[W:436] Biden declares himself 'blameless' if US defaults on debt: 'I've done my part'

[post]

-snip-
By law, FICA surpluses become special Treasury debt.

They weren't siphoned... instead, they continue to be paid interest and will become more of a future liability. What was the alternative? Could S.S. surpluses have been used to purchase existing public debt? Sure, but that doesn't account for what happens to these funds upon maturity as they wouldn't be sitting in a cash account.

It correctly depicts current revenue less current outlays.

That was by design going back to 1982.

The amount withhrld, 1960-61 was 3% of employee earnings and 1.5% semi-match from employer

Legislation, including Medicare and several SS "fixes" like later retirement age and gradual withholding increases
were passed before the 1983 Greenspan Commission accelerated the withholding increases beyond the time table in the prior
legislation.

By 1990, the withholding for SS and Medicare was set at $7.65% of employee earnings and 7.65% match from employer.

We now know this resulted in withholding $2.9 trillion more than what was required to meet SS retirement payout obligations.

The taxpayer is, going forward, obligated identically as if that $2.9 trillion had not been withheld and SS beneficiaries are extorted, compared to SS holding Trust Fund assets other than U.S. Treasury bonds, by demands such as the current threat to freeze the debt ceiling.
The losers are the boomers who were the first to experience a mass transfer of their earnings to general federal revenue during their working years for which they not only receive no benefit but are on the hook, per capita exposure, for that $2.9 trillion debt,
and having a government burdened by that additional debt obligation compared to a government that had actually taxed from the late 1980s until now at rates that would have collected an additional $2.9 trillion.
Taxcuts primarily benefiiting the wealthiest were passed in 2001, and in 2017, and the IRS appropriations were
targeted to reduce its collections results and threat to enforce tax law.

Trends in the Internal Revenue Service’s Funding and Enforcement

At a Glance The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) promotes compliance with tax laws in many ways: It verifies information provided by taxpayers, works to prevent the distribution of refunds that are claimed erroneously, audits tax returns, and attempts to collect unpaid taxes and unfiled returns...

www.cbo.gov

"...How Has Funding for the Internal Revenue Service Changed Over Time?​

Appropriations for the IRS have fallen by a total of about 20 percent in real (inflation-adjusted) dollars between 2010 and 2018. With the exception of 2016, real appropriations have consistently fallen below the previous year’s level over that period. Because labor costs account for about 70 percent of the IRS’s budget, measures to reduce its workforce were instituted, including a hiring freeze. Those measures resulted in a 22 percent decline in the number of employees at the agency and a 30 percent decline in the number of employees working in enforcement roles.1 The number of revenue agents and revenue officers, highly specialized enforcement employees who handle the most complex examinations and collections cases, fell by 35 percent and 48 percent, respectively, between 2010 and 2018.

How Have Reductions in Funding and Staffing Affected Enforcement?​

As the IRS’s budget and workforce declined, so did its examination rates for both individual and corporate income tax returns. (The examination rate is the number of examinations closed in a fiscal year divided by the number of returns filed in the previous calendar year.) The overall examination rate for all returns fell by about 40 percent between 2010 and 2018. Over that period:

• The examination rate for individual income tax returns dropped by about 46 percent. About 0.6 percent of individual income tax returns were examined in 2018..."

 

[Conservative]

Nope! You post poorly formatted data snapshots.

Got it, excel spreadsheets are foreign documents to you

Only if you ignore inflation, population growth, and economic growth.

What inflation, population growth, and economic growth, only when a D is in office?

There is no such thing as discretionary budget. You made that up as a means of ignoring the law.

yes sorry but there is, not to you unified budget supporters.

Government spending is broken down into three categories: mandatory spending, discretionary spending, and interest on the national debt. Each category of spending has different subcategories.

U.S. Federal Budget Breakdown

The FY 2022 federal budget proposal was over $6 trillion, with an estimated revenue of about $4.2 trillion, creating a deficit worth about $1.9 trillion.

www.thebalancemoney.com

 

[bave]

Causation requires correlation. Nevertheless, you should have been well aware of the data prior to asking for citation.

Yea, neat, you have shown correlation and not causation.

No, that's your strawman. I'm saying that developed world economies do not generate the level of investment necessary to foster an employment environment that allows for balancing of budgets. You have already accepted my claim by requesting citation on common knowledge.

No, I asked you to prove it, which you failed to do. The fact that you don't think a shrinking relative labor force, along with a growing skills mismatch, is driving unemployment lower is pretty comical and we both know it.

 

[bave]

The losers are the boomers who were the first to experience a mass transfer of their earnings to general federal revenue during their working years for which they not only receive no benefit but are on the hook, per capita exposure, for that $2.9 trillion debt,
and having a government burdened by that additional debt obligation compared to a government that had actually taxed from the late 1980s until now at rates that would have collected an additional $2.9 trillion.
Taxcuts primarily benefiiting the wealthiest were passed in 1990, 2001, and in 2017, and the IRS appropriations were
targeted to reduce its collections results and threat to enforce tax law.

Two things.

First, the boomers are losers in medicare/SS? Holy hell no. They are receiving a massively disproportionate benefit compared to their contributions, by any math.

Second, the tax cuts you are referring to have been preferential to the lower and middle class more than the upper class. These are primary drivers to the overall progressivity in the IRC increasing over time to now being the most progressive in the world.

 

[Kushinator]

Yea, neat, you have shown correlation and not causation.

I merely proved my point that budget deficits are almost entirely total output growth. Imagine that! You didn't accept this fact for some strange reason.

No, I asked you to prove it, which you failed to do.

Let's back up and review what you would accept as proof.

The fact that you don't think a shrinking relative labor force, along with a growing skills mismatch, is driving unemployment lower is pretty comical and we both know it.

Show the correlation. Run a basic ANOVA for the unemployment rate and participation rate. Post your results.

 

[bave]

I merely proved my point that budget deficits are almost entirely total output growth. Imagine that! You didn't accept this fact for some strange reason.

Again, causation is not correlation. This is Stat - 101.

Let's back up and review what you would accept as proof.

A convincing argument supported by data?

Show the correlation. Run a basic ANOVA for the unemployment rate and participation rate. Post your results.

Look at your own chart, exclude 2020/21 for obvious reasons. What do you see? A falling participation rate combined with a falling unemployment rate. Are you suggesting that our economy was stronger for the last ~15 years than it was in the 90's when we couldn't achieve these numbers? What was different? Demographics. Participation. Duh.

 

[iguanaman]

Two things.

First, the boomers are losers in medicare/SS? Holy hell no. They are receiving a massively disproportionate benefit compared to their contributions, by any math.

Second, the tax cuts you are referring to have been preferential to the lower and middle class more than the upper class. These are primary drivers to the overall progressivity in the IRC increasing over time to now being the most progressive in the world.

Funny but that actual results don't show any progressivity in FIT at all...Must be the smoke and mirrors.

Trump’s tax cuts helped billionaires pay less than the working class for first time​

Economists calculate richest 400 families in US paid an average tax rate of 23% while the bottom half of households paid a rate of 24.2%

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/09/trump-tax-cuts-helped-billionaires-pay-less

 

[post]

Two things.

First, the boomers are losers in medicare/SS? Holy hell no. They are receiving a massively disproportionate benefit compared to their contributions, by any math.

Second, the tax cuts you are referring to have been preferential to the lower and middle class more than the upper class. These are primary drivers to the overall progressivity in the IRC increasing over time to now being the most progressive in the world.

You make a valid point about medicare benefits but there are strong arguments against the opinion that the sum total of annual asset increases of U.S. persons results in the most progressive taxation in the world. The wealthiest paid to install the scheme that presently encompasses "earned" or taxable income, and what does not and its working out well for them.

Andy Jassy 2022 Pay Falls to $1.3M, Amazon ...​

The Hollywood Reporter
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com › business › digital
Apr 13, 2023 — Amazon CEO Andy Jassy's 2022 pay fell from more than $200 million to $1.3 million, while Jeff Bezos was paid $1.6 million for security.

 

[Kushinator]

They are receiving a massively disproportionate benefit compared to their contributions, by any math.

Previous generations were even greater recipients. Too bad they are mostly dead and their assets have transferred to people currently earning such benefits.

Second, the tax cuts you are referring to have been preferential to the lower and middle class more than the upper class.

Huh?

There was a large tax cut in 1981 which reduced revenue, but from 1982 until around 1993, there have been a steady stream of fixed tax increases that have burdened the middle class brackets and below.

These are primary drivers to the overall progressivity in the IRC increasing over time to now being the most progressive in the world.

The overall tax matrix has gotten less progressive... not more progressive. Humor me by answering what was the effective tax rate on poor households in the 1950's relative to today. Don't worry, i'll wait and repeat the question as necessary.

 

[Kushinator]

economists calculate richest 400 families in US paid an average tax rate of 23% while the bottom half of households paid a rate of 24.2%

Yeah, but you have to ignore the taxes that the bottom half pay while only accepting federal income tax revenues.

 

[Kushinator]

Got it, excel spreadsheets are foreign documents to you

That's trivial stupidity on your part, but what do we expect?

What inflation, population growth, and economic growth, only when a D is in office?

Unless there is a recession, there is inflation and economic growth EVERY single year. Population growth has began to taper off some, but that has more to do with developing economic structure.

yes sorry but there is

No there is not. You are telling a lie.

not to you unified budget supporters.

It's the law. Take it up with Congress and tell them their laws are wrong because they don't paint Democrats in worse lighting.

 

[Kushinator]

Again, causation is not correlation. This is Stat - 101.

Causation requires correlation, that's stats 201. Deficits encapsulate output growth. Take them away and the economy suffers immensely, which is why GQP cultists refused to cut spending when they were in power and insist on spending cuts when trying to regain power.

A convincing argument supported by data?

You don't have correlation on your side. Just partisan hope.

Look at your own chart exclude 2020/21

Cherry pick? Cool story.

What do you see? A falling participation rate combined with a falling unemployment rate.

Nah. We see the participation rate peaking in 2000 and unemployment moving all around. Hence my request for you to provide ANOVA analysis for your claims. Suddenly, the desire for correlation becomes tantamount to showing causation. Imagine that!

Are you suggesting that our economy was stronger for the last ~15 years than it was in the 90's when we couldn't achieve these numbers?

It goes both ways. We didn't have deficits to this degree 15 years prior, while output was eclipsing them at currently unrealistic magnitudes.

What was different? Demographics. Participation. Duh.

Prove your claim.

 

[Conservative]

That's trivial stupidity on your part, but what do we expect?

I know what I expect from you which is why this has to stop, total arrogance and total ignorance

Unless there is a recession, there is inflation and economic growth EVERY single year. Population growth has began to taper off some, but that has more to do with developing economic structure.

It is apparent to me that your desire is for a large central gov't ignoring state and local responsibilities.

No there is not. You are telling a lie.

What lie

U.S. Federal Budget Breakdown

The FY 2022 federal budget proposal was over $6 trillion, with an estimated revenue of about $4.2 trillion, creating a deficit worth about $1.9 trillion.

www.thebalancemoney.com

Government spending is broken down into three categories: mandatory spending, discretionary spending, and interest on the national debt. Each category of spending has different subcategories.

It's the law. Take it up with Congress and tell them their laws are wrong because they don't paint Democrats in worse lighting.

The unified budget was created by LBJ and was changed in 1990

Unified budget - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The United States government adopted a unified budget in the Johnson administration in 1968, beginning with the 1969 budget. The surplus in the Social Security OASDI (Old Age Survivors and Disabilities Insurance) budget offsets the total deficit, making it appear smaller than it otherwise would.[3]

The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, however changed this so that the two Social Security Trust Funds, and the operations of the Postal Service, are considered to be 'off-budget' and are excluded from the unified budget

Since SS and Medicare are now off budget there is no justification for using FIT to meet those obligations.

 

[Conservative]

Funny but that actual results don't show any progressivity in FIT at all...Must be the smoke and mirrors.

Trump’s tax cuts helped billionaires pay less than the working class for first time​

Economists calculate richest 400 families in US paid an average tax rate of 23% while the bottom half of households paid a rate of 24.2%

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/09/trump-tax-cuts-helped-billionaires-pay-less

Class envy and jealousy, why does it bother you so much what someone else pays in taxes?

 

[iguanaman]

Class envy and jealousy, why does it bother you so much what someone else pays in taxes?

Why does our debt bother you? Most of it is from the tax cuts you love so much.

Trump, Bush tax cuts have largely driven national debt issues since 2001: report​

“The United States does not have a high-spending problem; it has a low-tax problem,” the report concludes​

Republicans' major tax cuts for corporations and the rich are overwhelmingly the drivers of current issues over the national debt, which the GOP is using as an excuse to force through cuts to welfare and government spending that are not contributing nearly as much to the debt, a new report reveals.

Over the past two decades, increases in the U.S.'s debt ratio, or the proportion of the national debt to the economy, have largely been driven by major tax overhauls done by Republicans under Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump, according to an analysis from the liberal Center for American Progress (CAP).

The cuts have added $10 trillion to the national debt since the Bush tax cuts were enacted in 2001 and Trump's in 2017, the report finds. In that time, the cuts have caused more than half — 57 percent — of the increase in the debt ratio. That proportion jumps to a whopping 90 percent if the stimulus packages following the Great Recession and COVID-19 recession are excluded from the analysis.

https://www.salon.com/2023/03/28/bu...tional-debt-issues-since-2001-report_partner/

 

[bave]

There was a large tax cut in 1981 which reduced revenue, but from 1982 until around 1993, there have been a steady stream of fixed tax increases that have burdened the middle class brackets and below.

Again, the IRC has gotten consistently more progressive over the last ~80 years. That's not debatable. How else do you think we arrived at the most progressive code in the world, which has been marching further down that road and not backwards.

The overall tax matrix has gotten less progressive... not more progressive. Humor me by answering what was the effective tax rate on poor households in the 1950's relative to today. Don't worry, i'll wait and repeat the question as necessary.

Historical Average Federal Tax Rates for All Households

Average federal tax rates for all households, by comprehensive household income quintile.

www.taxpolicycenter.org

First hit on the Dr.Google. This goes back to 79, just before the '81 cut you reference.

In 1981 the lowest quintile effective federal tax rate was 12.8% with the top 1% at 30.5%

2018, the last year listed it was 6.7% to 30.2%.

So the 1% saw their rate decline by .3% while the bottom quintile saw it nearly cut in half.

Anything else you want to pretend you were unaware of?

 

[Kushinator]

why this has to stop

Then go pound sand.

It is apparent to me that your desire is for a large central gov't ignoring state and local responsibilities.

My desire isn't relevant to this discussion. But since you're on the subject, i desire a private sector that invests enough in their operations to require enough labor to wipe out the need for deficit spending.

What lie

There is no such thing as a discretionary budget.

The unified budget was created by LBJ and was changed in 1990

But not in accounting terms. Social Security and Medicaid surpluses will continue to add to the general fund until they no longer exist, and those assets will convert to Treasury debt via fund demands for the program in and of itself. In order to further ensure your reality is fully funded with facts, FIT will not fund Social Security deficits. Instead, they will be paid with the proceeds of future debt issuance.

Since SS and Medicare are now off budget there is no justification for using FIT to meet those obligations.

See above.

 

[bave]

Causation requires correlation, that's stats 201. Deficits encapsulate output growth. Take them away and the economy suffers immensely, which is why GQP cultists refused to cut spending when they were in power and insist on spending cuts when trying to regain power.

You are assuming there is only one variable. Back to stat 101.

You don't have correlation on your side. Just partisan hope.

The trend line is pretty strongly correlated. I don't need to do the math to see that.

Cherry pick? Cool story.

Cherry pick to exclude a Black Swan? lol.

Nah. We see the participation rate peaking in 2000 and unemployment moving all around.

So, peak positive demographics for the labor force in ~2000, with an unemployment and participation rate higher. That is contradictory to your thesis.

 

[iguanaman]

Again, the IRC has gotten consistently more progressive over the last ~80 years. That's not debatable. How else do you think we arrived at the most progressive code in the world, which has been marching further down that road and not backwards.

Historical Average Federal Tax Rates for All Households

Average federal tax rates for all households, by comprehensive household income quintile.

www.taxpolicycenter.org

First hit on the Dr.Google. This goes back to 79, just before the '81 cut you reference.

In 1981 the lowest quintile effective federal tax rate was 12.8% with the top 1% at 30.5%

2018, the last year listed it was 6.7% to 30.2%.

So the 1% saw their rate decline by .3% while the bottom quintile saw it nearly cut in half.

Anything else you want to pretend you were unaware of?

You keep falsely claiming the the US has the most progressive tax code in the world. It is far from that and we DO need to make our code much more progressive.

The figure below shows how much influence taxes and transfers have in reducing inequality (measured using a common metric called the “Gini coefficient”) in various countries around the world. As indicated in the chart, the U.S. tax and transfer system does less to counteract pre-tax income inequality than the tax systems of most of our peer countries, meaning that our system is actually less progressive.

In addition to being less progressive relative to other countries, the U.S. tax system has also become less progressive over time. Over the last fifty years, tax rates for the wealthiest Americans have declined by 40 percent, while tax rates for average Americans have remained roughly constant. This is illustrated in the figure below.

This decline in tax rates for the wealthy has coincided with an increase in income inequality, where most of the wage gains have been concentrated among a relatively small portion of the American people. For example, since 1979, earnings for households in the top 1 percent of the income distribution have risen by over 250 percent. At the same time, many households at the middle and bottom of the income distribution have experienced stagnating incomes or even declines in earnings (figure below, blue bars). This means that the very people who have received the biggest income gains in the past three decades have also seen the largest tax cuts (figure below, red bars).
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2012/04/13/just-how-progressive-is-the-u-s-tax-code/

 

[bave]

You keep falsely claiming the the US has the most progressive tax code in the world. It is far from that and we DO need to make our code much more progressive.

The figure below shows how much influence taxes and transfers have in reducing inequality (measured using a common metric called the “Gini coefficient”) in various countries around the world. As indicated in the chart, the U.S. tax and transfer system does less to counteract pre-tax income inequality than the tax systems of most of our peer countries, meaning that our system is actually less progressive.

In addition to being less progressive relative to other countries, the U.S. tax system has also become less progressive over time. Over the last fifty years, tax rates for the wealthiest Americans have declined by 40 percent, while tax rates for average Americans have remained roughly constant. This is illustrated in the figure below.

This decline in tax rates for the wealthy has coincided with an increase in income inequality, where most of the wage gains have been concentrated among a relatively small portion of the American people. For example, since 1979, earnings for households in the top 1 percent of the income distribution have risen by over 250 percent. At the same time, many households at the middle and bottom of the income distribution have experienced stagnating incomes or even declines in earnings (figure below, blue bars). This means that the very people who have received the biggest income gains in the past three decades have also seen the largest tax cuts (figure below, red bars).
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2012/04/13/just-how-progressive-is-the-u-s-tax-code/

Hey there chief, the GINI has nothing at all to do with measuring the progressivity of a national tax code, but rather measures wealth disparities. So I would start by telling you to use the right tools, metrics, and basic vocabularly.

Your second point about wage gains, that's not really true. The GINI has widened in the US less because of wage gains and more because of capital gains and market participation. You don't get wealthy by drawing a salary or a W-2, you become wealthy through ownership of appreciating assets more than anything else. Moreover, you continue to ignore the fact that the median US household is still the highest income of any major nation, with the lowest effective national tax burden of any peers.

So while I understand the complaint about GINI widening, it still doesn't change the fact that the average or median household in the US still has by far the best deal in the world. Lowest taxes, highest income, most progressive national system, along with national welfare payments that rival our OECD peers on a per capita basis.

Cry me a river about how hard you have it. If you spent half the time looking to improve your economic situation as you do whining about it on the internet you could have had a better outcome.

 

[Kushinator]

Again, the IRC has gotten consistently more progressive over the last ~80 years.

Show your work. Your source shows progressivity from 1979 until today in total taxation, while payroll taxes have grown for lower income quintiles.

First hit on the Dr.Google. This goes back to 79, just before the '81 cut you reference.

We go from the past 80 years to cherry picking dates. But while we are on the subject of the 80's... why would conservatives allow for tax policy that lowers rates on the lowest income earners over the span of 30+ years? This gets back to my point about deficits ensuring low unemployment.

Again, the IRC has gotten consistently more progressive over the last ~80 years.

From 1979 is your source. I asked about the 1950's....

which has been marching further down that road and not backwards.

Since 2000. Again... why did the conservatives allow this to materialize?

2018, the last year listed it was 6.7% to 30.2%.

In 2000, it was 11.1% to 27%. What happened? Did the GQP's balls fall off?

So the 1% saw their rate decline by .3% while the bottom quintile saw it nearly cut in half.

Can you provide income gains relative to this demographic snapshot? I doubt it.

So i'll make a guess and you can try to correct me. Since 2018, income for the lowest quintile increased far less than the highest quintile.

Anything else you want to pretend you were unaware of?

Don't get upset because you didn't know that deficits encapsulate output growth. But going from the 1970 until today, we see median income growth in the lowest quintile (2018 dollars) increasing by 43%. In contrast, the top quintile median income increasing by 65%.

In reality, middle class income has fallen from 62% of all income to 43% (up to 2018), while the poor have remained poor all the while the most wealthy have watched their share of income go from 29% to 48%.

In 1981 the lowest quintile effective federal tax rate was 12.8% with the top 1% at 30.5%

2018, the last year listed it was 6.7% to 30.2%.

Here's what you claimed in the previous post:

Again, the IRC has gotten consistently more progressive over the last ~80 years.

It's time to reconcile.

 

[iguanaman]

Hey there chief, the GINI has nothing at all to do with measuring the progressivity of a national tax code, but rather measures wealth disparities. So I would start by telling you to use the right tools, metrics, and basic vocabularly.

Your second point about wage gains, that's not really true. The GINI has widened in the US less because of wage gains and more because of capital gains and market participation. You don't get wealthy by drawing a salary or a W-2, you become wealthy through ownership of appreciating assets more than anything else. Moreover, you continue to ignore the fact that the median US household is still the highest income of any major nation, with the lowest effective national tax burden of any peers.

So while I understand the complaint about GINI widening, it still doesn't change the fact that the average or median household in the US still has by far the best deal in the world. Lowest taxes, highest income, most progressive national system, along with national welfare payments that rival our OECD peers on a per capita basis.

Cry me a river about how hard you have it. If you spent half the time looking to improve your economic situation as you do whining about it on the internet you could have had a better outcome.

I am not complaining about myself. I am complaining for my children and their children. We cannot keep widening the wealth gap with low taxes on the wealthy and the middle class not having $500 cash for emergencies. Also putting trillions on the credit card instead of collecting it in taxes from those that can afford it is unsustainable. A 75% flat tax on all income over $1 million is a good start. That alone will do a world of good for this country.

63% Of Americans Don't Have Enough Savings To Cover A $500 Emergency​

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maggie...ngs-to-cover-a-500-emergency/?sh=3d52c7464e0d

 

[Kushinator]

You are assuming there is only one variable. Back to stat 101.

Hold up....

The trend line is pretty strongly correlated.

Your claim requires citation. Suddenly correlation is enough. The possibility of other variables (which i wouldn't exclude) has suddenly become forgotten.

Cherry pick to exclude a Black Swan? lol.

From 2021 onward, we've witnessed a dramatic rise in employment (fall in unemployment) while labor force participation has increased from the relative point (2022) in a most dramatic fashion. Let's revisit:

From 01-01-2022 until 04-01-2023, labor force participation and the unemployment rate have diverged. This is simply a matter of fact. It could be a function of short term divergence, but your theory doesn't hold up to changes in demographics, defining employment gains (gig economy / onlyfans), etc....

So, peak positive demographics for the labor force in ~2000, with an unemployment and participation rate higher. That is contradictory to your thesis.

With deficits + government spending as a percentage of GDP FAR lower than today. I'm not denying that demographics have played a part... only that investment was supposed to be the bridge to this eventual gap. The U.S. has weathered it far better than most developed nations who have strict immigration policy.

 

[bave]

Show your work. Your source shows progressivity from 1979 until today in total taxation, while payroll taxes have grown for lower income quintiles.

I am not going to sit here and feed you data you already know is true, we both know it. Even including payroll taxes, my thesis is well intact, something you also know.

We go from the past 80 years to cherry picking dates. But while we are on the subject of the 80's... why would conservatives allow for tax policy that lowers rates on the lowest income earners over the span of 30+ years? This gets back to my point about deficits ensuring low unemployment.

Largely because of an overall theory of lower taxation results in higher growth which results in increased revenue.

I didn't cherry pick the window, I picked the first Google hit. You know how to find the data you want on the subject, I am not going to spent 15 minutes parsing through historical data to watch you claim one after another doesn't meet whichever criteria you fancy at that instant.

From 1979 is your source. I asked about the 1950's....

See above.

Since 2000. Again... why did the conservatives allow this to materialize?

See above. You're a quick one.

Can you provide income gains relative to this demographic snapshot? I doubt it.

It's a relative figure, it doesn't matter.

So i'll make a guess and you can try to correct me. Since 2018, income for the lowest quintile increased far less than the highest quintile.

Without looking at the data I am sure that is true. However at the same time per capita welfare spending also increased, particularly for the lower three quintiles.

Don't get upset because you didn't know that deficits encapsulate output growth. But going from the 1970 until today, we see median income growth in the lowest quintile (2018 dollars) increasing by 43%. In contrast, the top quintile median income increasing by 65%.

I have never said that deficit spending doesn't generate growth. Of course it does. I am simply suggesting that the current unemployment is not driven predominantly by that. Moreover, you are discounting the entire fact that at some point deficit spending must end. I know you think we can continue to run up ever increasing deficits and then tax exclusively the top 2% to cover whatever you need to keep the wheels greased, but I don't believe that either.

In reality, middle class income has fallen from 62% of all income to 43% (up to 2018), while the poor have remained poor all the while the most wealthy have watched their share of income go from 29% to 48%.

Meanwhile the middle class has seen their effective taxation cut dramatically, their welfare increased dramatically, and they still have the best deal in the world. So, cut off your nose in spite of your face time?

Here's what you claimed in the previous post:

It's time to reconcile.

Sigh, you can do the digging all you want, we both know it is true.

I know your game. Demand citations for every detail while ignoring the citation requests for you or by citing something irrelvant to the citation requested and calling it cited.

 

[bave]

I am not complaining about myself. I am complaining for my children and their children. We cannot keep widening the wealth gap with low taxes on the wealthy and the middle class not having $500 cash for emergencies.

What do you care how much your neighbor has? Is it simply pure envy? You have the wealthiest middle class in the world, with the lowest tax burden, with one of the highest per capita national welfare systems. Their inability to save $500 for emergencies has far more to do with their decisions than their economic capacity.

Also putting trillions on the credit card instead of collecting it in taxes from those that can afford it is unsustainable. A 75% flat tax on all income over $1 million is a good start. That alone will do a world of good for this country.

Neat. Run for congress. The most progressive code in the world isn't enough. You need someone else to keep paying the bills eh? If you want a more expansive government or one with less debt, let's talk about broading the base if you insist. Start with a VAT. Hit the retirees and the underground economy.