I incorrectly thought that was the rule across the board.
Apparently, it's not, but it should be.
Let the record clearly show, I am man enough to admit when I am wrong on something.
That said, unemployment doesn't come out of the public dole like welfare.
Employers pay into the insurance fund based on how many employees they have.
So it's the employee's right to claim.
Fact Finder wrote:The_Noble_Cause wrote:Why not?
For the past eight years, the Bush tax cuts redistributed the wealth upwards.
Did The Bush Tax Cuts Favor The Wealthy
January 21, 2008
As Congress debates whether to renew tax cuts enacted early in the George W. Bush presidency, as well as various economic stimulus plans, critics often label the measures as "tax cuts for the rich." Yet a new report from the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) says the Bush tax cuts made the tax code more progressive, no matter how progressivity is measured. In fact, the report concludes that every major tax change (Republican or Democrat) over the past two decades has increased the share of taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans.
"It is politically popular to say that tax cuts benefit the wealthy," said Michael D. Stroup, a Stephen F. Austin University economist who authored the NCPA report. "The accusation does not match the reality."
The progressivity of the tax system can be measured in four ways: (1) the share of taxes paid by different income groups, (2) the share of income paid in taxes, (3) the change in taxes relative to the change in income over time, and (4) a comparison of inequality of income to the inequality of taxes over time.
Looking at the first three measures, the report found that:
The top 1 percent of income earners pay more than one in every three dollars the IRS collects in taxes. From 1986 to 2004, the total share of the income tax burden paid by the top 1 percent of earners grew from 25.8 percent to 36.9 percent, while the total share of the tax burden paid by the bottom half of earners fell from 6.5 percent to only 3.3 percent.
During the same period, the percentage of income the top 1 percent of tax filers paid in federal income taxes rose from 18.3 percent to 19.6 percent. By contrast, the percentage of income the bottom fifth of tax filers paid in federal income taxes dropped from 0.4 percent to zero.
The income share of the top 1 percent rose 7.7 percentage points, from 11.3 percent to 19 percent, while their income tax burden rose even more, by 11 percentage points, from 26 percent to 37 percent.
The final measure compares the inequality of income to the inequality of taxes paid over time among all income groups. This measure is the "progressivity index," and is a numerical representation between 0 and 1. The closer the index value is to 1, the more progressive the tax system. For example:
From 1990 to 2000, the progressivity index increased from 0.476 to 0.617, during a period where marginal tax rates increased but capital gains tax rates fell.
From 2001 to 2004, under George W. Bush's tax reforms, the tax progressivity index continued to rise from 0.608 to 0.664.
"Its important when discussing tax reforms to consider how the system reacts, because of the great discretion high earners have in how they earn income and therefore pay taxes," said Stroup. "Bush's reforms have helped diminish the income gap between rich and poor, rather than make it worse."
http://www.ncpa.org/media/did-the-bush- ... he-wealthy
A "free market" think tank, eh?
All the same to you, I think I'll pass.
Is it really any coincidence that the loudest supporters of the Bush tax cuts were also disciples of trickle down vodoo theory?
From just where, do you suspect, those gains were to trickle down from?
Unless the "top" in top marginal tax rates is now Bush Orweillian newspeak for the poor, file this under bullshit.
Fact Finder wrote:How do you know she can afford it? The cumulitavie tax in America approaches 54% when every tax known to man is factored in, thus reducing jrnychicks $250 to $125 disposable. Depending on where she's located it's debatable if $125 is satisfactory to maintain a normal lifestyle.
FF,
Just the other day you floated the idea that (GASP!) workers could someday be shafted out of their benefits and pensions.
Welcome to the real world, buddy!
Just what do you know about the plight of the low level worker anyway?
And if you are a titan of industry, just what are you doing on here all day cuting and pasting Fred Thompson blogs?
Fact Finder wrote:I would hate you with a passion you've never seen and hopefully will never experience. Even the King of Dems JFK knew we couldn't progress under confiscatory rates and brought them down to 70% tops.
70% is a long way from the current 'starve the beast' Reagan rates of 29-39%.
He's going to spend more than we're worth, and make our dollar fucking worthless. He's proposing to spend more than EVERY president before him combined...How does that not scare the SHIT out of you?
