First TK you said: 

The upper class pays less of a share of their income than the other brackets.  You are only looking at the tax brackets, not the big picture of who is paying more of their money. 

That didn't work so now you pretend the claim was: 

Top 5% of the US in the 90's paid 39% of their income to taxes.  Now under Bush the top 5% pay 31% of their income, and it as everyone knows the top 5% income earner's wages have skyrocket in the last eight years while the other 95% have seen their wages decrease.  yes the top 5% pay about half of the tax dollars in the country, but they are holding on to more of the money.

and finished with this: 

As for property taxes, what am I wrong about?  The definition of mill levy?  If you have an argument against definitions now I don't know what to say.  Mill levy varies form one town or city to the next but the principle is the exact same.  You pay whatever the taxing authority sets the mill levy at based on that amount per $1000 value.  I don't understand what your example has to do with anything.  The mill levy can and does change each year.  In a given year, you pay the same mill levy on a house valued at 100k vs 500k.  There is not a variable mill levy based on value of your house or property.    Such a simple concept but yet you find confusing?

Berkshire Hatheway does not pay dividends.  So Buffets income he receives is his salary from Berkshire which is said to be about $100,000.  He lives in a house he purchased in 1958 for $31,500 which is now valued at about $700k.  It is believed he has a small portfolio in comparison to his holdings in Berkshire.  In other words, his main income source is dividends and capital gains on sales of his individual portfolio.  His actual salary is only the 100k which is why comparing him to "working wealthy" is a joke.  Like I said, ask him if there should be a wealth tax and you'll put an end to the idea that he has that  the "wealthy" should pay more taxes. 

Addressing your comment about twisted righty response.  I only tell you this.  You may not like the real numbers I provide you but they are what they are.  I can't help that your understanding of our tax system limits you from understanding facts.  You quickly tried to tell me I didn't understand because I was focused on marginal rates and yet I never mentioned marginal rates.  If you'd like to continue to debate tax info I'd be more than happy to but i'm guessing my knowledge of tax is a bit broader than yours. 

Go to irs.gov:

Top 5% of the US in the 90's paid 39% of their income to taxes.  Now under Bush the top 5% pay 31% of their income, and it as everyone knows the top 5% income earner's wages have skyrocket in the last eight years while the other 95% have seen their wages decrease.  yes the top 5% pay about half of the tax dollars in the country, but they are holding on to more of the money.

As for property taxes you once again are dead wrong.  A few years ago I upgraded taxes, I now pay .05% less per thousand than I did in a home that was worth less.  There is more to the magic mill than you are seeing.

I know that Buffet makes his money through dividend and gains, apparently because he is a liberal his opinions are worth nothing to such highly enlightened people as yourself.

Bush's tax cuts did very little for the middle class, obviously not the 8% reduction the upper class received.  I can't wait for your next arrogant word twisting righty response

Your question on how much each individual should pay is a million dollar question.  I know the bracket over 350k is in the 35% percent bracket, which is only 2% more than the 178-350k bracket.  The upper class pays less of a share of their income than the other brackets. 

I'm sorry but you are completely wrong about the part of paying a less share of their income in federal Income tax.  I challenge you to provide anything that supports this theory. 

You are only looking at the tax brackets, not the big picture of who is paying more of their money.  

Apparently you have difficulty understanding words.  I used the words EFFECTIVE federal tax rate which has nothing to do with brackets.  I'm sorry you do not understand what that means.

 I will also argue that the same applies to property tax, the amount assessed is not in exact proportion to the value. 

I can't understand how you could argue this.  Property tax rates are applied as mill levy which  by definition is a amount of tax assessed per $1000 value.  If you can't understand that, again, i'm sorry.

The last several tax cuts have only helped the millionaires

Interesting since tax cuts over the last 8 years were applied to all brackets.  All bracket percentages were lowered and additional tax credits including things such as child tax credits and marriage penalty relief  were created.  Because of income limits the child tax credit for instance only helps low and middle class families. 

.  Even Warren Buffet has stated that the upper class needs to pay more taxes, are you going to say that he is wrong? 

Something you apparently don't understand about Mr Buffet.  Mr Buffet first is a liberal.  Second, Mr Buffet calls for the upper class to pay more taxes but Mr Buffet isn't a "working wealthy".   The reason Mr. Buffet doesn't pay much tax is that his money is wealth and all tied up in Berkshire Hathaway.  He pays himself a meager salary thus creating very little income.  He lives off his foundation and company.  He does not sell his Berkshire stock.   In his retirement his plans are to transfer his wealth to his foundation and the Gates Foundation thus again, creating little tax exposure.  If you want to get guys like Buffet to change their toon, ask him if there should be a wealth tax?  Fact is that the "working wealthy" are the folks paying the tax.  There is a significant distinction between the "wealthy" and the "working wealthy". 

I think that a flat tax is probably the best way to assess taxes.  You have done a great job cutting and pasting and chopping my post up, but do you have any ideas? 

All kinds of issues with a flat tax but thats another debate .  Now this nonsense of cutting and pasting you alledge.  My last post included your ENTIRE post.  I don't know what you have a problem with. 

McCains plans,  oversee the 700 billion we will give to correct our economy.

KEEP US SAFE AS BUSH HAS DONE.

DRILL BABY DRILL.

NOT RAISE TAXES.

~~~

Obamas plans,   introduce socialism to America... raise taxes.... stop all drilling...............

~~~~

anything else?

Everybody keeps picking apart Obama's plans, twisting them, slanting them, etc.  What is McCain's plan?  Continue outsourcing, keep borrowing money from overseas, keep selling our entire country out to foreign interests, keep relying on foreign energy, continue to cut taxes until states and cities can't afford to function, and maybe get into a few more international fights?

This is just typical republican nonsense- tell people who to blame, tell people who to be afraid of, and offer nothing but the continuation if the downward spiral of our country. 

Complaint filed to the PSC against the railroad's high shipping rates.  Shipping rates lowered.  That was my point about monopolies.  I don't know what I said that was not factual.

Fact- Both PSC candidates were on a debate on the radio on Monday.  Both talked about the need to keep rail rates reasonable, allow and maybe even develop more shortlines, stop track demolition.  This is not and should not be the only issue of the PSC.

Complaint filed to the PSC against the railroad's high shipping rates.  Shipping rates lowered.  That was my point about monopolies.  I don't know what I said that was not factual.

Fact- Both PSC candidates were on a debate on the radio on Monday.  Both talked about the need to keep rail rates reasonable, allow and maybe even develop more shortlines, stop track demolition.  This is not and should not be the only issue of the PSC.

TK..You are wrong and it took me almost 10 minutes to prove it... You are free to call the PSC office on Monday morning and ask them about this, it is your dime... North Dakota regulators' enthusiasm for pursuing a federal complaint against the Burlington Northern Santa Fe's wheat-shipping charges has cooled, even though the Legislature has set aside almost $1 million for the job.The federal Surface Transportation Board this month published rules that will govern complaints filed by small shippers, in an attempt to provide a more streamlined, less expensive process for challenging railroad rates.The regulations give shippers two options for filing complaints and set limits of $1 million and $5 million on the rate breaks shippers may obtain over five years. State regulators and grain industry officials said last week they were reviewing the board's 112-page order, which was made public Sept. 5."It's going to take some time to sift through those rules," Public Service Commissioner Tony Clark said. "You have to look at what their effects are, and whether it makes sense to try to use them."The possibility of a federal regulatory challenge to Burlington Northern Santa Fe wheat shipping rates began gaining momentum more than five years ago.The 2003 Legislature earmarked $250,000 for the project, and the North Dakota Farmers Union, the state Farm Bureau and the North Dakota Wheat Commission contributed money. This year, lawmakers included $900,000 in the Public Service Commission's budget that may be spent on a rate complaint.The strategy was prompted by BNSF rates that charged western North Dakota grain elevators more to ship wheat to West Coast ports than their counterparts in western Minnesota, even though the Minnesota grain was being hauled a greater distance.The commission hired two Washington law firms and the Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute, a Fargo think tank that studies transportation issues, to begin work on the case.In January 2006, before the research was completed, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe announced it was cutting its wheat rates. The reductions helped ease some of the regional cost differences that had irked grain shippers, said Steve Strege, director of the North Dakota Grain Dealers Association.

Six months after the rate cuts were made public, the Surface Transportation Board said it would be writing new rules to govern complaints filed by small rail shippers. The move further undermined the rationale for filing a rate complaint, because any STB decision would be based on regulations that no longer existed, Clark said.The project is now on hold, although Clark and Strege say the $250,000 spent preparing a complaint was worth it. They believe the threat of an STB case motivated Burlington Northern Santa Fe to reduce its wheat rates, and the state's other major railroad, the Canadian Pacific Railway, made cuts of its own. 

AGAIN I ASK YOU TO PRINT THE FACTS PLEASE!!!!

Obama has described his plan to hike taxes as "neighborliness," "patriotism" and "justice." In fact, it's the widest-ranging assault on capital — and those who create it — in at least a generation, possibly longer.

Look at just a few of the things he and congressional Democrats have in mind: Higher taxes on successful entrepreneurs (anyone earning over $250,000), higher taxes on capital gains, higher taxes on dividends, a possible raid on Americans' 401(k)s, a takeover of America's private health care industry, strict new limits on what CEOs can make, and the reimposition of the death tax.

Add it up, and Obama will usher in a new era in America — one where capital, the engine of our economic growth and success, is punished severely through the tax code. If Democrats win a filibuster-proof majority in Congress, it'll be the only form of capital punishment their party will support.

Obama denies this, but listen to Barney Frank, head of the House Financial Services Committee, who said just last week: "I believe later on, there should be tax increases. . . there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of this money."

And all this in the middle of what looks like a deep recession. This is a big reason why stock markets in the U.S. and abroad have plunged in recent weeks. As Obama climbs in the polls, investors have awakened to a stark fiscal reality.

This should worry all Americans. A 2005 study found 57 million U.S. households — 60% of the total — owned stocks, bonds or mutual funds. Average people don't realize they'll take a direct hit.

Higher taxes lower returns on capital. This means everything — wages, stock prices, real estate — will have to decline further as Obama's tax hikes take hold. That means fewer jobs.

This reverses what has always been America's recipe for success: an economy built on low taxes, few regulations, free trade and, in general, letting markets decide winners and losers.

Obama says he's merely "spreading the wealth" — taking money from those who've earned it and giving it to those who haven't. But we already "spread the wealth." According to economists Gerald Prante and Andrew Chamberlain, the top 40% of households redistribute $1 trillion each year through the tax code to the bottom 60%. And yes, that includes the middle class.

By the way, the top 5% of earners — those squarely in Obama's tax-hike cross hairs — already pay 60% of all taxes. Obama's changes would skew that further.

Worse, many of Obama's "get the rich" tax hikes are really targeted at successful small businesses that create nearly 90% of all U.S. jobs. Among tax filers with adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 or more, some 67% report small-business income.

At this delicate time in our economic history, talk of tax hikes on wealth creators and capital is irresponsible — a recipe for the kind of market meltdowns we've seen repeatedly in recent weeks.

Spread the wealth? More like, destroy it.

I didn't contradict myself, I obviously didn't explain things right.  I don't think anyone should have to pay higher taxes, we are all taxed enough the way it is.  Unfortunately I think we will all have to pay more taxes one way or another.

I know there are some people who do actually earn their money, I have never gotten anything from the gov't either.  I know there is nothing in the bible that says anything about spreading wealth, my point is that I am tired of people who get gov't money somehow thinking that they owe nothing in return, the people who say screw everyone else I am rich, then talking about how important their faith is to them.

Your question on how much each individual should pay is a million dollar question.  I know the bracket over 350k is in the 35% percent bracket, which is only 2% more than the 178-350k bracket.  The upper class pays less of a share of their income than the other brackets.  You are only looking at the tax brackets, not the big picture of who is paying more of their money.   I will also argue that the same applies to property tax, the amount assessed is not in exact proportion to the value.  The last several tax cuts have only helped the millionaires.  Even Warren Buffet has stated that the upper class needs to pay more taxes, are you going to say that he is wrong?

I think that a flat tax is probably the best way to assess taxes.  You have done a great job cutting and pasting and chopping my post up, but do you have any ideas? 

I do not think anyone should have to pay higher taxes, but  I do think that the upper class needs to pull more of the weight.

So you don't think anyone should pay more taxes but then you say that the upper class should?  That took along time for you to contradict yourself.

Whether you own a business or you are an executive, and especially if you are a farmer, Uncle Sam has helped you get where you are financially.  SBA loans, tax incentives/breaks, crop subsidies, gov't contracts, and on and on are examples of everyone helping you.  Now when its time to pay the piper, you say you want to keep your wealth?  Is this what your bible says? 

You assume that everyone who has money got it from help from the government but in reality there are alot of folks that have money who got it through hard work receiving the same treatment from the government as anyone else.  I know thats hard for some to believe but there are folks that earned that money they have.  You want to talk about paying the piper but in reality, we have nearly half of the population paying ZERO federal income tax meanwhile they benefit from all the government services that anyone else does but when should they pay the piper or should they?  On the bible note,  I don't recall where the bible says that the government decides who the wealth should be spread to but maybe you could show me the passage that says that. 

I believe it was conservative who said on this site he is in favor of a national sales tax, thats is a fair plan.  Only 8 short years ago John McCain was pushing for a flat tax.  These are all good, fair ideas that would leave a lot less room for complaining and would help boost our gov't funds for essential programs.

So why don't you tell us what is someones fair share?  You act like the wealthy aren't paying enough that they should pay more but what is enough?   Do you even know what the effective income tax rates paid by income groups in this country?   I'm not saying that folks who make more shouldn't pay more because that is already happening and I have no problem with it but when do you think it is enough?   What effective tax rates should people in each group be paying?

I do not think anyone should have to pay higher taxes, but  I do think that the upper class needs to pull more of the weight.

Whether you own a business or you are an executive, and especially if you are a farmer, Uncle Sam has helped you get where you are financially.  SBA loans, tax incentives/breaks, crop subsidies, gov't contracts, and on and on are examples of everyone helping you.  Now when its time to pay the piper, you say you want to keep your wealth?  Is this what your bible says? 

I believe it was conservative who said on this site he is in favor of a national sales tax, thats is a fair plan.  Only 8 short years ago John McCain was pushing for a flat tax.  These are all good, fair ideas that would leave a lot less room for complaining and would help boost our gov't funds for essential programs.

This is not a redistribution of wealth.  This is restitution.  No matter which candidate gets in we will all have to pay for the last decade of non-sense politics one way or another.

If it isn't about "spreading the wealth around", I'd assume than you believe EVERYONE should pay more tax and not just certain groups?

Hey Ernie... back to you...

anyway,  this is a dumb question, but I will ask anyway...

What is the real job of gov-co?    really.... security, ok, I am good with that.   Infrastructure, roads,   bridges... ok,  fort knox.. ok... but what else.

and what have they done that is really GREAT!   education? no..... healthcare....no..... more drilling....no....

lets chat..

“I want the gove out of my life, out of my business......”   Preach it sister!!  

I of course am not for either of those two "R's"..:(

I want the gove out of my life, out of my business......

Read this in my local papers comment section online on a story.  I think it says it all.

Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama,
I need the money." I laughed.
Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away
his political preference - - just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to
redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need - - the homeless guy outside. The server
angrily stormed

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided
he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.
I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.
I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.
REDISTRIBUTION OF SOMEONE ELSE'S WEALTH, A GREAT IDEA ..............