henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Aug 1, 2011 17:31:41 GMT -5
Acording to the Congressinal Budget Office: Total federal revenues grew by about $625 billion, or a 35 percent increase, between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2006. The National Taxpayers Union website says, See: ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.htmlIn 1999 half the taxpayers made $26.415 or less and paid 4% of all income taxes. The top 5% of taxpayers made $120,846 or more and paid 55.45% of all income taxes paid. In 2008 half the taxpayers made $33,048 or less and paid 2.7% of all income taxes paid. The top 5% of taxpayers made $159,619 or more and paid 58.72% of all taxes paid. Who got the tax breaks?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 1, 2011 17:34:58 GMT -5
Acording to the Congressinal Budget Office: Total federal revenues grew by about $625 billion, or a 35 percent increase, between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2006. The National Taxpayers Union website says, See: ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.htmlIn 1999 half the taxpayers made $26.415 or less and paid 4% of all income taxes. The top 5% of taxpayers made $120,846 or more and paid 55.45% of all income taxes paid. In 2008 half the taxpayers made $33,048 or less and paid 2.7% of all income taxes paid. The top 5% of taxpayers made $159,619 or more and paid 58.72% of all taxes paid. Who got the tax breaks? everyone did. but disproportionately, they went to the wealthy. that is because the upper brackets basically doubled their income in the last 20 years, and the lower went down to nowhere. so, yes, they paid a greater share of the taxes in 2010 than they did in 2000. but they also took a greater share of the pie- and their share of the pie increased far more than their taxes did.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Aug 1, 2011 17:54:15 GMT -5
Let's see your numbers. Keep in mind the upper brackets are probably the people furnishing you with all the stuff from all those cheap overseas labor practices. You now what I mean , , , cheap imported food, cars, clothes, tools, etc. The stuff that union demands caused the upper brackets to look for overseas, at prices those same unions would be willing to pay, because they refused to buy the very things they produced.
And STILL do.
|
|
mwcpa
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 7, 2011 6:35:43 GMT -5
Posts: 2,425
|
Post by mwcpa on Aug 1, 2011 17:54:56 GMT -5
"Who got the tax breaks?"
those who gambled, I mean, invested in the stock market. the worker class paid disproportionately more than the investors of publicly traded security class (these investments are different than investing in a start up or directly to a company, like an IPO)....
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Aug 1, 2011 17:57:20 GMT -5
cpa, I believe you are talking about how retirement funds are invested in the markets and expected to grow, aren't you?
I mean, do employers put their government mandated 401k's, (and the like), in the bank down the street, or do they invest them in publically traded securities?
|
|
mwcpa
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 7, 2011 6:35:43 GMT -5
Posts: 2,425
|
Post by mwcpa on Aug 1, 2011 18:06:24 GMT -5
no, I am talking about the 15% tax rate on certain investment income earned on publicly traded securities... retirement investing is not given the same disproportionate preferential treatment....the bill of goods sold to the American people was that those who invest in publicly traded securities created all the jobs...
if I was born wealthy and had a smart money manager invest what Grandpa made the money manager would pay 30+% on his earnings from work where I would pay 15% on my earnings from no work.... oh, but there I go, the rich guy created a job, another banker on Wall Street....
these are my opinions.... I strongly disagree with a 15% tax rate on gains from publicly traded securities... invest directly in an IPO or a small company, then, yes a lower tax rate is a good thing... that is real investment... not a form of legalized gambling...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 9:13:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2011 18:17:37 GMT -5
but they also took a greater share of the pie- and their share of the pie increased far more than their taxes did.djlungrot
Djlungrot don't YOU get a greater share of the pie than any of the workers that are employed under you? Surely you hand out money to them every payday to even things up? UNLESS you have the Republican idea that you get paid more because you have done a better job than they did & progressed up in the company.
The way I look at it is simple & real straight forward. If you don't hand out money every payday then your doing EXACTLY what the rich are doing. You made your money & your trying to keep it. So why is it that everybody but you is exempt & should be taxed at a higher rate? Don't forget, when it comes time to raise those taxes there aren't enough rich people so the bar lowers as to what a rich person is. I'm betting that YOU will be promoted to that level (at least by Obama standards) & taxes excessively too.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 9:13:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2011 18:31:12 GMT -5
Total federal revenues grew by about $625 billion, or a 35 percent increase, between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2006.
If George Washington himself brought proof of this to each & every person on these boards there would be some that would say that were wasn't a year 2003 or 2006. I gave up supplying "proof" a long time ago.
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Aug 1, 2011 18:35:55 GMT -5
Old Tex: Sometimes you might as well be talking to a wood pile. ;D
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Aug 1, 2011 18:55:25 GMT -5
cpa, you refer to a smart money manager as being something ominous. I refer to special interest lobbyists in the same way. But they are both here, and they will probably stay here. In a manner of speaking the smart money manager just helps the poorly managed companies , (the one with a marketable product), go under sooner while keeping the good marketable product available to customers.
On the tax rates for investment income: I haven't given the rates that much thought because I was never able to get myself a good money manager and always lost in the end. GOOD money managers are rare. An acquaintance once cashed in his retirement account and turned it over to Merrill Lynch. Within two years he was one of a group of people who sued ML for mismanagement. I never knew how it turned out for the other parties, buy he recovered ~~$10,000 of one account that had been ~~$35,000 when they set it up. And ML kept the person who did it.
In a declining market such as we've had for three years I can't think of any GOOD reason for raising tax rates unless it's on foreign source income. Passive income first, but on ALL foreign source income, individual and corporate. We've not only exported our technology, we're also furnishing the know-how and educating our competitors, all to our own detriment.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Aug 1, 2011 20:39:03 GMT -5
How is one gambling but the other is not? An IPO and/or small company is a much higher risk than a well established publicly traded security in most cases. So a LT investor in JNJ should pay income tax rates on earnings while a gambler investing in an IPO gets the cap gains rate?
There are already penalties for gambling in the stock market. You only get the discounted LT rate when you hold for over a year [which is no surprise to you].
The cap gains tax is already implicitly increasing by nearly 4% on those that make over $250k with the Medicare tax in Obamacare. Surely, you don't want to ensnare the middle class in these ideas that promote the idea of investing less than the middle class does now.
What you begin to see when looking at wealth distribution information is that the poor and middle class typically do not "invest" well. They have a lot of their net worth tied up in assets that don't compound well [savings, CD's, whole life insurance] or have a lot of dead money in their home. Meanwhile, the top 20% is more heavily invested in the stock market and have benefited over the past 30 years of being invested well.
I'll also say that the net worth of the bottom 80% as a total percent of the pie has barely moved since the early 90's. In absolute terms, the bottom 80% is much better off than it was in the 90's but as a percent of the pie are only lower by 1% [i.e. 16% in 1992 of total net worth, 15% in 2007]. And the percentage would have increased from the 2007 value since the top 20% is more heavily invested in stocks and NOO real estates - the two areas that have been crushed in the recession.
Meanwhile, if we look at the top 1%, their total share of net worth since 1992 has DECREASED by about 3% while the next 19% has increased by 4% [i.e. they benefited from the loss of 3% and 1% from the top 1% and the bottom 80%, respectively].
So, when Obama wants to redistribute the wealth and when others say that things are all out of whack, they mean the top 19% has become too well off and that needs to be fixed. Those are the managerial types, office professionals, small business owners - the people that are not rich.
I haven't found anyone yet who can explain why this wasn't an issue in the 90's when the distribution of wealth was just as bad or worse than now? Maybe the messaging is better now?
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Aug 1, 2011 20:55:39 GMT -5
Income Mobility for All Income Groups is Significant mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/08/income-mobility-for-all-income-groups.htmlFrom a 2010 St. Louis Fed report "U.S. Income Inequality: It’s Not So Bad": "One big problem with inferring income inequality from the census income statistics is that the census statistics provide only a snapshot of income distribution in the U.S., at a single point in time. The statistics do not reflect the reality that income for many households changes over time—i.e., incomes are mobile. For most people, income increases over time as they move from their first, low-paying job in high school to a better-paying job later in their lives. Also, some people lose income over time because of business-cycle contractions, demotions, career changes, retirement, etc. The implication of changing individual incomes is that individual households do not remain in the same income quintiles over time. Thus, comparing different income quintiles over time is like comparing apples to oranges, because it means comparing incomes of different people at different stages in their earnings profile. The U.S. Treasury released a study in November 2007 that examined income mobility in the U.S. from 1996 to 2005. Using data from individual tax returns, the study documented the movement of households along the distribution of real income over the 10-year period. The study found that nearly 58 percent of the households that were in the lowest income quintile (the lowest 20 percent) in 1996 moved to a higher income quintile by 2005 (see top chart above). Similarly, nearly 50 percent of the households in the second-lowest quintile in 1996 moved to a higher income quintile by 2005. Even a significant number of households in the third- and fourth-lowest income quintiles in 1996 moved to a higher quintile in 2005. The Treasury study also documented falls in household income between 1996 and 2005. This is most interesting when considering the richest households. As shown in the bottom chart above, more than 57 percent of the richest 1 percent of households in 1996 fell out of that category by 2005. Similarly, more than 45 percent of the households that ranked in the top 5 percent of income in 1996 fell out of that category by 2005. Thus it is clear that over time, a significant number of households move to higher positions along the income distribution, and a significant number move to lower positions along the income distribution. Common reference to “classes” of people (e.g., the lowest 20 percent or the richest 10 percent) is quite misleading because income classes do not contain the same households and people over time." Thomas Sowell sums up the issue of income inequality and income mobility this way: "Only by focusing on the income brackets, instead of the actual people moving between those brackets, have the intelligentsia been able to verbally create a "problem" for which a "solution" is necessary. They have created a powerful vision of "classes" with "disparities" and "inequities" in income, caused by "barriers" created by "society." But the routine rise of millions of people out of the lowest quintile over time makes a mockery of the "barriers" assumed by many, if not most, of the intelligentsia."
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Aug 1, 2011 21:05:30 GMT -5
Not as shocking when you hear other people say that the richest 1% are athletes and CEOs - which both have a short shelf life.
It's also popular to report about the hedge fund manager that made millions one year in a really good bet he made...they never follow up with the story about them losing their shirt a couple years later when the bet went the wrong way. That story isn't as fun, even though the vilification of Wall Street would suggest otherwise.
Maybe it was just me that went to a college with a number of people from working class families but I know many people that have increased by at least one quintile in their earnings. I've been fortunate enough to go from the bottom to up near the top - it wasn't easy.
It would be sad if a country penalized those that worked so hard to get where they are today, whether they were born with the silver spoon or on welfare [like myself].
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 9:13:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2011 21:29:02 GMT -5
It would be sad if a country penalized those that worked so hard to get where they are today, whether they were born with the silver spoon or on welfare [like myself].
I think it's more than sad, I think it's criminal. And to believe that garbage about taking from the rich just because "they have it" is criminally stupid. Apply that thinking to people here. We all have a computer. By your standards anyone that doesn't have a computer has the right to take yours. Their car doesn't run, they can take yours. Sure you don't think that it applies but that's because you aren't wanting something you don't have. With the rich you are wanting something you don't have.
Oh & just like I told djlungrot YOU are the next rich person. You can pretend all you want but facts are facts. The rich aren't rich enough & there aren't enough of them. The U.S. has ALWAYS gotten a huge percentage of it's taxes from the middle class & it will continue to do that. So what is considered rich today (& taxable at a higher rate) will change as more taxes are needed. Some of you (maybe all of us) will move into the RICH category. Don't forget 48% of Americans are considered to poor to even pay taxes. If you pay taxes YOU are a prime target to pay more taxes. And don't be a fool & say "Oh its for the good of everybody so it's ok". They are going to tax the hell out of you. It will climb & keep climbing. Your going to live your old age in a smaller house & a cheaper car & have a lot less to spend. Actually THINK ABOUT IT & Actually get off your butts & look at the numbers.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Aug 1, 2011 21:48:15 GMT -5
I was taught at a very young age that stealing is stealing and it's wrong. As you've correctly stated, 48% are now stealing from 52% in this country. And that's not even considering that these 48% also often receive more in SS benefits than they pay into the system because of the welfaric nature of that system.
It should be criminal - which is why it's always dangerous to give the government power. Something they do that would be considered criminal if done by any other establishment or person becomes second nature and even widely accepted by some people in the country.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
|
Post by billisonboard on Aug 1, 2011 22:35:20 GMT -5
James Otis: “Taxation without representation is tyranny.” formerexpat: "Taxation with representation is theft"
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Aug 1, 2011 22:51:10 GMT -5
Ben Franklin: “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
Dr Adrian Rogers: “What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.”
I'm not sure who is being "represented" when it comes to our tax code.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
|
Post by billisonboard on Aug 1, 2011 23:40:29 GMT -5
Ben Franklin: “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
Ben was a smart man.
Dr Adrian Rogers: “What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.”
Rogers is clearly correct. In our system since we are the government, it would be correct also to state it as "...we cannot give to anybody that which we (don't) first take from somebody else." The nature of a democratic form of government.
I'm not sure who is being "represented" when it comes to our tax code.
I am not sure either.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 2, 2011 9:40:40 GMT -5
Let's see your numbers. Keep in mind the upper brackets are probably the people furnishing you with all the stuff from all those cheap overseas labor practices. You now what I mean , , , cheap imported food, cars, clothes, tools, etc. The stuff that union demands caused the upper brackets to look for overseas, at prices those same unions would be willing to pay, because they refused to buy the very things they produced. And STILL do. how good are you with distribution charts and tables? this stuff is hard to express in sound bites. it takes a bit of math to see it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 2, 2011 9:44:13 GMT -5
Total federal revenues grew by about $625 billion, or a 35 percent increase, between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2006.If George Washington himself brought proof of this to each & every person on these boards there would be some that would say that were wasn't a year 2003 or 2006. I gave up supplying "proof" a long time ago. that is because the economy was booming during that stretch. that created a lot of income. that income was taxable. that is why revenues increased. but the problem is that the starting point was a lower baseline than 2001. due to the tax cuts. this is the equivalent of leaving a job that paid $75k/year, and getting one that pays $50k/year, and then bragging 5 years later that you are making $5k more than your old job, while failing to take into account that the job you left is now paying over $100k.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 2, 2011 9:48:29 GMT -5
but they also took a greater share of the pie- and their share of the pie increased far more than their taxes did.djlungrot Djlungrot don't YOU get a greater share of the pie than any of the workers that are employed under you? Surely you hand out money to them every payday to even things up? UNLESS you have the Republican idea that you get paid more because you have done a better job than they did & progressed up in the company. actually, until i had been with the company for over (10) years, our lead welder got paid more than i did. after that, my production supervisor got paid more than i did, until he left in 2008. the first year i was paid the most in my business was 2009. but i think most businessmen would argue that it is not "doing a better job" but "taking more risk" that entitles them to more pay. in my case, i guarantee company loans, for example. that is a considerable risk to me that employees don't have to bear.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 2, 2011 9:52:06 GMT -5
The way I look at it is simple & real straight forward. If you don't hand out money every payday then your doing EXACTLY what the rich are doing. You made your money & your trying to keep it. So why is it that everybody but you is exempt & should be taxed at a higher rate? Don't forget, when it comes time to raise those taxes there aren't enough rich people so the bar lowers as to what a rich person is. I'm betting that YOU will be promoted to that level (at least by Obama standards) & taxes excessively too. my dad paid twice as much in tax when he ran the business. i have no grounds for complaining about being overtaxed. but i think everyone here is missing the point. when i say "disproportionately benefit" i mean "benefit more than their share of revenue would otherwise indicate", NOT "benefit more because they pay more".
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Aug 2, 2011 9:52:36 GMT -5
this is the equivalent of leaving a job that paid $75k/year, and getting one that pays $50k/year, and then bragging 5 years later that you are making $5k more than your old job, while failing to take into account that the job you left is now paying over $100k. lmao....that sounds an awful lot like the government budgeting process.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 2, 2011 10:23:17 GMT -5
this is the equivalent of leaving a job that paid $75k/year, and getting one that pays $50k/year, and then bragging 5 years later that you are making $5k more than your old job, while failing to take into account that the job you left is now paying over $100k. lmao....that sounds an awful lot like the government budgeting process. people do this sort of thing all the time. the problem with doing economic studies is that if you don't fail to account for the noise in the system, it is impossible to show the impact. and people, especially laypeople, rarely do that. she weighs the same as a duck therefore she is made of wood.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 2, 2011 10:54:41 GMT -5
Total federal revenues grew by about $625 billion, or a 35 percent increase, between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2006.If George Washington himself brought proof of this to each & every person on these boards there would be some that would say that were wasn't a year 2003 or 2006. I gave up supplying "proof" a long time ago. that is because the economy was booming during that stretch. that created a lot of income. that income was taxable. that is why revenues increased. but the problem is that the starting point was a lower baseline than 2001. due to the tax cuts. this is the equivalent of leaving a job that paid $75k/year, and getting one that pays $50k/year, and then bragging 5 years later that you are making $5k more than your old job, while failing to take into account that the job you left is now paying over $100k. Thank you. It is misleading to pick the low point & then rave about much tax revenue has increased since then, while ignoring the earlier decline in revenue. Kind of like talking about how great the stock market is doing because it is up almost 100% in the last 2 years while completely ignoring the huge drop in the years before that point.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Aug 2, 2011 10:58:00 GMT -5
Kind of like talking about how great the stock market is doing because it is up almost 100% in the last 2 years while completely ignoring the huge drop in the years before that point.
Yeah, the stock market did fantastic. Nearly doubled. During that time I was pumping 10s of thousands, probably well over $75,000 into my 401k, roth, and taxable accounts. It was the buying opportunity we will never see in our lifetimes.
Federal tax revenues were at historic levels a few short years after the tax cuts.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 2, 2011 11:01:37 GMT -5
Kind of like talking about how great the stock market is doing because it is up almost 100% in the last 2 years while completely ignoring the huge drop in the years before that point. Yeah, the stock market did fantastic. Nearly doubled. During that time I was pumping 10s of thousands, probably well over $75,000 into my 401k, roth, and taxable accounts. It was the buying opportunity we will never see in our lifetimes. Federal tax revenues were at historic levels a few short years after the tax cuts. .....and about 20% below where they would have been without tax cuts. but don't take my word for it. take the OTA's.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 2, 2011 11:06:05 GMT -5
In 1999 half the taxpayers made $26.415 or less and paid 4% of all income taxes. The top 5% of taxpayers made $120,846 or more and paid 55.45% of all income taxes paid. In 2008 half the taxpayers made $33,048 or less and paid 2.7% of all income taxes paid. The top 5% of taxpayers made $159,619 or more and paid 58.72% of all taxes paid. Who got the tax breaks? You are presenting the data in a misleading way. The % of all income taxes paid isn't really relevent in knowing who got tax breaks, the % of taxes actually paid by each group would be far more relevent. In 1999 the top 5% paid an average tax rate of 24.18%, in 2008 it was 20.7%. Their tax rate went down 3.48% & based on the 159K income, their taxes dropped 5.5K. In 1999 the bottom 50% paid an average tax rate of 4.49%, in 2008 it was 2.59%. Their tax rate went down 1.9% & based on the 33K income, their taxes dropped $630. The rich had a larger cut in average tax rates & a much larger drop in taxes paid. So who got the tax breaks? Like djlungrot said - everyone did, but the wealthy benefited far more from them.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Aug 2, 2011 11:07:18 GMT -5
and about 20% below where they would have been without tax cuts. but don't take my word for it. take the OTA's.
The equities markets were growing at 15 to 25% shortly after the tax cuts in 2003.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Aug 2, 2011 11:08:35 GMT -5
The rich had a larger cut in average tax rates & a much larger drop in taxes paid. So who got the tax breaks? Like djlungrot said - everyone did, but the wealthy benefited far more from them.
Stands to reason, since they pay the most taxes. Anyone with an elementary school education could figure that out.
|
|