Only The Rich Pay Taxes

[4moreyears]

There is new data for 2001. The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% fell to 33.89% from 37.42% in 2000. This is mainly because their income share (not just wages) fell from 20.81% to 17.53%. However, their average tax rate actually rose slightly from 27.45% to 27.50%.


*Data covers calendar year 2001, not fiscal year 2001 - and includes all income, not just wages, excluding Social Security





This proves that it was not the tax cut that caused revenues from the rich to fall, but the recession and the stock market crash. In other words, you live by the sword, you die by the sword. If you are going to benefit from the rich paying more taxes, due to progressivity, on the upside, you are going to lose more revenue from these people on the downside. This is a good argument for reducing progressivity.

Think of it this way: less than four dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999. (The top 1% earned $293,000-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives - and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:

Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%). The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%). The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 17.53 (2000: 20.81%) of all income. The top 5% earns 31.99 (2000: 35.30%). The top 10% earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%); the top 25% earns 65.23% (2000: 67.15%), and the top 50% earns 86.19% (2000: 87.01%) of all the income.
The Rich Earned Their Dough, They Didn't Inherit It (Except Ted Kennedy)

The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.



*Data covers calendar year 2001, not fiscal year 2001 - and includes all income, not just wages, excluding Social Security
This proves that it was not the tax cut that caused revenues from the rich to fall, but the recession and the stock market crash. In other words, you live by the sword, you die by the sword. If you are going to benefit from the rich paying more taxes, due to progressivity, on the upside, you are going to lose more revenue from these people on the downside. This is a good argument for reducing progressivity.

Think of it this way: less than four dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999. (The top 1% earned $293,000-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives - and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:

Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%). The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%). The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 17.53 (2000: 20.81%) of all income. The top 5% earns 31.99 (2000: 35.30%). The top 10% earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%); the top 25% earns 65.23% (2000: 67.15%), and the top 50% earns 86.19% (2000: 87.01%) of all the income.
The Rich Earned Their Dough, They Didn't Inherit It (Except Ted Kennedy)

The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.

I had a conversation with a woman who identified herself as Misty on Wednesday. She claimed to be an accountant, yet she seemed unaware of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which now ensures that everyone pays some taxes. AP reports that the AMT, "designed in 1969 to ensure 155 wealthy people paid some tax," will hit "about 2.6 million of us this year and 36 million by 2010." That's because the tax isn't indexed for inflation! If your salary today would've made you mega-rich in '69, that's how you're taxed.

Misty tried the old line that all wealth is inherited. Not true. John Weicher, as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank, wrote in his February 13, 1997 Washington Post Op-Ed, "Most of the rich have earned their wealth... Looking at the Fortune 400, quite a few even of the very richest people came from a standing start, while others inherited a small business and turned it into a giant corporation." What's happening here is not that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer." The numbers prove it.

I have made an executive decision as the owner and ultimate editor of this website that this table and these numbers stay on this website forever - or until next year's numbers come out. In order to get these facts, you have to see them each and every day. This story, along with a link to the IRS chart, will stay somewhere on the RushLimbaugh.com homepage so everyone can see and find these numbers at any time. It's crucial that people get this, so please, share it with a friend now!
Check Out the UPDATED IRS Table of Numbers from 2001...
(The IRS: Individual Income Tax Returns Each Tax Year 1986 - 2001)
{Requires EXCEL to View}
(Rush Limbaugh.com Non-EXCEL version of the 2000 IRS Data)
Read the Article...
(AP: Obscure minimum tax will affect 36 million by 2010)



I had a conversation with a woman who identified herself as Misty on Wednesday. She claimed to be an accountant, yet she seemed unaware of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which now ensures that everyone pays some taxes. AP reports that the AMT, "designed in 1969 to ensure 155 wealthy people paid some tax," will hit "about 2.6 million of us this year and 36 million by 2010." That's because the tax isn't indexed for inflation! If your salary today would've made you mega-rich in '69, that's how you're taxed.

Misty tried the old line that all wealth is inherited. Not true. John Weicher, as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank, wrote in his February 13, 1997 Washington Post Op-Ed, "Most of the rich have earned their wealth... Looking at the Fortune 400, quite a few even of the very richest people came from a standing start, while others inherited a small business and turned it into a giant corporation." What's happening here is not that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer." The numbers prove it.

[Dr. Love]

Damn lazy-ass poor people.

[FORD]

The fact is that if the rich actually PAID the taxes that they owe, it would probably cut the deficit in half.

We don't need a drastic overhaul of the tax code. We just need to eliminate all the existing loopholes and the rich can PAY their fair share.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by 4moreyears
There is new data for 2001. The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% fell to 33.89% from 37.42% in 2000. This is mainly because their income share (not just wages) fell from 20.81% to 17.53%. However, their average tax rate actually rose slightly from 27.45% to 27.50%.


*Data covers calendar year 2001, not fiscal year 2001 - and includes all income, not just wages, excluding Social Security





This proves that it was not the tax cut that caused revenues from the rich to fall, but the recession and the stock market crash. In other words, you live by the sword, you die by the sword. If you are going to benefit from the rich paying more taxes, due to progressivity, on the upside, you are going to lose more revenue from these people on the downside. This is a good argument for reducing progressivity.

Think of it this way: less than four dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999. (The top 1% earned $293,000-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives - and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:

Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%). The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%). The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 17.53 (2000: 20.81%) of all income. The top 5% earns 31.99 (2000: 35.30%). The top 10% earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%); the top 25% earns 65.23% (2000: 67.15%), and the top 50% earns 86.19% (2000: 87.01%) of all the income.
The Rich Earned Their Dough, They Didn't Inherit It (Except Ted Kennedy)

The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.



*Data covers calendar year 2001, not fiscal year 2001 - and includes all income, not just wages, excluding Social Security
This proves that it was not the tax cut that caused revenues from the rich to fall, but the recession and the stock market crash. In other words, you live by the sword, you die by the sword. If you are going to benefit from the rich paying more taxes, due to progressivity, on the upside, you are going to lose more revenue from these people on the downside. This is a good argument for reducing progressivity.

Think of it this way: less than four dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999. (The top 1% earned $293,000-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives - and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:

Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%). The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%). The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 17.53 (2000: 20.81%) of all income. The top 5% earns 31.99 (2000: 35.30%). The top 10% earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%); the top 25% earns 65.23% (2000: 67.15%), and the top 50% earns 86.19% (2000: 87.01%) of all the income.
The Rich Earned Their Dough, They Didn't Inherit It (Except Ted Kennedy)

The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.

I had a conversation with a woman who identified herself as Misty on Wednesday. She claimed to be an accountant, yet she seemed unaware of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which now ensures that everyone pays some taxes. AP reports that the AMT, "designed in 1969 to ensure 155 wealthy people paid some tax," will hit "about 2.6 million of us this year and 36 million by 2010." That's because the tax isn't indexed for inflation! If your salary today would've made you mega-rich in '69, that's how you're taxed.

Misty tried the old line that all wealth is inherited. Not true. John Weicher, as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank, wrote in his February 13, 1997 Washington Post Op-Ed, "Most of the rich have earned their wealth... Looking at the Fortune 400, quite a few even of the very richest people came from a standing start, while others inherited a small business and turned it into a giant corporation." What's happening here is not that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer." The numbers prove it.

I have made an executive decision as the owner and ultimate editor of this website that this table and these numbers stay on this website forever - or until next year's numbers come out. In order to get these facts, you have to see them each and every day. This story, along with a link to the IRS chart, will stay somewhere on the RushLimbaugh.com homepage so everyone can see and find these numbers at any time. It's crucial that people get this, so please, share it with a friend now!
Check Out the UPDATED IRS Table of Numbers from 2001...
(The IRS: Individual Income Tax Returns Each Tax Year 1986 - 2001)
{Requires EXCEL to View}
(Rush Limbaugh.com Non-EXCEL version of the 2000 IRS Data)
Read the Article...
(AP: Obscure minimum tax will affect 36 million by 2010)



I had a conversation with a woman who identified herself as Misty on Wednesday. She claimed to be an accountant, yet she seemed unaware of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which now ensures that everyone pays some taxes. AP reports that the AMT, "designed in 1969 to ensure 155 wealthy people paid some tax," will hit "about 2.6 million of us this year and 36 million by 2010." That's because the tax isn't indexed for inflation! If your salary today would've made you mega-rich in '69, that's how you're taxed.

Misty tried the old line that all wealth is inherited. Not true. John Weicher, as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank, wrote in his February 13, 1997 Washington Post Op-Ed, "Most of the rich have earned their wealth... Looking at the Fortune 400, quite a few even of the very richest people came from a standing start, while others inherited a small business and turned it into a giant corporation." What's happening here is not that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer." The numbers prove it.

Do you actually ever have a link for your chain e-mails?

[Warham]

You don't think the poor became poor because they paid too much in taxes, do ya?

[BigBadBrian]

Give those fuckers in the welfare line a broom or rake or something while they are standing there.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Give those fuckers in the welfare line a broom or rake or something while they are standing there.

Yeah! And those major corporations on welfare! Tell 'em to get their asses (HQ's) back here! Lazy cunts!

[Betty Bush III]

Originally posted by FORD
The fact is that if the rich actually PAID the taxes that they owe, it would probably cut the deficit in half.

We don't need a drastic overhaul of the tax code. We just need to eliminate all the existing loopholes and the rich can PAY their fair share.

Why should we punish the people who work and create jobs and wealth with an unfair tax code? The more money you make, the higher % the government takes. Please explain to me how that aspect doesn't need to be overhauled in a capitalist country.

People who don't work by choice should receive NOTHING from the taxpayers! If they turn to crimes then build bigger prisons.

[Betty Bush III]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Yeah! And those major corporations on welfare! Tell 'em to get their asses (HQ's) back here! Lazy cunts!

Oh those damn corporations!!! Those damn job creators !! Those damn wealth creators !!! To hell with the entire private sector !!!
You know the welfare culture is really carrying the load in this country. Standing in line all day, increasing our GDP by eating pallets of Cheetos and Coke. Soon we'll be a world power...

[steve]

How about everyone get guns, and no one pay taxes.
No roads.
No military.
No SS for your parents.

No corporations on welfare.
(no GM, no Chrysler, no United Airlines, no Boeing, no Defense contractors, no Haliburton)

No American agricultural system (they survive on govt. tariffs nowadays-otherwise, much of US agriculture would be undercut by South America & Asia).

Just us, our guns, and fighting our neighbor for that squirril.

Both Republican and Democratic philosophies have been (to greater or lesser extents) based on Rawlsian principles for the past 60 years-I say we've done fairly well by them.

Give yourself the ole' "Veil of ignorance" - then write the tax code.

[4moreyears]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Do you actually ever have a link for your chain e-mails?

Not a chain e-mail.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/men...xes.guest.html

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Betty Bush III
Oh those damn corporations!!! Those damn job creators !! Those damn wealth creators !!! To hell with the entire private sector !!!
You know the welfare culture is really carrying the load in this country. Standing in line all day, increasing our GDP by eating pallets of Cheetos and Coke. Soon we'll be a world power...

Actually the places we ship jobs offshore to soon will be world powers!

[4moreyears]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Actually the places we ship jobs offshore soon will be world powers!

So corporations should pay american workers (many who are in unions) 2 to 3 times the price for labor than most of the competition they face. With the economy being of a global scale If my company is competing with Samsung or Hyundai or another Asian company I want to be competitive so I can win the business. The American worker has priced himself out of the job market in some cases.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by 4moreyears
So corporations should pay american workers (many who are in unions) 2 to 3 times the price for labor than most of the competition they face. With the economy being of a global scale If my company is competing with Samsung or Hyundai or another Asian company I want to be competitive so I can win the business. The American worker has priced himself out of the job market in some cases.

And can no longer afford their products in some cases.

And why hasn't the vastly overpayed American CEO not priced himself out of a job when Europeon and Asian CEO's earn far less on average?

[steve]

If hipocracy were pate, this thread would be an Athur Anderson Christmas party.

First of all, those stats are WAY un true...there are many examples of why:

http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/20/news/buffett_tax/

Buffett slams dividend tax cut
One of world's richest calls plan 'voodoo economics,' says it puts burden on low-income families.

May 20, 2003: 10:41 AM EDT NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Renewing his criticism of the dividend tax cut laid out by the Senate last week, Berkshire Hathaway's Warren Buffett called the proposal "voodoo economics" that uses "Enron-style accounting."

The Senate's plan for dividends to be 50 percent tax free in 2003, 100 percent tax free in 2004 through 2006 and then face the full tax in 2007 would "further tilt the tax scales toward the rich," Buffett wrote in an opinion piece in the Washington Post.

Buffett posed a hypothetical situation in which Berkshire Hathaway, which does not currently pay a dividend, paid $1 billion in dividends next year.

Through his 31 percent ownership of the company, Buffett said he would receive an additional $310 million in income that would reduce his tax rate from about 30 percent to 3 percent, while his office secretary would still have a tax rate of about 30 percent.

"The 3 percent overall federal tax rate I would pay -- if a Berkshire dividend were to be tax free -- seems a bit light," Buffett wrote.

Instead of the Senate's tax cut plan, Buffett proposed that it provide tax reductions to those who need and will spend the money in the form of a Social Security tax "holiday" or a tax rebate to lower-income people.

"Putting $1,000 in the pockets of 310,000 families with urgent needs is going to provide far more stimulus to the economy than putting the same $310 million in my pockets," Buffett added.

He closed the piece by saying that the "government can't deliver a free lunch to the country as a whole. It can, however, determine who pays for lunch. And last week the Senate handed the bill to the wrong party."


4moreyears...
here is some reading for you:

http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-...conomics.shtml

Economics of Taxation
Introduction
Throughout history, every organized society had some form of government. In free societies, the goals of government have been to protect individual freedoms and to promote the well-being of society as a whole.

To meet their expenses, government need income, called "revenue," which it raises through taxes. In our country, governments levy several different types of taxes on individuals and businesses. The Federal Government relies mainly on income taxes for its revenue. State governments depend on both income and sales taxes. Most county and city governments use property taxes to raise their revenue.

[4moreyears]

Because the Board of Directors Who represent the share holders feel that that CEO is worth what they are paying him. This is a free enterprise system in this country, and it may not look fair. But it is. when the value of the stock drops the CEO gets fired. When the stock increaases in value he gets to keep his job and makes a ton of cash. If I can hire a CEO for an extra 500K per year and he/her will earn the shareholders an extra 20% on the stock price 500K is a drop in the bucket. The guy working on the line or sales guy in the field are not in a position to impact the company in the same way. As far as the Asian counter parts if they are providing the extra value for shareholders and is not getting the same level of compensation I think he stupid for not looking for his fair share.

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Betty Bush III
Why should we punish the people who work and create jobs and wealth with an unfair tax code? The more money you make, the higher % the government takes. Please explain to me how that aspect doesn't need to be overhauled in a capitalist country.

People who don't work by choice should receive NOTHING from the taxpayers! If they turn to crimes then build bigger prisons.

Good idea, asshole! And how do you propose PAYING for those prisons???

[4moreyears]

Originally posted by academic punk
Good idea, asshole! And how do you propose PAYING for those prisons???

With all the welfare dollars. that would more than pay for it.

[FORD]

Originally posted by 4moreyears
With all the welfare dollars. that would more than pay for it.

With all the money WASTED in Iraq, we could have more prisons than Starbucks by now.

But that's beside the point. There wouldn't be a need for prisons if drugs were legalized and addiction was treated as a medical problem, not a criminal one. And let's not forget the amount of tax revenue that could be made on legal pot alone. Or on legal cocaine to all those disgustingly overpayed CEO's.

[Warham]

Drugs legalized?

Netherlands, here we come!

[scorpioboy33]

God how ignorant, witless and stupid Americans can be.....do you know how many people are in prison now in the US 2.1 million. And you want more prisons....god you're an idiot

[scorpioboy33]

btw it has almost doubled since 1990...and 12% of black men in their 20's and 30's are incarcerated whereas it's only 1.6% for white dudes...what a racist facist society you all live in

[4moreyears]

Originally posted by scorpioboy33
btw it has almost doubled since 1990...and 12% of black men in their 20's and 30's are incarcerated whereas it's only 1.6% for white dudes...what a racist facist society you all live in

Race shold not matter. The laws are pretty clear. If you break them you go to jail.

[scorpioboy33]

you know were talking 2.1 million people for god sakes...and why do you think 12% of black men are in jail could it be racism??????
it's kinda like the 34,000 gun deaths in America ..way toping any other industrial country but you know the figures are ignored cause they make the US look so bad

if you have 2.1 million people jailed obviously something is wrong with your system

[Warham]

No, something is wrong with parenting.

I would wager the reason more blacks are in prison is because more blacks, I believe it's up to 80% now, are born and raised in single parent families, many of which don't provide a strong support system. It's the breakdown of the family, and it causes problems down the line, like prisons being full.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
Drugs legalized?

Netherlands, here we come!

It's the only common sense way to handle the problem. The only reason the BCE won't legalize drugs is because they make all the money from the illegal stuff.

[scorpioboy33]

btw in canada we have 32 000 people incar.
and there are 76000 in the UK...
great system you all have

[Warham]

I can't believe I'm hearing a Christian saying we should legalize cocaine.

Now I really think I've heard everything.

[4moreyears]

Originally posted by scorpioboy33
you know were talking 2.1 million people for god sakes...and why do you think 12% of black men are in jail could it be racism??????
it's kinda like the 34,000 gun deaths in America ..way toping any other industrial country but you know the figures are ignored cause they make the US look so bad

if you have 2.1 million people jailed obviously something is wrong with your system

I actually agree. People are not educated properly and prepred for soceity. Our educational system teaches out of date ideas and has you memorize facts that do not help people in real life. But they do not teach you how to balance a check book or file a tax return. I do not remember anything I learned about Pythagorean theorem. If the educational systm did not label students who are not geared to formal education stupid, it would be a step in the right direction.

[scorpioboy33]

cool 4 more that your thinking about solutions seriously more people need to do that

[4moreyears]

thanks scorp.


I am working on a project that hopefully will help me retire in 5 years. If I can do this I will dedicate myself to helping educate young people for the real world. Nothing against formal education, but it needs augmenting. YOu can tell by the people here who think the Gov't or a company owes them a living or the ability to support their family. If people were self sufficient and did not reley on anyone but themselves many of these problems would disappear. That all starts with a choice and taking responsibility. You can take responsibility or entitlement, but you can not take both.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
I can't believe I'm hearing a Christian saying we should legalize cocaine.

Now I really think I've heard everything.

Cocaine is a plant. God created it. It's not His fault or mine that people misuse it, or that the BCE makes billions from it.

What Would Jesus Do? He would treat addiction as a medical (and spiritual) problem, rather than putting addicts in prison.

[scorpioboy33]

Originally posted by 4moreyears
thanks scorp.


I am working on a project that hopefully will help me retire in 5 years.

right on GOOD FOR YOU!

[Three Lock Rock]

You tell 'em, 4moreyears. Im also tired of thinking I should be responsible for all the faggots and losers that don't want to work or be responsible. fuck 'em. let 'em starve if they want to be losers.

three lock rock (kickin ass even when im not talking sam)

[Warham]

Originally posted by FORD
Cocaine is a plant. God created it. It's not His fault or mine that people misuse it, or that the BCE makes billions from it.

What Would Jesus Do? He would treat addiction as a medical (and spiritual) problem, rather than putting addicts in prison.

Addicts need to be in prison, because they will do anything sometimes, including killing, to get their mits on more cocaine, etc.

If that's the case, FORD, let's call child molesters people with an addiction and spiritual problem, rather than putting them in prison.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by scorpioboy33
you know were talking 2.1 million people for god sakes...and why do you think 12% of black men are in jail could it be racism??????

No. Single parent families, drugs and gangs are the culprits.

[blueturk]

Originally posted by Warham
Addicts need to be in prison, because they will do anything sometimes, including killing, to get their mits on more cocaine, etc.

What about the guy who's in prison for selling a quarter pound of pot? I've never thought of killing anybody to get some fine KB. And when's the last time some skinny chick offered to suck your dick for a joint?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by 4moreyears
Because the Board of Directors Who represent the share holders feel that that CEO is worth what they are paying him. This is a free enterprise system in this country, and it may not look fair. But it is. when the value of the stock drops the CEO gets fired. When the stock increaases in value he gets to keep his job and makes a ton of cash. If I can hire a CEO for an extra 500K per year and he/her will earn the shareholders an extra 20% on the stock price 500K is a drop in the bucket. The guy working on the line or sales guy in the field are not in a position to impact the company in the same way. As far as the Asian counter parts if they are providing the extra value for shareholders and is not getting the same level of compensation I think he stupid for not looking for his fair share.

What a load of horseshit! Do you cut and paste any response that requires use of more than a quarter of your little brain? Pu-leeze what a joke your posts are! Did you plagerize in school too?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by 4moreyears
thanks scorp.


I am working on a project that hopefully will help me retire in 5 years. If I can do this I will dedicate myself to helping educate young people for the real world. Nothing against formal education, but it needs augmenting. YOu can tell by the people here who think the Gov't or a company owes them a living or the ability to support their family. If people were self sufficient and did not reley on anyone but themselves many of these problems would disappear. That all starts with a choice and taking responsibility. You can take responsibility or entitlement, but you can not take both.

Oh brother? Who's gonna' give YOU an education 'cut and paste!?' You're little more than a cliche' spouting troll who posts largely false information! And you take credit for other people's work! I find that very gauling, even if I hate the people you rip-off! I think you are little more than a troll. He/she:

1.) Posts stuff as if it is origionally written material, with no link or origional attribution, when it is infact a cunt and paste e-mail or web site article clearing house.

2.) Your writting style changes dramatically from one post to another. Some of your posts contain numerous and very basic spelling, capitalization, and punctuation errors. Everybody makes mistakes once in a while, but...Then suddenly, poof! A perfectly written article that is in a mucn different style of writing. Hmmmm....

3.) I have suspected 4moreyears is nothing but a troll posting largely bullshit he or she may not even really believe for a while now. Care to comment 4more?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by 4moreyears
I actually agree. People are not educated properly and prepred for soceity. Our educational system teaches out of date ideas and has you memorize facts that do not help people in real life. But they do not teach you how to balance a check book or file a tax return. I do not remember anything I learned about Pythagorean theorem. If the educational systm did not label students who are not geared to formal education stupid, it would be a step in the right direction.

Actually, the kids in the last school I worked at filed tax returns and had to balance a check book in math & business classes. Good luck at dedicating your life to educating "soceity." LOL