Mike Rosen
This letter has not been edited.
Wrong.... and you have the choice to drop cable.
Actually, the TV revenue is derived from advertising. Your cable costs are a VERY minor part of the package. The cable companies pay for packages from the head ins. I don't like having the Spanish channels or the home shopping network, but I just block them. The Cable companies do not have a way currently to give you just the ones you want and charge you on a per channel basis.
And here is a hint... you don't have to watch...
You don't have to have cable, or any TV at all.
If Rosen is right we should then be able to promptly end all taxpayer subsidies of stadiums.
Posted by b on August 23, 2007 06:34 PMHey Mr Mills. How about you trade your sports channels for my spanish channels and we will call it even?
Dravur I agree with you, but would like to have the ability (not the right) to choose the channels I wish to pay for at some time in the future. This should be accomplished by consumer demand and as soon as 1 cable co. starts to provide this service, the others will follow very quickly. Key word is consumer demand, not Govt intervention.
Posted by on August 23, 2007 08:25 PMWhy do only athletes get to benefit from "the free market economy"?
So, why don/t doctors, educators, nurses, firemen and policemen get drafted? How about garbage collectors and construction workers? Waitresses? Wal Mart employees?
Mike Rosen is so out of touch with working people he makes me laugh.
Posted by janis houston on August 23, 2007 08:31 PMJanis did you even read the article? If you say Yes, please read again and get back to us.
econ101
Perhaps if the revenues of professional sports and, in turn, player salaries were derived solely from ticket sales, merchandise sales, and advertising dollars, I might agree with Rosen. However, the vast majority of professional sports revenue comes from the billions in TV contracts that they have negotiated.
well michelle mills you really do understand econ101. just cancel your cable and watch free tv. becareful what you buy as some sports figure may get a billion bucks a year advertising for them.
now go get your dolly and have a tea party in your party finest. becareful too as to which brand of underware you put on, you dont want to support any of the athletes by advertising dollars.
have a nice day sweetie and besure to take your meds soooooooooon.
August 21, 2007
2005 Incomes, on Average, Still Below 2000 Peak
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
Excerpts:
"Americans earned a smaller average income in 2005 than in 2000, the fifth consecutive year that they had to make ends meet with less money than at the peak of the last economic expansion, new government data shows."
"The growth in total incomes was concentrated among those making more than $1 million. The number of such taxpayers grew by more than 26 percent, to 303,817 in 2005, from 239,685 in 2000."
"These individuals, who constitute less than a quarter of 1 percent of all taxpayers, reaped almost 47 percent of the total income gains in 2005, compared with 2000."
"The nearly 90 percent of Americans who make less than $100,000 a year saved on average $318 each on their investments. They collected 5.3 percent of the total savings from reduced tax rates on investment income."
Posted by Truth on August 24, 2007 09:15 AM
http://www.motherjones.com/news/exhibit/2006/05/perks_of_privilege.html
A Look at the Numbers: How the Rich Get Richer
Excerpts:
"IN 1985, THE FORBES 400 were worth $221 billion combined. Today, they’re worth $1.13 trillion—more than the GDP of Canada.
THERE’VE BEEN FEW new additions to the Forbes 400. The median household income has also stagnated—at around $44,000."
"The growth in total incomes was concentrated among those making more than $1 million. The number of such taxpayers grew by more than 26 percent, to 303,817 in 2005, from 239,685 in 2000.
These individuals, who constitute less than a quarter of 1 percent of all taxpayers, reaped almost 47 percent of the total income gains in 2005, compared with 2000."
"The nearly 90 percent of Americans who make less than $100,000 a year saved on average $318 each on their investments. They collected 5.3 percent of the total savings from reduced tax rates on investment income."
"IN 2005, 25.7 million Americans received food stamps, a 49% increase since 2000."
"ONLY 3% OF STUDENTS at the top 146 colleges come from families in the bottom income quartile; only 10% come from the bottom half."
"ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION, the federal minimum wage has fallen 42% since its peak in 1968."
"BUSH’S TAX CUTS GIVE a 2-child family earning $1 million an extra $86,722—or Harvard tuition, room, board, and an iMac G5 for both kids.
A 2-CHILD family earning $50,000 gets $2,050—or 1/5 the cost of public college for one kid."
Truth
Once again, manipulated, unsubatantiated statistics from Liberal sources. Johnson works for the New York times and motherjones????!!!!!, now there is an unbiased source!!!!!
David Cay Johnston wrote: "Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich - and Cheat Everybody Else."
Review:
This is not your usual tax book. It was an immediate bestseller. John Kerry took two days off of campaigning in February to read it, Knight-Ridder Newspapers reported. (He also bought another copy recently at a much-covered trip to a Boston Borders.) A broad spectrum of Americans have endorsed the book, from Ralph Nader to Lou Dobbs."
Now that is a broad spectrum, huh? Lou Dobbs to Ralph Nader. What spectrum are they talking about the left end of the left end?
C'mon.
AF
Truth,
You seem to leave out who actually pays the income taxes in this country. When you are paying the lions share of the pie, any cut is likely to net you a larger real dollar cut.... Simple math. If you are paying $100,000 in federal income taxes and you get a 10% cut, you get to keep $10k of your money. If you are paying $1k in taxes and you get a 20% cut, you get to keep $200.
The left like to play the jealousy card as the rich guy is getting to keep more of his coin, even though the low income person got a bigger percentage back. but since the truth doesn't make for good drama, they never mention the percentages.
Also, a lack of understanding of basic Economics would shed the light on lib fallacies. Ask yourself where capital comes from... Where do people get the money to open new businesses, get mortgages? From a poor person? from the .gov? Nope. Rich people don't sit on their money. they invest it. they take chances where others do not. Bill Gates took a chance and it worked out for him. I took a chance with my business with my own money and it works for me.
How do you give a tax cut to someone who pays nothing in income taxes? So many people today do not pay income taxes and the libs prey on their ignorance saying that only the rich got tax cuts... It is they who are PAYING the tax. Fortunately, people can see through the sleazy tactics used by the left for the envy card..... Oh woe is me, Fred makes more money than I do. He should be punished by the government cuz it isn't fair... wAAAAHHHHHHH
Posted by Dravur on August 24, 2007 01:26 PMVERY Disingenuous remark here Truth...
These individuals, who constitute less than a quarter of 1 percent of all taxpayers, reaped almost 47 percent of the total income gains in 2005, compared with 2000."
You fail to mention that they pay more than 50% of all income taxes. Ooops You try a snarking comparison of a small percentage of people getting a huge reward. You leave out the fact that they pay the lions share of the taxes. Awww but that fact would leave your argument without merit.
Posted by dravur on August 24, 2007 01:34 PMdravur - you go girl! Just ignore that FICA is an income tax, because if you include that, then your 50% stat falls on its face.
Posted by Liam on August 24, 2007 09:02 PMYes liam, FICA is a direct tax... duh.. That's why I specifically mentioned the Income tax. FICA is a tax that you get back in the future... theoretically. It is not a tax the Government should be dropping into the general fund. But they do and that is a different argument.
So, the stat does not fall on its face. The two taxes are different, hence the different names.In fat, it would be a great thing if people could invest their own FICA tax and actually use the money for good. So, the top 1% pay more than their fair share of income taxes. The bottom 50% of the people pay less than 4%
Are you saying that not only should we be paying for the bottom 50% pops share of income taxes, we should now pay for their Social Security as well? Nice wealth transfer scheme. Do you realize that your wealthy in this country provide the jobs and the capital to keep a system working? Have you ever taken a Macro econ class?
So, the stat still stands, but nice try at obfuscation.
A flat ten percent tax rate on all with exemptions the same for all and tax breaks the same for all, would solve all tax problems, provided that pork and all the other contrived schemes, that are the bread and butter of political corruption, are outlawed and every government bureaucracy is required to meet it's budget. Can you imagine how much money would be saved by not having the outragous budget the IRS has, to mention just one.
Posted by Allen Campbell on August 25, 2007 10:55 AMDravur - the FICA is a tax on wage income. What part of "Tax on wage INCOME" do you not understand? It is you and the Rosens of the world who try to obfuscate.
The lowest income tax anyone who works can possibly pay is the FICA - 13.9% I think.
Posted by Liam on August 25, 2007 01:58 PMWhat?
Posted by Allen Campbell on August 25, 2007 04:16 PMAC - if your wage income is below the threshhold for IRS income taxation, you are still paying FICA wage tax. So the lowest rate is FICA + 0 = FICA rate.
Posted by Liam on August 25, 2007 07:52 PMTruth is a friggin' joke that needs to attend to his "partner" Liams obvious needs.
Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Efeminant yearning men are in this year.
8:51 - what are you talking about??? Criptic and amateur attempts at insult make it obvious why you did not sign your name.
Posted by Liam on August 25, 2007 10:40 PMLiam...
the FICA tax is a social benefits program where you put the money in and you get it back out at a future date. It is not the Income tax or FIT. They are not the same thing. FIT is a progressive tax where your income is taxed at a higher rate, the higher you go. They are not the same thing and not supposed to be used for the same thing. The FICA tax is used for a future benefit.... even though it is dropped in the general fund. Therefore, you are paying into a fund for yourself.
FIT is for the general fund and this money can be used for anything, including welfare to others.
So, maybe you can understand this now. FICA is not an income tax the same way that the FIT is. The FICA tax is your "Benefit" for allowing the state to control part of your wages for your retirement.
So, would it Help if I said FIT when discussing this or would you like to continue with your red herring?
The majority of the FIT taxes in this country are paid by the wealthy. It is a fact.. deal with it.
The funny thing is, the regressive sales tax hits the "poor" the most, but you don't hear the libs going after that, just the Tax breaks for the wealthy crap. Are you really upset about the wealthy getting to keep some of their money or are you just jealous?
Posted by Dravur on August 27, 2007 09:03 AM