Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Rich pay higher % of taxes in '05 than they did in the 90's
online.wsj.com — Every Democrat running for President wants to raise taxes on "the rich," but they will have to do something miraculous to out tax President Bush. Based on the latest available tax data, no Administration in modern history has done more to pry tax revenue from the wealthy.
brallsplp- 39 diggs
- digg it
- pintomp3, on 04/18/2008, -11/+2their share of the wealth has also grown.
- brallsplp, on 04/18/2008, -1/+9I think that you will notice in the chart above that it grew more slowly in the 2000's than it did in the 90's? How did that happen? one might ask!
- tgolferman, on 04/23/2008, -1/+1Statistically speaking percentage growth is always easier from a lower starting number. To get the same percentage of growth year after year requires a much larger increase year over year. That alone can account for the slower growth. Since taxes are always a percentage of income they are therefore a smaller number and thus can statistically appear to be changing at a different rate than income year over year.
- davidmesaaz, on 04/23/2008, -0/+10The problem with the idea of share of wealth is the idea that wealth is a zero sum game. Its the idea that if the wealthy get more wealth there is less weath for the rest of us..Wealth is not distributed wealth is created. People share of the wealth is determined by skills.
- tgolferman, on 04/23/2008, -3/+1Not exactly! A braindead wealthy trust beneficiary lying in a institution can have more wealth than a skilled neuro surgeon. Also the sheer power derived from being wealthy can affect the share of wealth attained by the most skilled individuals. This is one of the many reasons for taxes and redistribution of wealth.
- novaculus, on 04/24/2008, -0/+3Someone up the line had to earn the money to fund that trust. Your position denies the wealth builder the right to distribute his wealth as he or she sees fit, to family, friends, loyal employees who helped build the wealth, favored charities, etc. By what right does anyone else lay claim to that property?
What a load! The real reason for taxes and "redistribution of wealth" is to take from the earners and builders and give to the parasites. - ikbrooks, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1While you earn you learn. And as you learn you see the wisdom of sound economic policy and decisions. That is why the wealthy continue to get wealthy...er. Giving it to someone that has not earned it places them at a disadvantage. They do not know how to keep it or make it grow and more often than not it will soon be lost and the individual will be worse off than when they started having upgraded their lifestyle to fit an income that is no longer there. Gotta go I think they are about to announce tonights winners in the lottery.
- davidmesaaz, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Again your fixation with share of wealth. There is percentage of wealth and actual wealth. If your share of the wealth can't buy a home or a car. Its as if you would prefer to live poorer if everyone had an equal share.
I don't worry about the trust fund babies. Many of them blow the fortune and their families become middle class. 90 percent of the wealth in this country is first generation wealth.
- novaculus, on 04/24/2008, -0/+3Someone up the line had to earn the money to fund that trust. Your position denies the wealth builder the right to distribute his wealth as he or she sees fit, to family, friends, loyal employees who helped build the wealth, favored charities, etc. By what right does anyone else lay claim to that property?
- tgolferman, on 04/23/2008, -3/+1Not exactly! A braindead wealthy trust beneficiary lying in a institution can have more wealth than a skilled neuro surgeon. Also the sheer power derived from being wealthy can affect the share of wealth attained by the most skilled individuals. This is one of the many reasons for taxes and redistribution of wealth.
- InRussetShadows, on 04/23/2008, -0/+6Exactly, David. The whole theory that leftists run on is simply this -- "If they have more, I must have less." Only people who hate for others to succeed buy into that.
- tgolferman, on 04/23/2008, -2/+1Logic and reason is what most people run on. I might be left or right. However, assuming that at any given moment in time there is a finite amount of currency in circulation, one could safely deduce that some will have more and some will have less. I could be a rightist and have a competitor that figures out a tax dodge that I am not privy to and that accumulation of wealth may give that competitor an advantage or absolute power over me and my enterprise and eventually that competitor could sink my battleship so to speak. You simplify way too much and obviously have a lot of power and wealth to loose as indicated by your tone and stereotypical thought process displayed for all to see.
- Troika37, on 04/24/2008, -0/+5I live paycheck to paycheck. I do not have money hiding in a trust fund or offshore account. I STILL do not think it is the government's job to take money from the people who have worked most of their lives to earn it, only to give it to me so I don't have to work as hard as they did.
- tgolferman, on 04/23/2008, -2/+1Logic and reason is what most people run on. I might be left or right. However, assuming that at any given moment in time there is a finite amount of currency in circulation, one could safely deduce that some will have more and some will have less. I could be a rightist and have a competitor that figures out a tax dodge that I am not privy to and that accumulation of wealth may give that competitor an advantage or absolute power over me and my enterprise and eventually that competitor could sink my battleship so to speak. You simplify way too much and obviously have a lot of power and wealth to loose as indicated by your tone and stereotypical thought process displayed for all to see.
- brallsplp, on 04/18/2008, -1/+9I think that you will notice in the chart above that it grew more slowly in the 2000's than it did in the 90's? How did that happen? one might ask!
- davidmesaaz, on 04/23/2008, -1/+14Poverty is a measure between a persons costs and a persons income. We should be concerned with he cost of food and of college and education. But what we should not be concerned with is the difference between the rich and the poor. Just because Bill Gates "share" of the grows that does not make me worse off and if his wealth decreases that does not make me worse off. My costs and income are independent of Bill Gates's wealth.
- Michisor123USA, on 04/23/2008, -1/+2Yes, it is too much talk about Rich and Poor people. Usualy is not the Rich fault that sombody is poor, sombody is poor because didn't make the effore to get educated, to work hard, take responsabilitis etc, and is nobody to blame except that person actions in life. How much I make is based on my education, my hard working habits, my determination to make it in life, and doing so, I don't impact others not to do what I do. Regards Michey
- tgolferman, on 04/23/2008, -1/+1What?
- tgolferman, on 04/23/2008, -2/+1There is this pie you see. I'm Bill Gates and I'm gonna do what I can to get more of that pie. If I succeed you get less. Follow me. I'm gonna use my wealth to make sure I get more of every pie, which means that I will influence government officials or anyone for that matter to do my bidding which might affect your wealth or pie slice inventory. Like it or lump it. I'm king of the hill and I dare you to knock me off. Simple Simon.
- tgolferman, on 04/23/2008, -2/+1Continued: The earlier little role play highlights why taxes and redistribution of wealth is a societal concern. Some in society like the game of gaming the system and accumulating more power and wealth than others and utilizing said for further economic and political advantage. "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" and is what wealth redistribution tries to prevent. Look at how screwed up our economy is at the moment. Powerful, Wealthy people are at the heart of why our political leaders do what they do and are causal factors related to the economic policy mistakes that occur. Sometimes they get it right and make a buck and sometimes they get it wrong and make much more. Sorry to be so brutally honest. What matters most to me is that I make more than everyone. Ha, Ha.
- davidmesaaz, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2Pie? Again your under the assumption that wealth is a zero sum game. Which it is not. When you go to work are you taking money from those poorer than you? Every day that you go to work are you making some poor soul in China worse off because you taking more of the pie?
- tgolferman, on 04/24/2008, -1/+1Wealth a zero sum game? Respectfully my friend, wealth is an outcome of different economic games like business, investing, saving, gambling, or inheritance to name a few. When I go to work and beat out a competitor for a contract, my company gets the revenue from that contract, a zero sum game. Do I directly take money from someone poorer than me when I go to work? I hate to be blunt, but the question itself is logically flawed. Why? First, because some customers may have more wealth than I and some may have less. Second, your argument makes going to work sound as though I were a pan handler or common thief just taking money. Third, working in or owning a business is an involvement in a process of creating a product or service of some value which customers are willing to exchange for currency or other products or services in the case of barter. Your next question suffers the same fate as the earlier question.
Respectfully your argument, if I am not mistaken, attempts to defend the current state of deregulation and our tax code in all of its magnificant splendor. Let me see if I can help you with your argument. It appears that you believe that in addressing the problems of the poor we must not confuse ourselves in that effort by letting our attention be distracted by the rich. Oh darn, unless we are willing to print more money so that the poor can get a crack at it we probably can't make that work.
Let me try another way. Lets start with the premise that the poor have little to nothing and we're trying to figure out the best way to get them something. Everyone has their current portion of the pie, what ever that pie may be. Now, unless the poor have something we with more money want to purchase or we all agree upon the use of some formula to determine what we'll allocate to the poor then we will need to print more money and determine the best method of distributing that money. Are you with me on that? Just printing money is too easy; therefore, it must be wrong and I will abandon that option. Now, we are left with the poor selling us something we want in return for currency or something like a tax and figuring out the best method of distribution. Still with me? Wait a minute, a tax?
It seems like no matter how you slice it or dice it, unless we print more money just for the poor, everyone of varying degree will have to have less for the poor to have more. Hey wait a minute, I read once that taxes are a mechanism of Civil Society to redistribute wealth and prevent unhealthy concentrations of wealth and power. Now, we have boiled it down to them getting something, but should it be charity or a loan to help them build an additonal subset of the global economy? Now, we've been living with our tax code and the current level of deregulation for some time now and the poor are getting poorer. In fact, in the U.S. the number of people without health insurance is skyrocketing, so it might be safe to say that the system is broke and needs fixing. Well that leaves us with regulation and taxation. Ouch!! The Republican conservative in me is smarting because the Moderate Democrat in me just realized that deregulation in business is like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop and supply side trickle down economics will only serve to make the wealthy wealthier and more powerful. Not to mention we just spent a lot of time analyzing how to get the poor more.
Don't feel bad, I got suckered into the conservative trap of believing in deregulation and trickle down when I was much younger. Fortunately, along the way I figured out how to make money on bankrupt banking stocks when Pa Pa Bush was in power so the sting was not so bad, but each succeeding train wreck and taxpayer bailout has convinced me that our form of Capitalism needs to adapt and follow the lead of Switzerland. Can you imagine how much stress you are relieved from when your government has universal health care and the budget is balanced?- davidmesaaz, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1
Tax are not a means of redistrubution they are to pay for the role of government education public defense etc. We should be concerned with the costs of those things. This is not about the rich versus the poor its about the skilled versus the unskilled. Skilled people will always get more money than the unskilled. The men who created digg youtube Ford Motor were not some rich well connected elites but they had a idea to make things better. Who mad them rich? You and I we dedcide that there products made our lifes better and the market place
Healthcare is geting more expensive because of more regulations and not less. In the 1990's Hilarycare was abandoned at the national level but not at the state level. Mandates that required the level of care and mandated insurance companies to cover everyone has raised the cost of healthcare. Also big pharma blocks generics from going to market. In healthcare the trend is more regulations and not less. There is a good book called Who killed Healthcare. We need less regulation in healthcare not more.
http://digg.com/business_finance/John_Stossel_owns ...
Switzerland does not have a redistribute policy for one. it has a flat tax. Secondly if it is such a great place for workers why aren't they attracting the best and brightest immigrants? Why did Sergey Brin the founder of Google move from Russia to the US instead of the Switerzland? Europe is falling behind in innovations. Switzerland has lost a phramasuetical company it moved from Zurich to Boston.
A just society is not one where all people get rewarded equally a just society is where people get rewarded according to their skills. Therefore the question that we need to be asking ourselves is how do we give the poor the skills to compete in the global economy and not how do we give the poor more money.
- davidmesaaz, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1
- tgolferman, on 04/24/2008, -1/+1Wealth a zero sum game? Respectfully my friend, wealth is an outcome of different economic games like business, investing, saving, gambling, or inheritance to name a few. When I go to work and beat out a competitor for a contract, my company gets the revenue from that contract, a zero sum game. Do I directly take money from someone poorer than me when I go to work? I hate to be blunt, but the question itself is logically flawed. Why? First, because some customers may have more wealth than I and some may have less. Second, your argument makes going to work sound as though I were a pan handler or common thief just taking money. Third, working in or owning a business is an involvement in a process of creating a product or service of some value which customers are willing to exchange for currency or other products or services in the case of barter. Your next question suffers the same fate as the earlier question.
- davidmesaaz, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1
Tax are not a means of redistrubution they are to pay for the role of government education public defense etc. We should be concerned with the costs of those things. This is not about the rich versus the poor its about the skilled versus the unskilled. Skilled people will always get more money than the unskilled. The men who created digg youtube Ford Motor were not some rich well connected elites but they had a idea to make things better. Who made them rich? You and I we dedcide that there products made our lifes better and the market place
Healthcare is geting more expensive because of more regulations and not less. In the 1990's Hilarycare was abandoned at the national level but not at the state level. Mandates that required the level of care and mandated insurance companies to cover everyone has raised the cost of healthcare. Also big pharma blocks generics from going to market. In healthcare the trend is more regulations and not less. There is a good book called Who killed Healthcare. We need less regulation in healthcare not more.
http://digg.com/business_finance/John_Stossel_owns ...
Switzerland does not have a redistribute policy for one. it has a flat tax. Secondly if it is such a great place for workers why aren't they attracting the best and brightest immigrants? Secondly if they are so great for the worker why did Sergey Brin the founder of Google move from Russia to the US instead of the Switerzland? Europe is falling behind in innovations. Switzerland has lost a phramasuetical company it moved from Zurich to Boston. The workers paradise of Germany has lost over a 150,000 workers in 2004 the highest total since 1884.
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID ...
A just society is not one where all people get rewarded equally a just society is where people get rewarded according to their skills. Therefore the question that we need to be asking ourselves is how do we give the poor the skills to compete in the global economy and not how do we give the poor more money.
To answer your question we give the poor money by giving them skills. Even with the best educational system not everyone is going to turn into a Mozart a Bill Gates. Genius and skills are not always are not evenly distributed for whatever reason and therefore they should not be evenly rewarded
Using a flat tax the rich will pay more taxes and not less. Since the 1990's the share of taxes paid for by the richest 5 percent has increased not decreased. Right now there are tax breaks for everything imaginable speed boats corporate suites at sports stadiums. With a flat tax that would all be eliminated.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114670305012743294 ...
Regulations help the rich more than they help the poor. They ossify the position those in power and restrict new ideas from entering. With out Airline deregulations there would never been Southwest airlines to drive down the cost of ariline travel. This helped the poor and hurt the ineffecient large corporations. For years the telephone industry regulated that you must have a black rotary telephone. But deregulation cellphones have cut the price of a long distance phone call from several dollars per minute in the 1970's to pennies per minute today. in a regulated society large corporate intrest would have blocked new competitor such as skype while dictating the price which they should charge. One of the great flaws of regulations
- Michisor123USA, on 04/23/2008, -1/+2Yes, it is too much talk about Rich and Poor people. Usualy is not the Rich fault that sombody is poor, sombody is poor because didn't make the effore to get educated, to work hard, take responsabilitis etc, and is nobody to blame except that person actions in life. How much I make is based on my education, my hard working habits, my determination to make it in life, and doing so, I don't impact others not to do what I do. Regards Michey
- tatercakes, on 04/23/2008, -7/+0I dont think your costs and income are independent of Bill Gates. More money to put in social programs and education aren't just a nice thing to do, they boosts the economy by lowering unemployment, which means theres better jobs for you and you're not going to get laid off.
- davidmesaaz, on 04/23/2008, -0/+8So what are you saying they are dependent on Bill Gates? That Bill Gates determines the cost of things? I seriously doubt that you believe that...
- InRussetShadows, on 04/23/2008, -0/+6I want to know how Bill Gates' wealth determines my costs and income. Come on now. This is revolutionary stuff. What do you know that no-one else knows?
- davidmesaaz, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2We should spend more money on education raising taxes rates on the rich does not necessarily raise tax revenues. In fact there is evidence to the contrary.
- Troika37, on 04/23/2008, -0/+13FTA: "Notably, however, the share of taxes paid by the top 1% has kept climbing this decade -- to 39.4% in 2005, from 37.4% in 2000. The share paid by the top 5% has increased even more rapidly. In other words, despite the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003, the rich saw their share of taxes paid rise at a faster rate than their share of income. "
But... But... Bush is giving tax breaks to his rich cronies and screwing the rest of the country. Hillary told me and she's NEVER lied!
oh... wait...- tgolferman, on 04/23/2008, -2/+1Not exactly. Earned income is different from Interest and Dividend Income and falls in a different statistical category. The real question that even Warren Buffet wants addressed is how much tax was avoided by the top 1 or 5 percent of income earners. Another question to be asked is how much income and tax was avoided by offshoring say in Bermuda by the folks who can afford the tax and legal council to pull that type of stuff off?
- Troika37, on 04/23/2008, -2/+1So you do not contest the fact that the richest 5% of the nation has 35% of the national income and yet pays 60% of the total tax?
I think that is as it should be. They make more, they pay more. If you are suggesting that number should be closer to 70 or 80%, then you are making a second argument, not addressed by this article which simply points out that the overwhelming majority of US taxes are paid by the slimmest minority.- tgolferman, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Respectfully Troika37, are you kidding me? I contend the article is spin. This article appears in the WSJ yet the article is written by whom? I just went back to the article to make sure, but the writer is not identified as of 9:12pm CDST on 4/24/08. They cite no specific sources of data for the presented analysis. Which is probably why the writer remains anonomous. The article is a spin job and I made no recommendations in my earlier comment of your comment. However, Warren Buffett challenged other billionaires to push for changes in the tax laws. He cited the fact that his secretary paid a higher tax rate on her measly 5 or low 6 figure income than he paid. I believe you can google or yahoo my Buffett tidbit. I don't make the news I just remind fellow debaters of facts that buttress my arguments or support my observations. Nothing personal. I'm not here debating to make you wrong so I can be right. I'm here taking a side of an issue and hoping that the ensuing debate will produce something positive. If I end up being wrong on an issue and can learn something from the debate all the better I say.
- Troika37, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Sources for the data include the Congressional Budget Office, the IRS and the Department of the Treasury. All are named as sources for the data in the article. Please read the first sentence of the second paragraph, and the citation on the chart.
Also, it is not unusal for articles to be listed without an author. It is so common, in fact that the MLA style guide lists the way to properly cite an author-less piece. http://library.ucr.edu/?view=help/guides/mla6th200 ...
To the points. Buffett says he earned $46 million in 2006, with a tax rate of 17.7 percent, but his income clearly places him in the highest federal income tax bracket - 35%. Assuming his secretary made $60,000, the highest bracket she could be placed in is 25%. For argument's sake, let's place the secretary in the highest possible income tax bracket. After the standard deduction ($5,150) and one personal exemption ($3,300), the secretary's taxable income becomes $51,550 -- the 25 percent tax bracket. This means the secretary pays $9,439 in taxes -- or 15.7 percent of the $60,000 annual income. Buffett, on the other hand, paid well over $8 million in taxes, 17.7%.
One should also consider the fact that Mr. Buffett does not earn a salary. He earns interest and pays a capital gains tax. According to Mr. Buffett: "Most of my income is taxed at 15 percent, and doesn't pay a payroll. Mainly it's dividends and capital gains." Any salaried person will pay a higher percentage than he does.
- Troika37, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Sources for the data include the Congressional Budget Office, the IRS and the Department of the Treasury. All are named as sources for the data in the article. Please read the first sentence of the second paragraph, and the citation on the chart.
- tgolferman, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Respectfully Troika37, are you kidding me? I contend the article is spin. This article appears in the WSJ yet the article is written by whom? I just went back to the article to make sure, but the writer is not identified as of 9:12pm CDST on 4/24/08. They cite no specific sources of data for the presented analysis. Which is probably why the writer remains anonomous. The article is a spin job and I made no recommendations in my earlier comment of your comment. However, Warren Buffett challenged other billionaires to push for changes in the tax laws. He cited the fact that his secretary paid a higher tax rate on her measly 5 or low 6 figure income than he paid. I believe you can google or yahoo my Buffett tidbit. I don't make the news I just remind fellow debaters of facts that buttress my arguments or support my observations. Nothing personal. I'm not here debating to make you wrong so I can be right. I'm here taking a side of an issue and hoping that the ensuing debate will produce something positive. If I end up being wrong on an issue and can learn something from the debate all the better I say.
- Troika37, on 04/23/2008, -2/+1So you do not contest the fact that the richest 5% of the nation has 35% of the national income and yet pays 60% of the total tax?
- tgolferman, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Respectfully Troika37, I read the article. There are no specific citations of the exact tables utilized. There appears to be a lot of interpretation applied to the data cited. Tell me the specific data table to go to to verify or disprove the claims in the article. Can you? Do any of the data sources have an interest in creating the perception of things being better than they are? Would you go out and buy into a CDO today if the government came out and said all is well in the CDO business? Author-less articles are neat, but when we're talking economics, accounting, and politics knowing the skill of the person writing the article and their political bent, if possible, helps in discerning the quality of the information presented. Concerning Mr. Buffett, I am not going to grind that much sausage. He was quoted in print and appeared on TV regarding his views on the tax code and his challenge to other U.S. billionaires fortunate enough to live in the U.S. and have the ability to earn the incomes or dividend / interest incomes urging them to lobby for a change in the tax code. Mr. Buffett is probably the most respected business person / investor in the world today and I trust his judgment when he and millions of U.S. citizens feel the U.S. Tax Code needs to be corrected in the direction he so indicated. Perhaps, Mr. Buffet's position is supported by your analysis. At some magical level of interest or dividend income he believes that the rate should be increased to that of earned income levels or perhaps higher. Civil Society's utilize sound fair taxation as a measure to prevent unhealthy concentrations of wealth and power that when left unchecked tend to distort political and economic policy which lead to problems similar to those we face today. I rest my case.
- tgolferman, on 04/23/2008, -2/+1Not exactly. Earned income is different from Interest and Dividend Income and falls in a different statistical category. The real question that even Warren Buffet wants addressed is how much tax was avoided by the top 1 or 5 percent of income earners. Another question to be asked is how much income and tax was avoided by offshoring say in Bermuda by the folks who can afford the tax and legal council to pull that type of stuff off?
- tgolferman, on 04/23/2008, -5/+2Remember the old addage figures lie and liars figure? The word earned income is used in the article and figures. The top of the food chain also has significant interest and dividend income which is not considered earned income according to the IRS.
- davidmesaaz, on 04/24/2008, -1/+4Again when they cut taxes the rich pay more.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114670305012743294 ...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120847505709424727 ... - InRussetShadows, on 04/24/2008, -1/+1So is the article wrong? If so, how so? We're all waiting.
- tgolferman, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1That is for you to decide! If you want my professional assessment of the WSJ article writers interpretation and presentment of the IRS / Treasury data that might cost you. Have you bothered looking at how the IRS categorizes earned income and interest / dividend differently? Has everything the WSJ has ever written turned out to be purely factual and lacking any bias one way or the other? How many times did WSJ articles sanction the doings of the brokerage houses and accounting firms that were involved with Enron? At what point in time did the WSJ finally report negatively on the housing market and the sub-prime mess? Did they ever write a supportive article of sub-prime? Is the article right in your mind? If so, how so? We're all waiting!
- davidmesaaz, on 04/24/2008, -1/+4Again when they cut taxes the rich pay more.
- tgolferman, on 04/23/2008, -4/+1Continued. I prefer dealing with raw data tables to spin.
- Stevanoski, on 04/23/2008, -0/+5Poverty for many, taken as a snap shot, is not a stasis field. That is they are in poverty for "x" years and then work their way out.
- FromTheTop, on 04/24/2008, -0/+4Professional, political parasites have wreaked havoc on the poor since LBJ created the "Great Society"! This moronic venture has cost the American taxpayers $trillions of dollars and the morons who are subject to this largesse remain 'poor'. Fourty (40) percent of Americans are in the poverty zone. "The poor will always be with us."
$Trillions more American taxpayers hard earned money has gone to "Third World Countries" and the despot leaders have used these monies for weapons and political gain...the people continue killing each other, remain poor and starve to death.
BTW, Barak Obama has sponsored the "Global Poverty Act" which sends $845 billion dollars to the UN to feed, clothe, shelter, educate, medicate and arm mostly Muslim "Third World Countries". The results are ALWAYS the same! MORE> http://kilosparksitup.blogspot.com/2008/02/more-on ... - davidmesaaz, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3If deregulation and the end of the welfare state is wrong why is global poverty decreasing
http://digg.com/apple/WSJ_com_Opinion_Clear_Eyed_O ...
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by