I pay more income tax than they do, and they use far far more stuff. combined, they are NET TAX consumers. I am a NET TAX Payer you can shove that.
the fact is trying to justify making the rich pay more on some sort of use theory is just fraudulent. so all you tax hikers are left with is the from each according to their ability which of course has no moral justification
Because you're talking to yourself; the timeframe under discussion is 30 years (see quote at bottom of this post), not 60 years.[...] the person have a min wage job today lives a far better life than one 60 years ago. That's IMPROVEMENT. Medical care has improved, education has improved...WHY AM I HAVING TO TYPE THESE ****ING OBVIOUS FACTS OF REALITY.
Arguing with yourself again, I see... since the timeframe under discussion as 30 years, not 100 years.[...] life expectancy at birth increased dramatically over the past century in the United States —
Read my lips. 30 years. Not. 50. Years.[...] Someone who sells widgets might 50 years ago have only been able to sell them to their local market with ease. Today, you can distribute globally with a few internet clicks and text messages and a wire transfer. [...]
See? 2011-1984 = 37 years, fairly close to the benchmark (which obviously cannot be repeated too many times -- 30 years) and doesn't involve widgets or other nonsensical comparisons... nor baseless propaganda such as we see below:In 1984, the typical household headed by a 35-or-younger adult had a net worth of $11,521 [...]. Twenty-five years later, the average younger household’s net worth had shrunk to just $3,662 [...]
America's Gerontocracy -- National Review Online
[...] EVERYONE IS BETTER OFF TODAY than they were 30 years ago. [...]
Physician, heal thyself.Are you claiming that your graphs contradict TD's contention that everyone is better off than they were 30 years ago? If so, learn how to read graphs.Everyone is better off? Not exactly.
The top 25% own 87% of the wealth so the tax they pay is a tad low.
[....] Today if you are the same "income class" as 20 years ago, inflation adjusted you make about the same in relative terms [...]
[....] however your standard of living, education, etc., etc., have all improved significantly. How is that not only expected, but an ongoing IMPROVEMENT?
Less money, more medical bankruptcies, poverty rate unchanged. With Conservative IMPROVEMENTS like that, we can eagerly look forward to total pestilence :shock:Using identical definitions in 2001 and 2007, the share of bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by 49.6% [from 2001 to 2007]
The American Journal of Medicine Blog: Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: Results of a National Study
Taxing wealth, to anyone with a casual knowledge of accounting, would mean assessing everyone's net worth (on an annual basis, for the purposes of this discussion), which -- to anyone with a casual knowledge of accounting -- would mean that your argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.75% of the population is more concerned with items and dose not care to accumulate wealth... Because I do not over spend on items I can't afford, I should pay more taxes? Is that what taxing wealth means?
Taxing wealth, to anyone with a casual knowledge of accounting, would mean assessing everyone's net worth (on an annual basis, for the purposes of this discussion), which -- to anyone with a casual knowledge of accounting -- would mean that your argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
My casual knowledge of accounting finds the task rather difficult to tax wealth. Most items depreciate in value with the exception of investments... How does one assess the value of a wardrobe, jewelery, or any of the various items found in one's home?Taxing wealth, to anyone with a casual knowledge of accounting, would mean assessing everyone's net worth (on an annual basis, for the purposes of this discussion), which -- to anyone with a casual knowledge of accounting -- would mean that your argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
I pay more income taxes than 100 million americans combined do yet I cannot think of what I use more of than they combined.
Yet there are many of the envious who claim the rich use more government and thus ought to pay more taxes. Now that we have put that BS to rest, all that is left is the marxist idea that taxes should be based solely on "from each according to their ability"
in other words, that is all you have
Well, let's ask Astrasicarius what he thinks about that!
So given identical car purchases (identical when inflation is taken into account), products are improving over time. Your own admission. Imagine that, you disagree with yourself. You should of course already know this, the television or internet tells you every day how dismal other countries are that have far lower standards of living. You can just check our poverty level vs *real poverty* in the world, and you can see that our poverty level has climbed, constantly, to a higher, and higher standard of living.
Yes, we are better off. It is undeniable in terms of standard of living, crime, life expectancy, human rights, and so on. That you slip up and agree when you don't think you're being partisan, is something for you to work out internally. Who will win out, your ego/emotions/denial, or reality?
:roll:I pay more income tax than they do, and they use far far more stuff. combined, they are NET TAX consumers. I am a NET TAX Payer you can shove that.
the fact is trying to justify making the rich pay more on some sort of use theory is just fraudulent. so all you tax hikers are left with is the from each according to their ability which of course has no moral justification
It all boils down to him not being able to read a graph. He thought it wasn't adjusted for inflation. He thinks the average person is getting the same salary now, as they were 30 years ago, while prices have gone up. Even if you don't know how to read a graph, it's mind boggling to think that salaries haven't changed in 30 years.
Are you advocating that income from stocks and bonds be taxed the same as wages? Or are you just demagoging the issue?
You must be very young. If you made $30k/year 30 years ago, you were in an elite group.Yeah, it is mind boggling. It's also true. Why don't you think about that for a while?
Okay, you have the floor. Or was that it?
Inflation is when prices go up. You need to learn how a graph works.
The latter is correct.
Inflation does not usually mean that the commodities on which you would spend your money are becoming any more valuable. You probably have to work just as many hours to earn enough money to buy a particular item. What is happening is that the money itself is becoming less valuable.
You must be very young. If you made $30k/year 30 years ago, you were in an elite group.
If inflation goes up and wages don't, then real wages are going down. That's what's been happening over the last couple of decades.
30 years ago, $30k was a wage you could raise a family on and still have enough left over for a house and all those nice middle class luxuries. Now, obviously, it's not.
The problem is, a lot of the jobs that paid $30k a year then still pay $30k a year now.
30K in 1980 is $82,605 in today's money; so here you are arguing that these jobs have taken a two-thirds pay cut?
:roll:
Oh, well it's nice to know that federal income taxes are the only taxes people need to pay.
:roll:
Oh, well it's nice to know that federal income taxes are the only taxes people need to pay.
30 years ago, $30k was a wage you could raise a family on and still have enough left over for a house and all those nice middle class luxuries. Now, obviously, it's not. The problem is, a lot of the jobs that paid $30k a year then still pay $30k a year now.
Yup... that's what it looks like to me.
Worse still, labor productivity has increased 59% since 1980, while wages for labor have at best increased only 4-11%, though realistically have likely fallen 3-4%
Physician, heal thyself.
The graph on the left clearly depicts flat income growth in "average household income before taxes" for the bottom 2 or 3 quintiles. Are you claiming that flat income growth means that you are better off?
The graph on the right clearly depicts a decreasing "share of income" for the bottom 80% (bottom four quintiles). Are you claiming that a decreasing share of the pie means that you are better off?
No the problem is people do not know how to manage money. They live beyond their means. 30k is livable. Rent a small apartment. Buy a used car - or better yet, keep the one you have if it still runs. Don't go out to eat every week. Your kid doens't need the new playstation 3, psp, wii, AND xbox 360, and you probably don't need 2 kids. Buy off brand clothes. Why do people who make 30k have designer ANYTHING or rather designer EVERYTHING! Stop using your credit cards. You don't need more STUFF.No the jobs that paid 30K a year are largely in China. Can you name a job where the salary has not changed in 30 years?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?