The 25%ers vs 99%ers

[Kushinator]

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

This statement displays your inability to make an argument under the basis of economic analysis in an economics forum; who would have thought? Before you put your foot in your mouth any deeper, understand exactly what diminishing marginal utility of income is and how it applies in the realm of taxation. Your moral standard is of no use in this particular discussion.

 

[Karl]

[...] 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.

Because you're talking to yourself; the timeframe under discussion is 30 years (see quote at bottom of this post), not 60 years.

[...] life expectancy at birth increased dramatically over the past century in the United States —

Arguing with yourself again, I see... since the timeframe under discussion as 30 years, not 100 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. [...]

Read my lips. 30 years. Not. 50. Years.

See the following for a relevant reply:

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

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:

[...] EVERYONE IS BETTER OFF TODAY than they were 30 years ago. [...]

 

[Karl]

Everyone is better off? Not exactly.

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.

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?

 

[Missed AB]

The top 25% own 87% of the wealth so the tax they pay is a tad low.

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?

 

[Karl]

[....] Today if you are the same "income class" as 20 years ago, inflation adjusted you make about the same in relative terms [...]

Fast Facts

[....] however your standard of living, education, etc., etc., have all improved significantly. How is that not only expected, but an ongoing IMPROVEMENT?

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

Less money, more medical bankruptcies, poverty rate unchanged. With Conservative IMPROVEMENTS like that, we can eagerly look forward to total pestilence :shock:

 

[Karl]

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.

 

[TurtleDude]

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.

incredibly inefficient and unworkable. Its a desire that appeals to the loser mentality

 

[Missed AB]

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?

explain the task of assessing wealth to this simple minded person...

 

[Missed AB]

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

My wife is a social worker. She works with children. Every child costs tax payers 90,000 dollars a year. Additionally, the families she assists with are also on section 8 housing, food stamps, medicaid, heating assistance, electric assistance, and the company (funded by tax dollars) has an additional 6k per child that they can spend on them or the family any way it feels fit.

 

[atrasicarius]

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?

I actually physically face palmed when I read this. Yes, the 28k car is better if you can afford it. The thing is, if you're paid the same now as you were in 1980, then you can't afford it. It might help if you read this article: Inflation - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[atrasicarius]

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

:roll:
Oh, well it's nice to know that federal income taxes are the only taxes people need to pay.

 

[atrasicarius]

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.

Yeah, it is mind boggling. It's also true. Why don't you think about that for a while?

 

[cpwill]

Are you advocating that income from stocks and bonds be taxed the same as wages? Or are you just demagoging the issue?

i'm pointing out that much of the wage and wealth disparity is a result in the increasing ability of our people to increase their wealth and income over the course of their working lives; and that the population that can most afford cuts right now are our wealthy elderly.

 

[mpg]

Yeah, it is mind boggling. It's also true. Why don't you think about that for a while?

You must be very young. If you made $30k/year 30 years ago, you were in an elite group.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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.

 

[atrasicarius]

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.

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.

 

[atrasicarius]

You must be very young. If you made $30k/year 30 years ago, you were in an elite group.

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.

 

[cpwill]

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.

really. I wonder why democrats reacted to the suggestion that we link COLA adjustments to inflation rather than wages as though it were some kind of a massive cut?

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.

really? I did it just fine.

The problem is, a lot of the jobs that paid $30k a year then still pay $30k a year now.

like what? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, if you just go off of CPI (which is sort of foolish in this discussion, as it doesn't count food or energy; which are two of the three largest typical expenses for a working family), 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?

 

[Occam's Razor]

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?

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%

 

[TurtleDude]

:roll:
Oh, well it's nice to know that federal income taxes are the only taxes people need to pay.

you miss the entire point. there are people who cost the government more than they pay in taxes. they are balanced by those of us who pay far more taxes than the government spends on us. Many of those who pay other forms of taxes get the money to do that from us tax payers

 

[Missed AB]

:roll:
Oh, well it's nice to know that federal income taxes are the only taxes people need to pay.

Any reason you are unable/unwilling to explain the process of taxing wealth to this simple minded person?

What ever happened to the Soviet Union? I never hear of those communist any more.

 

[washunut]

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.

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?

 

[Missed AB]

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%

The chart you posted shows apx 3 times average hourly earnings from 1980 to today, the same apx chage of 30k salary in 1980 to 82k salary today. Thank you for pointing this out!

PS

CPI as my point earlier has to do with your desire to buy stuff instead of accumulating wealth. When you stop buying stuff you don't need, then you will start to accumulate wealth. Let your money work for you through investments and stop buying stuff you can't afford.

 

[Missed AB]

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?

This chart CLEARLY PROVES the more you reward people for not working, and punish the ones who are successful, the more people will be lazy and not strive for greatness. What is the purpose of jumping tax brackets only to pay more taxes for more work? Remain lazy and let Unc Sam help you out and leach of the success of others.

Get rid of all these programs that reward those for not working, not trying, having 10 kids they can't afford, and the chart will look a lot different.

 

[Missed AB]

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?

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.

But you must be right. It's the fault of everyone else. NO ONE IN THE US CAN SURVIVE ON 30K a YEAR! Lets go to the bar, buy some 3 dollar buds, talk about how hard times are and plan our next ski trip...