The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

   that more people are paying attention to what Obama isn't instead of what he is & has been in the past?

What he isn't?  Republican / George Bush.

What he?  Socialist, was a member of a church with a radical preacher who preached hate of America for around 20 Years & then expects us to believe he did not know what type preacher he was, known associate of a American born terrorist who still does not regret what he did in the past.

My question is to anyone:

Why is the fact he is not George Bush that big of a sway to make people overlook all this?

IMO, the public only looks at what effects them today.  Today the problem is the economy.  So all this stuff is lost on the public, plus Obama is buying votes with his tax the people more who pay the most already plan.

Please make your thread titles descriptive.

He is also saying the right things right now.  I love John McCain. I respect the man for everything he has done for this country.  However The republicans have done such a terrible Job this past 8 years, yes just not being one is enough at this point. I hope Obama realizes how many stars needed to align for him to get this chance, they seem to have. With the economy and the fuel prices, just enough things have gone wrong in this country at once for him to look Like a savor.

Lets be real. Alot of people are also voting for Obama for Racist reasons as well. But to me thats just not enough to Vote against him. Probably almost the same amount Isn't voting for him for the same reasons as well.

George Bush's approval rating is somewhere in the 20's.....Obama's smart,well educated (and acts like he actually learned from that education) He's a 180 degree different from George Bush....

Fixed grammar

I also reject the idea that he's a socialist. 

He does support some socialist-leaning principles, as do all democrats, but I think that "socialist" is just a scare word used by Obama's detractors.  Many citizens of this country support socialist ideas (social security, socialized medicine, government-run education, higher tax rates for the wealthy, etc.), but just don't know what it's called.

As for Reverend Wright, I just don't give a crap.  I think religion is totally damaging, and I'm the first to say "WTF" when I see politicians being involved in crazy religious stuff.  However, I can distinguish between what I consider harmless and that which I think will affect a leader's administration and ability to govern.  I'm not concerned about Wright or that church having any involvement in our government.  Do I think it's weird?  Hell yes.  But it's not an issue that I think will have anything to do with his ability to run our country.

I actually feel similarly about Palin.  She's on video getting blessed by some witch-doctor.  Totally weird.  But I'm not really worried that she'll have a witch-doctor in the White House, so I don't give a crap about it.

However, there are other cases (like with Bush) for example, where I think that his close ties to religion affected his judgment, was directly involved in his decision making, and had great influence on his administration.

That's the best I can describe it.

  You are correct, the Dems & public do have those views.  View I personally do not support..

   The Gov has done a great job of getting the citizens of the US to believe security is more valuable than freedom.

I thought that we've had a Democratic congress the last 4 years,but let's blame it all on Bush.In my mind BOTH parties are in bed with big business and the oil companies in particular,but now that greed has come home to roost and the American people are pissed off they are finger pointing in public and probably having drinks together,laughing,and counting their money in private.

The Dems have controlled Congress for less than 2 years.

  2 Years..  FYI The economy & everything was booming in '06.

Of course both parties are in bed with big business.    The public as a whole just thinks the Dems are for the little guy & the Dems know this.  They think big business & wealthy people should be taxed more & more.  While not knowing raising taxes on businesses only raises taxes on the consumers ( AKA The little people ) Taxing the people who invest & create jobs only means there is less money for job creation.

Who suffers?  The little guy, but its not direct taxation so it appears as if they are raising the taxes on the big guys.

Example:  Clinton's luxury tax on things like Yachting.   The idea was wealthy people would still purchase.  Well, they didn't & guess what happened?  Who were the people most effected?  The people who actually built the Yachts.  The little people.

Decisions that are made have effects YEARS later.  It's not like the Dems that took over in 07 are responsible for the state of the nation that year.  You know that.  You're alluding otherwise, however.

 
Yes, I know that.  I was just wanting someone who supports Dems to say it.  I was unsure they knew that since they blamed Bush for the recession early in his admin.

Maybe..........but look at how fast the price of a barrel of oil came down. They had control over that all along. It took a crumbled economy to make them finally do it.

Yeah, about 2.5x that of Congress.

Yes, experience vs academia.

People who have to pay for socialism tend to reject it while people who benefit from it tend to support it.  It's pretty much that simple.

Of course, the problem is that it doesn't make everyone middle class, it ends up making everyone poor.  People who were poor are still poor but now they have no chance of becoming middle class.


I wonder if taxes would be such an issue if everyone chose what they wanted to fund? 

For example, start everyone at the same tax rate:
- if you want to fund public schools then add 1%
- if you want to fund military then add 1%
- etc, etc, etc.

Another idea is to calculate taxes the same way they are now but allow people to determine where their money is spent.  If someone wants to give $0 to defense and instead give it all to social programs then that would be their right. 

It would be interesting to see how spending would change with either idea.  Would people still support certain ideas if it cost them additional money? 


The one problem is that people calling for higher taxes are usually in a position to pay additional taxes themselves ... but rarely do.  It's an issue that rarely led by example. 


Obama a socialist?  Nah - but he does have  the most liberal voting record in Congress.  He's much closer to being a socialist than Bush is to being a facist ... but that didn't stop many people throwing that term around.

I love the way that democrats think they can punish big business into helping the "common man".  Rather than make ir favorable for business to stay they threaten to punish them if they leave.  If a company is already considering moving overseas to be more competitive then how is threatening them going to change anything? 

Everett, North of Seattle, just had a large company that built yachts go out of business.  700+ workers are out of a job.  We really showed those rich people! 

Just out of curiosity, what builder is this? (I work with yachts all day, every day.)

It does not matter what spin you put on it, both sides have been making massive mistakes for years and their cronies in Wall St have profited.
Right now with the bailout we have two things.
The private sector that ran us intot he ground economically with their greed is enjoying all the benefits of capitalism without any of the negatives, while we the people have gotten all the negatives of state socialism without any benefits.

Under GWB the gov't just took  over  the banks.

Please explain what Obama could do that is more socialistic than that? 

I thought they were buying bad debt, so they actually are taking over all banks & will be running them?

Just about everything about Obama has a socialistic lean on it..

They didn't buy bad debt.  They bought the banks.  They own stock in the banks and they place conditions on the bank operation including what they could pay their employees. 

Rating of 1 versus  535
 

Dphin4me: How do you define "socialist"?

From Wikipedia

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved

Isn't this the essence of Obama as well Communist Karl Marx ?  Take from the "haves" and give it to the "have nots" regardless of if they deserve it... oh yes ... and have the government control it. 

Social Security, Medicare, and even public school lunch programs redistribute wealth. Should we get rid of these socialist schemes as well or do you draw a line between good socialism and bad socialism?

From what I've read the banks have a choice in participating or not in the bailout & the banks that sell the Gov. 300 million are the ones that are getting the restriction on what the CEO get if they leave.

  In a nut shell.  Someone who believes things should be more even while ignoring why things are not more even.

  I'm for getting the Gov out of schools, Social Security is a bad investment & IMO if the Gov would stop bumping uglies with the Pharm industry then medical cost would be lower & more affordable.

If we are a free capitalist country then practice what we preach.  Come to America & make your own way.  If you need help, then there are charities out there that will help you.   

Yes the banks had a choice.  Folks can also choose to turn down food stamps if they don't like the restriction they have.

But the bottom line is that the US government buying banks is a hell of a lot closer to communism than giving out food stamps is. 

And this bail out of the banks cost more too.

Your position is pretty extreme, but that's OK. Do you have a problem with the federal government or would you object to state and local governments providing something like social security, medicare or other programs that involve wealth transfers? Do you oppose taxes in general?

  I think the Fed Gov. is to large & has forgotten what its for.  IMO the Fed is to protect us from attack & maybe some interstate items, but in whole they need to get out of education, especially providing it.

    I think the people in Wash. are simply money & power hungry & will do the country/people harm if it will put money in their pocket.  They are so caught up in Rep / Dem that they do not care if its a good plan.  If the Rep come up with a good plan, the Dem have to oppose it simply because they did not come up with it.  Vice verse.

I believe things should be taken care of more on the local level.  In fact I'm on record that only allowing the general population to vote on the local level & let who they elect vote for the Senate & Pres.

I'm not big on Social Security.  I think I can do better with my money than the Gov. can.

I do not oppose taxes, they are necessary.    I oppose income tax & all the little hidden taxes that the public pays without knowing they are paying it.   I believe income tax hinders the economy & takes away money I could spend to provide to for my family.   I am on record that I support the Fair tax.

I'm not going to argue that I like what the Gov is doing.  Frankly I not sure this is not a plan to gain more & more control.

The Gov has gotten way to large.

Ultimately, it is the socialistic anti-American policies of the Democrat party that have caused our great nation to face these troubled times.

For example: take the SOCIALIST practice of providing a free education to every child.  Consider that if the government was not REDISTRIBUTING WEALTH (i.e. socialism) by giving an education to all the children of the poor, then maybe we would not have to look to poverty-stricken unskilled immigrants for our menial labor jobs; we could have an indefinitely renewable source of poverty-stricken unskilled laborers that are born in the U.S.A. to meet this need!  Two problems solved in one fell swoop.

Consider also that if the SOCIALIST Democrats could be thwarted, the government would not have to SHARE THE WEALTH by immorally stealing money from private citizens to build SOCIALIST roads and highways.  This is clearly another area that should be handled by the private sector; a company like Ford or GM should be paying to build roads, not the American citizen.  And this would also help to stimulate the American economy; if you want to drive on the Chevy Interstate-10, then you damn well better not be driving a Toyota or a Honda, or you can take yourself to Japan and try driving on the highways there.

Un-American socialist policies like these must not be allowed to continue.  Vote on November 4.

This is not extreme by any means. It's the Republican party.  Privatizing retirement as well as insurance for the elderly. Once they took God out of schools they wanted school vouchers so that they could go to the school of their choice.

For a college educated government worker I've very surprised you missed this?  OK government worker might explain it!   ;)  Obviously I joke as I also work for the government.


Roads and bridges are part of the infrastructure of our country. That is what government is for.  They aren't for directing our day to day lives and punishing us when we succeed in business.  Go back and study history.  Not one of our fore fathers had a vision for the government caring for us. 




There are more Mercedes and Caddies in the projects (government housing) than in the middle class neighborhoods.  There are more 40 and 50 thousand dollar trucks in trailer parks than in the middle class neighborhoods but they are on government assistance. 
This is what is extreme.

Taxing rich oil companies so that people who don't want to work can have something only increases prices on the middle class.  Right now the government makes more money off of one gallon of gas than the oil company but we want to raise their taxes because it looks good on paper. 

I hope this entire post was full of bullshit. Otherwise, I am scared.

I admit.......I was like , Holy shit! after reading that myself.  :|

You guys are joking.  Please tell me you are joking Phish!! Or possibly drunk?  ;D

Not joking at all, although I hope Spider is. Calling the building of roads with tax money socialism is pretty extreme. Saying by not educating poor children we can solve the problem of immigrant labor is way out there.

I haven't paid enough attention to remember where his political beliefs lie.

Some people here need a serious SARCASM DETECTOR!

No kidding, no way anybody would call the highways socialism.  Eisenhower was a republican.  And the republicans fight the evil socialist democrats. 

Favoring "getting the gov out of schools" would be considered extreme by most. Vouchers, by the way, are not the same as no government hand. It still represents a redistribution of wealth unless you want everyone to pay for their own private education.

I believe thats why he started his post out with.........

He didn't take it 100% seriously and either did I, its kind of hard to judge sarcasim through words on a screen.......... ::)

Says who?  It is taking money out of my pocket and using it for others.  Why do I need to spend money to build Interstate highways in Wyoming that I won't use?  That, my friends, is what we call "spreading the wealth," and you know what that means?  SOCIALISM.

This is, of course, a verified statistical fact, not just some imaginary unsupported urban legend.  And it most certainly does not rely upon things like comparing the number of 1992 Cadillac Sevilles in the projects to number of 2007 Toyota Camrys in middle class neighborhoods, because that would be absurd.

This much is obvious to any sane citizen, because the enormous tax breaks given to oil companies during this administration have resulted in dramatic reductions in price at the pump.

I do not want the Gov providing the education.   Wanting Gov out of education has nothing to do with redistribution of wealth & more towards allowing people to choose what they want their kids to know.  At some point parents need to be parents.  Its not the Gov job to raise kids, however that is excatly what they are doing these days.

Politics is being played.   It like where my kids go.  They start teaching Spanish before the kids have learned English.

I'm fine with the Gov helping kids get their education, but providing it?  No.

This seems perfectly logical to me.  For starters, you never really stop learning English.  And, the younger you are, the easier you pick up language.  And I believe that learning both side by side helps you learn both better...is that not the case?

Should your kids be eligible for vouchers for private schools if the value of your annual tax payments is less than the value of the vouchers?

OK maybe the numbers vary but why should someone driving a $40,000 vehicle need government assistance?  This is not urban legend and is quite common.  I mean shouldn't I be able to get welfare so I can get a new mack daddy pick up truck too? The fact I actually have a job and work should not stop the government from helping me.

If you would like to come to Sanford I would certainly be glad to take you on a tour of Castle Brewer, Lake Monroe Terrace, William Clark Court or one of our many white trash trailer parks to display some of our finer automobiles.  I don't need statistics or racist propaganda.  I live it.

Our government spends way too much of other peoples money on people who abuse it.  It's kind of funny that people like Joe Biden refuse to donate to charity but want us tax payers to cough up the goods.

I give more to the Orlando Rescue Mission, Compassion International, my local radio ministry and my church in six months than Biden has donated in ten years.  Ten freaking years!!!!   $2,450,042  in revenue but only $3,690 in charitable donations over 10 years. This is on his tax returns!!!

This is the kind of people telling us they want more of our money to give away.  Yes this is absolutely baffling to me!!!
 

The people wanting the most are usually the ones who give the least.

You can be poor as shit and still drive a nice car.  It's called "ghetto rich".  (There's another name for it that isn't worth repeating here.)

Some people don't spend money wisely.  They have no wealth, but they have riches.  You can lease a car.  You can rent a crappy apartment, have no insurance, no retirement, no savings...but still have a nice car. 

I know the saying.  ANd if you spend your money on a $40,000 dollar car and rent a $200 a month government apartment or a $2000 trailer you do not deserve welfare plain and simple.  These aren't people I suspect. I grea up with them. I work with them.  I eat with them.And embarrasing enough ...  I am related to them. 

Somehow I think most of you guys get your vision of the world from Cosby and HBO. Work in a soup kichen for a weekend and then go back next week. Do it over and over and eventually you will see two types of people. One are people who are down on their luck and the other is people taking advantage of whatever they can get. Unfortunately the latter its the biggest portion and we make that group even larger by enabling them. 

Every person who can see a color isn't racist and every person who is poor isn't trying to get ahead.  It's comfoting to many people to not to have responsibilities and have others to care for them.  They work a little while and back on the system. The largest portion being lazy arse young white women.


I will give you the shirt off my back but I have no tolerence for a lazy person that will not work and takes advantage of the system.

i'd just like to point out that when i give money to charities (and i have) i have never once claimed it as a deduction in my taxes

biden could just as easily have donated 10,000 a year each and every year and just not claimed the tax deduction .. just a thought

Yeh ...  Ok Fau.  No offense but we're talking tens of thousands of dollars and not $20 win they pass the plate or he walks by a Santa ringing the bell.  He couldn't have donated that quietly and not claimed if he had wanted to.

  This is what I'm saying.   They are determining that my kid learn Spanish.  What if I do not want my kid to learn Spanish?

  Not quite sure I following 100%.  How about an example.

  True, but those are the ones who we generally are providing assistants too.

Once again, the liberal mantra... I didn't mean me!

The workers at my local daycare can generally tell who pays out of their own pocket by the cars they drive.  It's a game some of the more tenured workers "play".  The nicer or more "pimped out" the car is the less likely that parent is paying their own way.

Those paying out of their own pocket the price for infants is $230 per week.  For younger school age children it's $175/week during the summer.  For those not paying their own way it's just a $25 monthly co-payment..

I too could afford one hell of a ride and pimp it out to the extreme if I was saving $700-$900 per month, per child, on daycare.

Yeah, and now that oil/gas prices ARE falling the secret leader of OPEC, George W Bush, is going to have a secret meeting and get all the countries to cut production!  If that doesn't work then he'll just cook up another huge hurricane to rampage throught the gulf! 

Ideally, sure.

Realistically, "ESL" students are taught in their native language.  Learning English is not a priority.

Most kids who attend public school for more than a year or two pick up English just fine.  It's the adults who struggle/refuse to learn English.  Then they take the low paying jobs at every store and drive-thru and are close to worthless to the customers who aren't multi-lingual.

Then you better hope it gets a white collar job.   ;)

If you are talking about public schools (in the state of Florida), this statement is then a total 100% Bullshit Lie. ESL / ESOL students are taught in 100% English. How do I know? I was placed in ESL / ESOL in high school, because guidance couselors and school administrators are absolute morons. There is absolutely no French, Creole, Spanish, or other language allowed in an ESL / ESOL class, and to take it further, neither is it allowed in a prep 1 or prep 2 class at a college / university.

Yeah........your not special at all............. ::)

Alright Florida!
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v693/lordthundergod/Random%20pics/applause2uf3.gif)

Too bad they don't teach a course on butterfly ballots.  (http://209.85.117.199/1250/23/0/e786//e786.gif)

It is a tribute to Mr. Bush's vision and leadership that gas is merely $3.30 a gallon.  With any luck, gas prices will only have tripled during his time in office, which is probably just due to inflation, or something.

On the subject of cars in ghettos:

I live in arguably one of the worst areas of my town (I live in Fairfield, in Northern California).  The complex in which I live currently has a vacancy rate approaching 50%.  I am on no form of gov't assistance, yet I own one "sporty" car (2000 Avenger, original sticker price ~$21k) and one bona fide sports car (1995 3000GT Spyder VR4, original sticker price $65k).  My next-door neighbor is a retirement-aged couple that have lived here since the early '80s and own an early 2000s Camry and a Honda hybrid.  I strongly doubt that they receive any form of gov't assistance (except the Social Security that they paid for).

Meanwhile, many middle-class residents in middle-class neighborhoods bought $400k 1500-sqft houses that they could not afford and drove around in Priuses or Jettas... which they also could not afford.  They are reaping the whirlwind as we speak.

Driving around a neighborhood and looking at cars tells you precisely dick about the people that own them.

You're right.  We shouldn't stereotype based on neighborhood and vehicle.

Wait ... or should we stereotype based on neighborhood and vehicle?

I'm detecting mixed messages.


... unless they're middle-class neighborhoods?

While I appreciate your contirbutions, taxation and charitibale contributions are worlds apart. Biden also falls into the over $250K grouping whose taxes would increase.

Your on a roll today bro!   :D

What's the confusion?  The stated premise was that those in low-income neighborhoods with nice cars were abusing gov't assistance, while the "responsible" middle-class citizens stayed within their means and bought middle class cars.  I disputed both of those points.

Say what?  Why does he want more money?  To fund the less fortunante. That's what a charity is.  It's the exact same thing except no one is forced to do charity work ... and that's exactly how it should be.

If I want to give 50% of my salary away to help people and you want to keep 100% percent of yours ... and vice versa ... we should be able to.  Taxation to fund programs for the less fortunate is forcing people to take care of others... many who are perfectly capable.   It shouldn't work that way.  Biblically speaking I am responsible for doing so but I see no reason for someone to be forced to just because they are successful at life.

BTW .... under Obama's tax plan 40% of that 95% who won't have taxes raised do not even pay taxes.  Under the new plan they will not only not pay, they will now receive a check from the government. ... or should I say another check.

The only person making the latter point was you.  Did you make the point just so you could dispute it? (http://209.85.117.199/1250/23/0/e784//e784.gif)

CF made the point that there were more luxury cars in the ghettos than in the middle-class neighborhoods, which carries the implication that those in middle-class neighborhoods were more commonly buying non-luxury cars within their means (unless you take it to mean that middle-class neighborhoods had no cars at all).

But fundamentally, your entire line of objection is invalid; at no time did I even imply that the majority of middle-class neighborhood residents were defaulting on their car loans or mortgages (any more than I implied that the majority of low-income neighborhood residents drive $65k sportscars).  My point was that there are financially irresponsible people in every neighborhood, and even those that drive non-luxury cars are not exempt from this condition.

That wasn't really my point ... but I probably wasn't clear enough.  I only used the midle calss as reference point ... not as a specific comparison.  There are definitely many irrisponsible people in the middle class. 

My point is that if you are living in government assisted homes and collecting government funding, you shouldn't be driving 40 and 50 thousand dollar automobiles.  If you can qualify for one and then qualify for the other ... somehwere somone isn't being truthful.

jeez you have all the answers huh?  What you state above is correct. However.........can you give proof as to where that actually happens? Show me 1 person on Welfare drining a Hummer please.  ::)

Lots of people on Welfare are there becuase they are lazy. I've seen some pull together enough for $3000 rims on a $500 POS car.  But Qualify and get a $40,000 Vehicle?  Wouldn't last long in the Hood anyway.  I think your making your point by pointing out something so ridiculous of course we agree with it. But like most of the acusations you state here........you have No Proof.

OK CF. You are as bad a dolfins4me now. We all know taxes are not collected just to give money back to the poor (you especially since you are paid out of tax money). I also don't know where this additional check claim comes from. I haven't heard about that. I also doubt your figures of people who do not pay taxes.

The "additional check claim" comes from a combination of math and common sense.  If someone is paying $zero net taxes (they get 100% refunded) then how can they get a tax break? 

The figure varies but 40% is about right: (link (http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6)).


(http://nwfootball.net/politics/images/DemsUnderstandingOnTaxCuts.gif)

Is this why I've heard people say Obama is doing Gods work?   

  Try getting it correct.  I have never said the only reason taxes are collected is to give it to the poor, nor ever thought it..

How about stop projecting things upon me that you perceive to come from me.  Actually allow me to say it, before assigning it to me..

Where can I get a hilarious image that depicts Republicans' belief that the only tax one pays in this country is income tax?

Its the highest tax majority of us pay.  Yet we have nothing to show for it.

Not going to get into the 10K range with Gas, sales or any other tax.

But wait... the whole point is that people who "aren't even paying any taxes" are getting tax refunds.  That's insane!

Except that they do pay other taxes.  So it's perfectly sane for them to receive a refund.

  If all taxes are considered, then they would be include on a tax form.  There not.

Just when I thought you can't get anymore desperate... 

When everyone is entitled to an income tax refund based on other taxes paid then get back to us.  ;)

Thanks. Ironically through a bit of deeper digging I found that in 2005 over 3.5 million people who would get a tax increase under Obama's plan had non-paying tax returns that year.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05in12ms.xls (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05in12ms.xls)

I looked at that but you'll have to spell it out for me. 

This sounds like a previous thread that I thought was debunked as a misunderstanding.

3.5 million people making over $250,000 doesn't sound right.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/155951
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032008/hhinc/new06_000.htm

One difference is we are talking differnet years. That would make some difference. The other is we have different sources. Mine is from the IRS and yours cites the census. I would trus tthe IRS stats more when discussing incomes.

All returns, total- 134,372,678
Taxable returns, total- 90,593,081
Nontaxable returns, total- 43,779,597

This is a breakdown of the over 3.5M I mentioned

   $200,000 under $500,000- 2,732,229
   $500,000 under $1,000,000- 523,401
   $1,000,000 or more- 303,106


I think everyone would agree that any household showing over $1M in income and having a non-paying tax return is overboard. Now consider 303,106 of them existing.

Why would "everyone" be entitled to it?

Your entire argument is based around the faulty premise that there are somehow people who get more back in tax refund money than they pay in taxes.  One can only arrive at this conclusion if one ignores all the non-income-tax-related taxes that said people pay.

Unless you are seriously making the argument that it's "welfare" for people to have their taxes refunded by a different part of the gov't than the one they originally paid taxes to, you have no leg to stand on.

I'm not trying to be obtuse .... it just comes naturally.

I see the "Nontaxable returns, total- 43,779,597" in cell B45, but I'm not seeing the breakdown by income.

I'm still having trouble accepting that there were 3,500,000 tax returns showing income of $250,000 or more in 2005, but only 2,245,000 households showing income of $250,000 or more in 2007.

^^^ Like I said we have differnet sources. Your source is from the Census, basically a poll that does not include everyone. My source is from the IRS. I still take more credibility in the IRS.

The breakdown is right above the total of non-taxable returns. Cells B42-B44 are the three incomes I highlighted for you.

total # returns
   $200,000 under $500,000   2,737,802 (B22)
   $500,000 under $1,000,000   524,506 (B23)
   $1,000,000 or more   303,817 (B24 through 28)

# of non-taxable returns
   $200,000 under $500,000   2,732,229 (B42)
   $500,000 under $1,000,000   523,401 (B43)
   $1,000,000 or more   303,106 (B44)


If you're interpreting this correctly then...
   $200,000 under $500,000   99.80% of all returns did not pay taxes (B42/B22)
   $500,000 under $1,000,000   99.79% of all returns did not pay taxes (B43/B23)
   $1,000,000 or more   99.77% of all returns did not pay taxes (B44/B24-28)


Again, that doesn't seem accurate.

You are reading the table wrong. There is no breakdown of total returns.

Row 9 is all returns. Rows 10-28 is a breakdown of taxable returns with the sum in row 29. Rows 30-44 is a breakdown of non-taxable returns with the sum in row 45.

Adding rows 10 through 28 = row 9, the breakdown of total returns

Adding rows 30 through 44 = row 29, the breakdown of taxabe returns

Either that's a huge coincidence or there is no breakdown of NON-taxable returns.


My previous post should have read:
total # returns
   $200,000 under $500,000   2,737,802 (B22)
   $500,000 under $1,000,000   524,506 (B23)
   $1,000,000 or more   303,817 (B24 through 28)

# of non-taxable returns
   $200,000 under $500,000   2,732,229 (B42)
   $500,000 under $1,000,000   523,401 (B43)
   $1,000,000 or more   303,106 (B44)


  $200,000 under $500,000   99.80% of all returns did not pay taxes
   $500,000 under $1,000,000   99.79% of all returns did not pay taxes
   $1,000,000 or more   99.77% of all returns did not pay taxes



7,389 tax returns (out of 3,566,125) with an income of over $200,000 were non-taxable.  That's 1/5 of 1%.

For comparison,
47.9% of returns under $50,000 were non-taxable.
36.4% of returns under $100,000 were non-taxable.

I should have done the math before posting but didn't feel like it. I was reading the table wrong apparently and thought it logical the two breakdowns were for taxable and non-taxable. I should have been more diligent.

  Yet their approval rating is lower than George Bush's.

  Spot on.  The federal government has gotten way too large and gotten involved in things that should be left up to the individual states.  I.E. Same Sex Marriage, Abortion, Education, etc.