wal-Mart was moving out after reading about it in the newspaper—at a time when the city already had a $3 million deficit.

Beneficial like that, Bob?

Ken V,

“Elected officials in Cathedral City, Calif., gave Wal-Mart $1.8 million in tax rebates 10 years ago. Last year, when the city finally began getting its full $800,000 in annual sales taxes from the two stores, Wal-Mart decided to close them in 2005”

First, did Cathedral City, collect any sales taxes, during those 10 years?  Did they get any benefit from the income taxes the employees paid?  Did they recieve any property taxes from Wal-Mart during those 10 years?  After all, a ‘tax rebate’, doesn’t mean Wal-Mart paid NO taxes, just less taxes than normal, right?  Besides, if sales are decreasing, as you say, how could they be producing $800,000.00 in sales taxes yearly, from 2 stores, even if the sales tax was 10%, that would mean the stores were generating $8 million in sales yearly, or almost $154,000.00 a week, not bad for 2 stores in a town of that size!!!  Sounds like they got much more than the $1.8 million ‘investment’ in return, even though the stores did close in the end!!

So, Nick,

You can dish out the crap, but you can’t take it. Pretty much the typical right wing asshole.

In case you haven’t figured it out, we live in a SOCIETY. The rich get a lot more benefits from living in America than the poor, no matter how much taxes they pay.

That’s why you live here. You can always move to some other country where you don’t have to pay taxes, if you can find one. So stop being a dick.

So stop being a dick.

You ask the impossible, Moon. ^5!

Moon,

“The rich get a lot more benefits from living in America than the poor, no matter how much taxes they pay.”

I guess, to a ‘poor’ person that may seem to be the case, but a study was recently published, that said that the ‘poor’ get about $3+ in benefits for every $1 they pay in taxes and the ‘rich’ get about 50+ cents in benefits for every $1 they pay in taxes!!!  If you don’t believe this, please tell us, what benefits a ‘rich’ person gets, that a ‘poor’ person doesn’t!!!  The fact is, that the ‘poor’ recieve much more benefits from society, than ‘rich’ people do!!!

Bob

Actually, the government released these numbers recently. I believe that the average “rich” person gets back about 40 cents in government services for every $1.00 paid in taxes. The average “poor” person gets more than $8.00 for every $1.00 paid in taxes.

As for equal benefits-is Moon referring to the $80 billion in mortgage interest deductions taken in 2005, primarily by the middle class? How about the $70 + billion Earned Income Credit, whereby taxpayers without children pay other taxpayers for having children? Primarily a lower middle class and poor class benefit. Letting people keep more of their own money is not “giving” them anything. Paying people to buy homes and make babies IS giving them something.

Moon obviously has no understanding of economics or tax policy. I would suggest she start with the Heritage Foundation website.

Letting people keep more of their own money...

That’s the fly in Nick’s ointment.  Listen up, Nick. It’s not their “own” money until they pay their taxes, etc.

If you don’t want to pay taxes, Nick, don’t make money.

Ken

If you truly believe that your money is not yours until the government gets theirs, you are truly beyond redemption.

To make a last ditch effort to save yourself, I suggest reading the US Constitution front to back, the Declaration of Independence and The Federalist Papers. Your money and your wealth do not belong to the government.

Every dollar the government takes from me to pay for education, foreign aid, welfare, pork and other stupid projects is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I should be permitted to withhold that portion of my taxes that goes to fund items not permitted by our Constitution.

Please read the above items and post afterwards.

Your rights do not come from the government nor do they come from a document. They are assumed to be divine, inalienable rights that are naturally yours and cannot be voted, traded or given away. Any power the government has is LIMITED by the Constitution.

The ignorance in this country disgusts me.

“It’s not their “own” money until they pay their taxes, etc.”

There you have it folks, the money belongs to the government and they let you have what’s left over after they take out what they want!!!  And, stupid me, I actually thought it was ‘our’ money and we paid the government, to run our country!!!

Gee, and I always thought the Constitution said, “Of the PEOPLE, By the PEOPLE and For the PEOPLE”, but, I guess I read it wrong, according to people like Ken, it says, Of the GOVERNMENT, By the GOVERNMENT and For the GOVERNMENT”, is this what we have come to, the government telling the citizens what is theirs and what is not?  No wonder people and corporations are moving out of country and offshore!!!

I don’t want any of you theorists keeping my books, thank you very much.

Let me ‘splain how things work in the real world.

Wal-Mart brought in nearly $350 billion last year.  Is that “their own money”? No, it’s not. First they have to pay all the costs of doing business.  And taxes are part of the cost of doing business.

Actually $11.28 billion is “their own money”, right, Nick?

Nick, first off, I worked for the IRS and in tax consulting in the public sector, so I do have SOME experience. What’s YOUR experience, other than listening to Rush Limbaugh? (He lies, you know)

Link to these “studies” rather than just spewing numbers, please.

I am with you on the government spending stupidly, though. Let’s end the war in Iraq, let’s make Halliburton pay back all the money they wasted, let’s stop the subsidies to big business.

But, let’s bring back the taxes on dividend, capital gains and estates. Hey, everybody is supposed to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, right? That’s a right-wing mantra!* So why are we giving Paris Hilton-types tax breaks? They never worked a day in their lives, they only have money because of Daddy.

*Like most right-wing mantras, it only applies to OTHER people.

Nick,

Actually, the government released these numbers recently. I believe that the average “rich” person gets back about 40 cents in government services for every $1.00 paid in taxes. The average “poor” person gets more than $8.00 for every $1.00 paid in taxes.

Let me get this straight. The poor who pay almost NO taxes are getting $8 for their $1 in tax. I’ll bet that adds up to a couple of million dollars a year.

On the other hand, the Bill Gates/Warren Buffett types who are paying $100 million a year in taxes or more are getting $40 million in benefits. Why do those types need all those benefits? Don’t they have enough money on their own?

/See how you can manipulate numbers? You have to stop listening to Rush - he lies.

Moon,

“I’ll bet that adds up to a couple of million dollars a year.”

And, you said that, “first off, I worked for the IRS”, no wonder you see it that way!!  In order for them to recieve a million of dollars of benefits, they would have had to PAY IN $125,000.00 in taxes, therefore, I don’t think they would be considered ‘Poor’!!!

“On the other hand, the Bill Gates/Warren Buffett types who are paying $100 million a year in taxes or more are getting $40 million in benefits. Why do those types need all those benefits? Don’t they have enough money on their own?”

Because the government has chosen to socialize things, that’s why!!!  Benefits include things like road use, court houses, municipal buildings, etc., things they are forced to use and paid for by taxes!!!  But, they don’t use things like welfare, food stamps, low income housing, fuel assistance, health care assistance, etc., which are used by the ‘poor’!!!

When I said “that adds up to couple of million dollars a year”, I meant TOTAL, not individually.

Singles who earn under $7,300 and couples who earn under $14,600 don’t pay ANY income taxes, and that’s who is considered poor, so if they are getting $8 for every dollar in taxes, they are getting 8 times ZERO, which is ZERO.

That’s how you fudge around with numbers and Rush Limbaugh, et al, are really good at it, and the “dittoheads” (I wonder why they call them that? Could it be they don’t think, they just repeat what he says) believe him.

Moon

Here are some links for you to copy into your address bar. Come back when you understand the data. Thanks.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/22295.html

http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/22313.html

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=7731&sequence=0

More to follow.

From the NY Times:

By EDMUND L. ANDREWS

Jan. 7 Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.

The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline.

Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners.

Though tax cuts for the rich were bigger than those for other groups, the wealthiest families paid a bigger share of total taxes. That is because their incomes have climbed far more rapidly, and the gap between rich and poor has widened in the last several years.

The study offers ammunition to supporters and opponents of Mr. Bush’s tax cuts, which are all but certain to touch off a battle between the president and the Democrats who just took control of Congress.

Democratic leaders have taken pains to avoid an immediate fight over the tax cuts, most of which are scheduled to expire at the end of 2010. But Democrats are looking for ways to increase revenue well before then, in part because they want to spend more on education and energy without increasing the deficit.

Economists and tax analysts have long known that the biggest dollar value of Mr. Bush’s tax cuts goes to people at the very top income levels. One reason is that two of his signature measures, tax cuts on investment income and a steady reduction of estate taxes, overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest households.

But the Congressional study offers additional insight because it incorporates information about what people paid in 2004, the first year in which taxpayers could take full advantage of the cuts on stock dividends and capital gains.

The study estimates that the effective federal income tax rate, which excludes payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, declined modestly for people in the middle- and lower-income categories.

Families in the middle fifth of annual earnings, who had average incomes of $56,200 in 2004, saw their average effective tax rate edge down to 2.9 percent in 2004 from 5 percent in 2000. That translated to an average tax cut of $1,180 per household, but the tax rate actually increased slightly from 2003.

Tax cuts were much deeper, and affected far more money, for families in the highest income categories. Households in the top 1 percent of earnings, which had an average income of $1.25 million, saw their effective individual tax rates drop to 19.6 percent in 2004 from 24.2 percent in 2000. The rate cut was twice as deep as for middle-income families, and it translated to an average tax cut of almost $58,000.

In its report, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the overall effective federal tax rate edged up to 20 percent in 2004, from 19.8 percent the year before.

But even with that increase, Americans faced lower tax rates than any time since 1979. If President Bush has his way, those rates could decline even more as the estate tax on inherited wealth is gradually phased out by the start of 2010.

Mr. Bush and his Republican allies in Congress want to permanently extend that tax cut and almost all of the others that Congress passed in his first term. The cost of doing that would be more than $1 trillion over the next decade, a cost that would hit the Treasury at the same time that the spending on old-age benefits for retiring baby boomers begins to soar.

The budget office offered little commentary on its new estimates, but many of its numbers spoke for themselves.

The report shows that a comparatively small number of very wealthy households account for a very big share of total tax payments, and their share increased in the first four years after Mr. Bush’s tax cuts.

The top 1 percent of income earners paid about 36.7 percent of federal income taxes and 25.3 percent of all federal taxes in 2004. The top 20 percent of income earners paid 67.1 percent of all federal taxes, up from 66.1 percent in 2000, according to the budget office.

By contrast, families in the bottom 40 percent of income earners, those with incomes below $36,300, typically paid no federal income tax and received money back from the government. That so-called negative income tax stemmed mainly from the earned-income tax credit, a program that benefits low-income parents who are employed.

Put another way: rich families were the undisputed winners from President Bush’s tax cuts, but people in the bottom half of the earnings scale were not paying much in taxes anyway.

Hey, Nick…

Nice try. The Tax Foundation.. that’s the best you can do? Why don’t you just link directly to the RNC. Geez. Fair and Balanced means support the far right wing to all you wingnuts, doesn’t it?

Here’s a hint: Scott A. Hodge is President of the Tax Foundation.

Prior to this, he was director of tax and budget policy at Citizens for a Sound Economy, and a research analyst for the Heritage Foundation. Hodge helped found the Heartland Institute in 1984 and was one of its first employees.

Citizens for a Sound Economy? CSE is often described as a “consumer group,” but according to internal documents leaked to the Washington Post, 85 percent of its 1998 funding came from major corporations. “The ‘citizens’ in question [are] companies like Amoco, Bell Atlantic, Citibank, General Electric and General Motors”, Washington Babylon explains (p. 15). “During recent years, the CSE, headed by C. Boyden Gray, who acted as counsel to the president under George Bush, has opposed health care reform and a rise in the minimum wage, while championing corporate tax cuts, deregulation and a balanced budget.

Hmmmm....

The Heritage Foundation??? Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a New Right think tank. Its stated mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of “free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

The Tax Foundation itself? The Tax Foundation is funded partially by private donations from members, but is primarily funded by corporate donations, with limited foundation funding from the Koch Foundation, Earhart Foundation, etc.

The Koch Foundation? OMG! Koch Industries is the second largest privately-held company in the United States (behind Cargill), with annual sales of more than $40 billion. Its owners, brothers Charles and David H. Koch, are leading contributors to the Koch Family Foundations, which supports a network of conservative organizations and think tanks, including Citizens for a Sound Economy, the libertarian Cato Institute, Reason Magazine, the Manhattan Institute, the Heartland Institute, and the Democratic Leadership Council.

Koch was started in 1927 by Fred Koch, a charter member of the John Birch Society, with an oil delivery business in Texas. It quickly diversified into a number of other areas, but it amassed most of its fortune in the oil trading and refining.

I think you know what the John Birch Society is. You are probably a member.

I don’t understand your CBO link, though? What are you saying? You want to eliminate Medicare?? Social Security?

Stop being a dick.

What are you saying with that second post? People with no money aren’t paying a lot of taxes? OK, we all agree with that. The poor can’t pay a lot in taxes.

But, of course, they still have to pay all the fees, like sales tax, tax on gasoline, all the government fees, etc. Social Security, etc.

But hey, let’s have a tag day for the rich. People making over $300,000 a year are suffering from their high taxes. Maybe we could have a benefit dinner for them. I know, a Bingo Night!

Stop being a dick.

How much did the top 1% of income earners earn? 40% of all income?

But, hey, if you can figure out a way to squeeze more money out the poor, go ahead. We already know you are dick. You might as well go for the whole Scrooge Dick thing.

Just to be clear, here’s another analysis, using some information from those right wing groups you mentioned and from the Treasury Dept:

The Treasury Department uses a computer model to examine the effects of tax cuts on various income groups but does not look in detail fine enough to differentiate among those within the top 1 percent. To determine those differences, The Times relied on a computer model based on the Treasury’s. Experts at organizations representing a range of views, including the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and Citizens for Tax Justice, reviewed the projections and said they were reasonable, and the Treasury Department said through a spokesman that the model was reliable.

The analysis also found the following:

* Under the Bush tax cuts, the 400 taxpayers with the highest incomes - a minimum of $87 million in 2000, the last year for which the government will release such data - now pay income, Medicare and Social Security taxes amounting to virtually the same percentage of their incomes as people making $50,000 to $75,000.

* Those earning more than $10 million a year now pay a lesser share of their income in these taxes than those making $100,000 to $200,000.

* The alternative minimum tax, created 36 years ago to make sure the very richest paid taxes, takes back a growing share of the tax cuts over time from the majority of families earning $75,000 to $1 million - thousands and even tens of thousands of dollars annually. Far fewer of the very wealthiest will be affected by this tax.

The analysis examined only income reported on tax returns. The Treasury Department says that the very wealthiest find ways, legal and illegal, to shelter a lot of income from taxes. So the gap between the very richest and everyone else is almost certainly much larger.

Whoa! That’s a little different from YOUR right wing links, isn’t it?

Moon

Now that you’ve spun off into orbit, please address my facts. You did the usual liberal trick. When I posted factual information that can be verified (including IRS data), you rambled on about unrelated items, attacked my data sources and, just to prove your IQ level, called me a “dick”.

The IRS has shown that the rich now bear a much percentage of the overall tax burden while the poor bear a smaller percentage of the tax burden.

Why can’t you respond like an adult? The name calling is just childish and embarrassing and it says “I have no point and I know that the facts don’t support my crazy theories so I’ll call him a name!” You have apparently been reading the liberal instruction book. You know, when confronted with FACTS, LOGIC, TRUTH or REALITY, deny, attack the source, change the subject and, when all else fails, name call.

I doubt I’ll bump into you at the next Mensa Chapter meeting.

Mensa member, huh, Nick?

I’ll show you my membership card if you’ll show me yours.

:o)

Do you even know what Mensa is?

You mean SPIN, BULLSHIT and MORE RIGHT WING NOISE?

If you don’t like being called names, maybe you shouldn’t start it. Quote: “You are stupid, idiotic, moronic and dumb.”

Typical right wing ass. Dishes it out, but then cries when somebody comes back with the same. Go home to your mommy. Maybe she’ll listen to you.

And yeah, I’ll meet anywhere and show you MY Mensa card.

Oh, and the only reason the rich are paying a larger amount of the taxes (and I’m not conceding that - you haven’t shown any evidence except a right wing think tank) is that they are making more and more of the money. Show me a study that includes the dividend tax cut, the capital gains tax cut and the inheritance tax cut, as well as the lowering of the highest tax rate. Boo hoo to the rich, you Scrooge dick.