Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dub
Thats incredibly convoluted logic if you ask me and even more vague than the original statistic. I don't think you can really tell much of anything from what you just said because because it relies on a ton of supposition.
|
if the stat is based on household income and the taxes being discussed in this thread are based on individual income, why does it not stand to reason that less than 5% of income earners will be subject to these taxes? what's convoluted about that? is it unreasonable to assume that there are more households whose income earners gross nearly 200k combined than there are individual income earners who gross nearly 200k alone?
edit: and yes, this is all based on the assumption that the stat is correct and it pertains to gross household income rather than individual income. if that's the case, i'm only pointing out that it's not comparing apples to oranges as you said.
__________________
you can't explain the rules of tennis to a dog, but he runs after it and plays with it...like the dog playing with the ball, we don't have the necessary tools needed to interpret the afterlife..until we get there, then a whole new universe is given to us. Perhaps 200 billion light years away, there's the next phase of our existance..Remember you cannot destroy energy, which is all we are...
-matthew munari
rip matt
