Forum Post: I am publicly and formally challenging Modestcapitalist to provide official or credible sources to back up his assertions
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 5, 2012, 4:28 p.m. EST by slammersworldisback
(-217)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Modestcapitalist refuses to provide any official, or credible sources for the repetitive and verbose comments that he continues to post.
He apparently feels the repetition is enough to ensnare those who do not take the time to research, or check facts and data.
He uses biased and partisan websites, youtube video's, blogs, and internet postings as his "sources" of "comprehensive studies"....which are posted without citation or sourcing, or are sourced to other biased partisan websites....without official sources
He rambles on and on with long winded responses that are just restatement of the same fabricated and suspect so-called "facts", and never provides official, verified, or verifiable data or statistics...
I hereby challenge Modestcapitalist to put up, or shut up......
Everyone get ready for long-winded diversionary verbosity
Ready....GO!
EDIT: This has gone about the way I thought it would....now, a little background, Modestcapitalist and I began our debates on my contention that the "Rich" (those above the 10th percentile) pay most of the taxes in this country, that is when he started making his claim that the middle income sector and lower income sector paid amount nearly equal to that of the higher income sector...to which I called clearly incorrect, so NOW he is reverting to the claim that they pay "equal rates of taxation as a share of income" (for which he must include sales, "fee's" and property taxes, which are unverifiable by income sector, and are simple fabrication, for which he can provide no source of official data)....... Which is still specious, but ultimately backs up my assertion.... while trying to provide emotional cover and propaganda-like misinformation to sway the casual observer into thinking that the lower and middle incomes actually pay MORE in real dollars of taxation than does the upper income group.....Thanks Mod, for proving my original point...FINALLY
Bottom Line: The "Rich" pay most of the taxes in the US
The top 10% pay 55% of ALL federal taxes, and 72.7% of federal income taxes on a 42% share of overall income, while the bottom 90% pay 45% of ALL Federal taxes, and 26.3% of federal income taxes, on a 58% share of income.......the taxes that provide all the services and perks that the lower and middle income earners enjoy and use in larger portion than those (the top income earners above the 10th percentile) who actually PAY for them......you can use the same link provided by Mod, in his post below for these figures.....
you can check out his assertions here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-next-time-you-hear-some-half-wit-fool-say-the-/
and our debate, here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-falls-apart-like-a-cheap-chinese-toy/#comment-501680
He continues to make the same false arguments on this thread, here, today......and he is still wrong, even with his misleading manipulation of the fact that the "Rich" pay the largest share of the taxes in this country...a far greater share in taxation than the share of income they produce......
FINAL EDIT: I am growing tired of the constant repetition of the same baseless assertions by Modestcapitalist, he refuses to cite any credible or official source of data for his contentions...even saying in one response, finally, I quote:
"NO GOVERNMENT ENTITY HAS EVER REPORTED TOTAL EFFECTIVE TAX RATES FOR ANY INCOME GROUP."
and yet he contends that even though the entities that levy and collect taxes have no reported data on tax rates, HIS biased partisan internet sites somehow have information not known by official reporting agencies....It is clear fabrication, if you choose to believe the fabrication, that is your choice...I personally only believe things that can be verified empirically....
So.....the challenge remains unaddressed, and now those who would seek to hide the truth are voting down comments that show he has no credible verification of his assertions......I guess they think if they can hide the truth it doesn't exist....this is the reason why pure democracy doesn't work.....the fools can vote away the truth if it suites them and vote in foolishness.
I am disappointed and saddened by the attempt to make false assertions appear true, even in the face of evidence to the contrary....
You still don't get it. The wealthiest .1% hold a grossly, vastly, immensely disproportionately greater amount of the nation's (world's) net worth in assets compared to the other 99%.
Though they pay more in taxes than the other 99%, their proportion of taxes to income is lower than for the 99%.
Do you understand this? The proportion of taxes they pay on their $400 million dollars per year is lower than the proportion of taxes we pay on our $28 thousand dollars per year, and this isn't fair. Their net worth keeps increasing at astronomical rates per hour, not per year, while our net worth barely keeps pace, despite incredible increases in productivity, which only allows those at the very top to keep profiting.
Consult the Central Intelligence Agency's own numbers on the reverse progressivity of the tax code for the upper .1% compared to the rest of us. Just use math and follow the money.
No amount of bad language will change this fact, by the way, in case you hadn't figured that out.
their net worth changes daily, with the volatility of the equities markets, they pay higher shares of taxes based on shares of income......
Top 1%, federally, 28.1% of total taxes, 39.5% of income taxes
Top 1% income share: (before taxes) 19.4%
You, and others with your opinion who try and use "proportion" of residual dollars left after living expenses (as taxation not tied to living expenses is higher, even in proportion of income) are using a fallacious argument...of course they have more after living expenses, they EARN more....that is the perk of the struggle, effort and sacrifice it takes to become a top earner.........
You are using incorrect figures and analysis...what you desire is not fairness, you desire punishment, because you are ashamed of your own production and transfer it to those who earn more than you in order not to have to face your own inadequacies....the income of the highest earners in the US is subject to wild fluctuation and the whims of the financial markets....your wages are not, they are only subject to the time you surrender to earn them.....there is no "if" in your compensation, there is not contingency on whether you actually produce something, maintain, or prevent drastic loss...you are paid for your time, plain and simple.......those at the top aren't paid for time, they are paid for the value their knowledge, experience, and talent bring to a period of time....
and you are still an idiot...
According to the Central Intelligence Agency, the progressivity of taxes on the upper .1% actually reverses backwards from that of the rest of us, even from that of the .99% of the wealthiest 1%.
We -- or I -- or we -- do not desire punishment, we desire equity.
Don't try to tell me -- or us -- or me what I desire or do not desire. You do not know who I -- or we -- are all about.
But I digress.
"You are using incorrect figures and analysis" and "the income of the highest earners in the US is subject to wild fluctuation and whims of the financial markets" do not address my statement that 400 U.S. citizens are worth 1.7 trillion dollars, at least.
I disagree that "those at the top aren't paid for time, they are paid for the value [of] their knowledge, experience, and talent..." No, they have rigged the system in their favor and are profiting unfairly from it, at the expense of the rest of us, whose wages haven't kept pace with inflation over the last thirty years, at least.
You don't have to try to to insult me in the process. It only strengthens my argument, which I know you can't take. If you are at least courteous, you might weaken my resolve, which is what you want. Why don't you at least act in your own best interest?
How is drawing a dividend check "earning" money? What goods or services is the recipient of a million dollar dividend check providing?
a dividend check is the just reward for the initial investment in an enterprise, by providing capital you stimulate the value of the stock and the value of the company.....capital is an important part of enterprise development, I am sure you understand that....
Thank you. It is helpful to be reminded of this.
Competition, innovation, investment in capitalist enterprise, and entrepreneurship are great. It's wonderful that "by providing capital you stimulate the value of the stock and the value of the company," etc.
I greatly appreciate this.
Please help me appreciate how it is good for humanity for 400 U.S. citizens to own 1.7 trillion dollars.
Thank you for your help.
they don't own 1.7 trillion "dollars", they own equities that the market (which consists of other people) have valued at 1.7 trillion dollars......none of those at the top could "cash in" for anything near the amount of their holdings...if they tried it would quickly be worth zero dollars
Yes, I thought about my use of the word "own." I don't have time to carefully edit. I should have said "are worth" in the sense that 400 individuals, some of whom are siblings or related through family, are worth 1.7 trillion dollars.
Their net worth was assessed in late 2011 and reported by Forbes or Fortune Magazine, I can't remember which. It was posted on Yahoo news at around that time.
They COULD, at around that time, "cash in" their holdings and get 1.7 trillion dollars. That is how "net worth" is defined.
Anyone who studies finances understands this definition of "net worth." As of November or December of 2011, the collective net worths of these 400 individuals is about 1.7 trillion dollars. This magazine didn't publish its findings in 2005 or 2006, but in late 2011. If their collective net worths had been calculated in 2005 or 2006, they would have been worth more like 2.5 trillion dollars.
Please keep your language clean.
Cashing in would lower the market value of the "net worth" and reduce its value...that is how "net worth" is a fallacy when most of it resides in the value of equities in a company owned by a person.....
The whole idea of "net worth" is that it says how much money someone could get if they sold everything -- or how much money they would be worth, assets minus liabilities -- right?
People who make money know an awful lot about net worth. My humble little family, all by ourselves, by working very, very hard for decades, has made nearly a million dollars. We didn't inherit anything. We just used our skills and ended up having a net worth of nearly a million dollars, in this current year, 2012. Seven years ago, it was more than a million dollars. The value of our assets fluctuated wildly between then and now but we lived very frugally, paid off some debts in the meantime, and still have an acceptable net worth. We know about this concept and monitor its changing status to meet our financial goals, humble though they may be.
We did not use your definition of "net worth" to make this kind of money.
We know what "net worth" is, and we still don't know how it benefits humanity for 400 U.S. citizens to collectively have a net worth of 1.7 trillion dollars at this time in our history, during these very trying financial times for billions of others worldwide, including tens of millions in our own country, in which they are citizens.
there is no doubt they are trying financial times, but...the definition of net worth I used is of course relevant.....if your net worth was locked up in real estate in 2007 you couldn't retrieve it at the same level now......just as with Microsoft, if Gates tried to dump his huge share of the company...other investors would see his selling as a sign to dump the stock, making his billions relatively worthless in short order......and most of the "net worth" of the world is contingent on this same criteria.....
1000 ozs of gold in 1980 would have been worth 600+ thousand dollars, that same "net worth" in 2000 would have been worth about 280 thousand....today 1.6 million...... same exact asset.....different valuation.
Net worth is a projection, and not alway...especially in the case of equities where the bulk sale would create an immediate downward trend, like if one of the 1% like Gate, or Buffett tried to unload their stock for cash
They are still worth 1.7 trillion in today's dollars. If they sold everything they own they would be worth that much.
It is unlikely any of them would sell everything at once. They want to continue making money, and some assets remain lucrative under any conditions, like water rights. They would sell inherently valuable assets at a loss to themselves. But they would still receive the money.
It sounds as if we should be afraid of the very wealthy, because if they sold everything at once it would so unbalance the markets they would bring us all down with them.
We are tired of being ruled in this tyrannical way by the very few. This is how royalty ruled Europe before the United States and democracies like it came into being. We can live better lives than did the serfs of long ago.
I still do not appreciate how it benefits humanity for 400 U.S. citizens to be collectively worth 1.7 trillion dollars in today's dollars.
I am still uncertain that 400 U.S. citizens should be worth 1.7 trillion dollars compared to the rest of us.
Poor though I am relative to the very wealthy, I still read and weigh opinions. When Forbes says 400 U.S. citizens are worth 1.7 trillion dollars, this means they could sell their assets at the time of that reporting and receive market value for these assets. This point is irrefutable. Net worth means market value at the time of reporting, regardless of valuations years or decades ago. Net worth is simply defined as current assets minus current liabilities.
400 U.S. citizens are said to have a collective net worth of around 1.7 trillion dollars in today's valuations of assets, as of late 2011, according to Forbes Magazine.
Don't let scammersworld trick you. He is notorious for this crap.
As of '07', the richest 1% held 43% of all FINANCIAL WEALTH in America. Currency, coin, gold, silver, stocks, bonds, ect.
It fluctuated slightly in '08' and '09' because of the recession but has been rising steadily since.
Last year alone, the richest one percent in America increased their collective reported income by $120 billion while the lower 98% lost $4.5 billion in reported income. A transfer of savings from poor to rich along with stimulus funds and increased money supply may explain the difference.
The truth is just as ugly as ever. When the rich get too rich, the poor get poorer.
The following is an article which makes reference to the 15 most expensive yachts in the world. They just keep getting bigger and more expensive. As you can read, they were bought and paid for with actual money.
http://powerwall.msnbc.msn.com/business/the-15-most-expensive-yachts-in-the-world-10500.gallery
So don't let scammersworld feed you that 'the rich are rich because of equity' crap. Thats only one element of wealth.
They are all concentrated.
THANK YOU. It is so reassuring that sanity prevails somewhere in this world.
My question "How does it benefit humanity that 400 U.S. citizens are worth 1.7 billion dollars" remains unanswered. Perhaps those 400 individuals aren't even sure it's better for anyone that so much wealth is so concentrated.
It is disappointing that people try to change reality in order to promote their agenda.
Those 400 are worth about as much as the bottom 150 million Americans combined. There is no way to justify such a concentration at the very top. Its just sick. A profound injustice the developed world should be ashamed of.
It's not about "benefits humanity" that is your collectivist world view....they have benefitted enough people to earn what they have earned.....which is only a small portion of the value they have created or manifested for others...
The idea that these 400 people, or the nearly 1.5 million that comprise the "1%" are somehow in collusion, or even all know each other, socially, for that matter is extremely naive....they are, in many cases, in competition with each other....
you refuse to understand that if one were to try to sell off the assets in the form of equities (which is most of the "net worth" of the highest income earners) that were the basis of the net worth that the equities, just by the fact that the principles were selling them, would become worth drastically less....
Again, scammersworld is trying to deny the ACTUAL TRANSFER OF WEALTH FROM POOR TO RICH.
Hey scammersworld. The truth isn't always pretty. Still, its the truth.
The rich are getting richer. The poor are getting poorer as a direct result.
Thats right. Wealth is being transferred from poor to rich.
This has been proven many times in many ways. Even Ron Paul acknowledged it in November of '07'. I believe it was the 7th of November of 2007 on Jay Leno or David Letterman.
Look it up.
Yes, this is so true. We're not condemning capitalism. We advocate Adam Smith's "invisible hand" that governs a truly free, transparent market, in other words, regulated capitalism.
But it's a matter of degree, not kind. This continual concentration of wealth in the hands of a very few is not healthy for anyone at all, not even the very rich, as many will attest. It doesn't help productivity or profitability in the long run.
Plus it will be less fun being rich in 10 years when we are in the midst of a global depression. By then, a whole lot more people worldwide will understand the link between concentration and instability.
The rich will be even richer than they are now but they will also be more hated then ever. Their fantasies about going down in history as 'heroes' and 'humanitarians' will be shot all to hell.
I'd rather be poor in a civil, just, relatively peaceful, and stable world than rich in a world of social unrest.
Excellent reference by the way. I'm gonna have to remember it.
"you refuse to understand that if one were to try to sell off the assets in the form of equities (which is most of the "net worth" of the highest income earners) that were the basis of the net worth that the equities, just by the fact that the principles [sic] were selling them, would become worth drastically less..."
Please clarify this paragraph.
I may be humble, and simple, and perhaps in your view limited in some way, despite much evidence in the real world to the contrary, but I still appreciate clear, succinct, logic.
Part of the problem is the very truth you have admitted to, which is that the 1% "are, in many cases, in competition with each other..."
Hence, casino-style gambling with our pensions and life savings by those at the top of the "financial services" industries...
Hey scammersworld. I see you're dancing your way around the truth with more diversionary tactics.
Newsflash: As of '07', the richest 1% held 43% of all FINANCIAL WEALTH in America. Do you know what that means? It means money. Currency, gold, silver, stocks, bonds, ect. THE RICHEST ONE PERCENT IN AMERICA OWN 43% OF ALL FINANCIAL WEALTH. THAT MEANS MONEY.
If you still can't grasp this concept, read this:
http://powerwall.msnbc.msn.com/business/the-15-most-expensive-yachts-in-the-world-10500.gallery
Its an article which makes reference to the 15 most expensive yachts in the world. As you can read, they were bought and paid for with actual money.
So save your 'the rich are rich because of equity' crap. Thats only one element of wealth. I've made the distinction many times.
news stories are not credible sources......I'm still waiting for you to provide verifiable credible sources......you haven't done so, until you do.....I think we're done....
your assertions are fabrications, and remain so until you can back them up with something credible
There ain't no 'official' government reports regarding the world's 15 most expensive yachts.
Does this mean the yachts don't exist?
I was referencing ALL your assertions
sorry - i didn't realize that modestcapitalist destroyed your argument so there was no real need to post mine
hardly.....if you think that, you aren't reading...or are unable to
able to read and think - unlike you. i noticed you did not answer my point about taxes but that's ok. you are not able so don't try - the reason the rich are more rich now is because the tax structure (total taxes) has favored them. well pay structure has a lot to do with it also but things have changed drastically since the 60's and if you don't know how you should look it up!
[Removed]
no, the reason the rich are more rich now is that their enterprises are worth more....a progressive tax structure doesn't favor the rich, and the capital gains rate is equal for everyone...so that doesn't "favor" the rich either.....
look at the tax structure in the 1950 - corporate and personal - look at share of gov't revenue paid by both - stop your nonsense - boy you are not good at this - you said ....a progressive tax structure doesn't favor the rich, and the capital gains rate is equal for everyone...so that doesn't "favor" the rich either.....you are right - a progressive structure does not favor the rich which is why we don't have one and the rich are mostly the only ones who pay capital gains so taxing them at 15% instead of ordinary income rates - and high rates (like the 1950's) at that would not favor them. get a grip on the issue - you can't win here - the facts are not on your side
Ouch ! Nice shot, man. I would call that game, set, & match.
well, thank you but he is not very good really - it also helps that the facts are so straight forward here for anyone except those who are blinded by the right - could i make a song out of that?
"blinded by the right"
...revved up by that douche...
LOL
Yeah, he completely walked into that one, guess he really is 'blinded by the right'. Thanks a lot, I'm going to have that phrase stuck in my head all day long now. how does it go....
blinded by the right, revved up like a douche, another koch brother in the night....something like that...
we may be on to something here - the ows chorus? keep working at it and let me know the next few lines
Nope, sorry, that's all I got, maybe somebody else can add to it.
madman drummin' bummers
ineptitude in his slumber
with a teenage apt for math
teenage apt for math.....haha...I will never listen to this tune the same way again. Lol.
"a progressive (tax) structure does not favor the rich which is why we don't have one"
We don't? Pray tell then what DO we have? http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
" and the rich are mostly the only ones who pay capital gains so taxing them at 15% instead of ordinary income rates"
Point #1-The "rich" pay "ordinary income tax rates" on their money when it's "ordinary income". If they invest that money-and it earns additional income (capital gains=gaining money on capital that one has already paid "ordinary income tax" on) then they pay a capital gains tax. ALL tax payers pay the same "capital gains" tax rate.
Point #2- (see link) the top 0.1% are the ones who earn most of their "income" as capital gains...NOT the 1%. As a result, in 2009, the top .01% share of the total FEDERAL income tax paid was 17.11%. The top 5%'s share was 58.66% and the top 1% (between the two) was 36.73%.
Point #3- http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2010/11/decline-of-corporate-tax-revenues.html
tell me then why the "rich" NOW pay a larger share of federal taxes compared to their shares of income than they did in the 50's?
that is where your argument falls apart, the facts are on my side....
we do have a progressive tax structure...it goes from 0%-35% by income level...
why do you make me waste my time looking this stuff up - i have better things to do! if you do not realize that you are spouting nonsense then i feel bad for you - you must be 14 yrs old. anyone who has their eyes and ears open knows this stuff already. if you are a paid shill just here to cause trouble then you are sick - which do you choose - sick or stupid. you said - we do have a progressive tax structure...it goes from 0%-35% by income level...yes 0-35 is progressive - then what is 0 to 91? here - eat this and digest it - maybe something will enter your brain - this is richard wolff - Yet the tax burdens of US corporations and the richest citizens (what they actually pay) are significantly lower than in most other advanced industrial economies. Indeed, they are far lower than they were inside the US a few years ago. In the mid-1940s, the corporate income tax brought Washington 50% more than the individual income tax. Today, the corporate income tax brings the federal government 25% of what is taken from individuals. In the 1950s and 1960s, the top individual income tax rate in the United States (the rate paid by the richest citizens on all their income over about $100,000) was 91%. Today that rate is 35%, a staggering cut in the taxes on the richest Americans, far larger than the cuts in anyone else’s tax rates. Half or more of today’s federal deficits would be gone if we simply taxed the richest US citizens at the rates in effect in the 1950s and 1960s. If we also taxed corporations in relation to individuals as we did in the 1940s, the entire deficit would vanish.
The economy of the post WW II period is not a good example on which to base one's argument.
After WW II, the USA had the only functioning economy, everyone else's had been blown to bits. The world had near insatiable demand for American products as it rebuilt, we had no competition, and there was no alternative for corporations and the rich but to stay in the USA. Under these conditions, America could afford to tax the heck out of it's people.
A good marker for the end of the post-war period would be the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1971. 30 years seems like a long time, but remember buildings, bridges, power plants, factories, etc blow up a lot faster than they're built. By 1971, the rest of the world economies started firing on 6 if not more of 8 cylinders, and we were no longer able to hold the value of the dollar stable.
Also note that when folks quote the tax rates of the post-war period, they typically focus on the top end of the scale and ignore the bottom end. The tax rates I posted at http://occupywallst.org/forum/fix-the-deficit-return-to-1964-tax-rates/ show that everyone was paying a lot back then; the lowest bracket was 16.5% ! The period from 1945 to 1971 is simply not a good period to use as an economic model. The conditions of the time were distorted. Folks need to find a better one.
I'm not arguing for or against your position. I'm simply trying to help you refine your arguments by helping you correcting your assumptions.
you are correct about the economy (to some extent) but we are talking about taxes and the share paid by the wealthy and corporations so this comment from richard is surely to the point! - the corporate income tax brought Washington 50% more than the individual income tax. Today, the corporate income tax brings the federal government 25% of what is taken from individuals. now, as to the rest of your post - the country was less wealthy in 1964 than it is today so how does your post make sense? working people lived better in 1964 than today so you have some explaining to do it seems to me. i lived through that period and know what it was like so the answer is pretty simple - the pie was divided differently then - profits were lower, wages were higher and the rich and corporations paid more of the share of revenue than they do now. very straight forward no?? that is the time that gov't was building those roads and bridges and schools that help make us what we are today (very good paying jobs in 1964) - now they are crumbling and we need to rebuild so we need to raise wages for the working classes and raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations - ww2 has little or nothing to do with it
First, I agree we need to raise taxes on the rich. I think my taxes should be raised and my benefits cut ( see http://occupywallst.org/forum/on-fairness/ ). I'm only arguing that your example is poor.
When people say "times were better back than." I can only respond that isn't true in my case. My father was a PhD Chemist and my Mother a Nurse. I am a non-degreed engineer, and my wife is a Nurse. We have 3 children, and my parents had the same. I have put all three through college, they put none of us through college. I own two homes, and the larger is larger than any my parents owned. My father and mother did all the yard work, repair, cleaning, etc. My wife and I hire people to do all that. They had one car, while we have two, and our Acura is far superior to their Chryslers. They had rotary phones, we have smart phones. They had a small tube TV and vinyl record player with no recording ability, we have a 55" LCD HDTV, surround sound, and Tivo. They couldn't even imagine the ability to access information from around the world, I have the Internet. They used maps, I have GPS. Their medicine was relatively primitive, and their average life span was shorter than ours. Finally, they had pensions and retired at 65, I also have a pension and plan to retire at 56. Just for completeness, note all the wealth my wife and I have accumulated derives from savings out of regular wages.
All told, I'd say I'm doing far better than my parents. That's one reason why I think people like me should pay more taxes and receive fewer benefits. Much of the increase in wealth I enjoy derives from the failed tax/fiscal policies that started in the 1980's and have been perpetuated by Republicans and Democrats alike ever since. I don't need to live so much better than my parents, and I am doing so in part at the expense of others now being burdened with debt. That's my argument for why taxes should be raised.
not sure why your income should be so much greater than your parents but for the mass of the population life was for sure better in the 60's. i didn't think that was even debatable. not so many gadgets but more time off, more disposable income. my cousin worked a low level factory job and just retired - when he went to social security they told him that the $6600 he made in 1967 was equivalent to 43k today - that job now pays about 25k. his father filled vending machines - the lowest job mostly - he sent his daughter to notre dame - vacationed in italy and florida - spent a month on retirement at spring training - he owned a house and two cars - that could not be done today! no way! one income family was the norm - i can get info if you like but shouldn't be needed - here is from an investment newsletter i just got yesterday (interesting guy - stephen leeb - been pushing gold since before i heard him in 2005 - jeremy grantham is moving in the same direction as leeb - resource scarcity - froghtening!) - here is leeb - But there’s a catch to this statistic. Back in the 1980s, the United States government’s statisticians started calculating cost of ‘living indices’ when accounting for how inflation influences growth. Here’s an example that illuminates what the difference is and how it can affect perception: Were, say, pork prices to double in any given period of time, the green eye-shades at the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics would argue that individuals are going to switch to beef or lamb or chicken – something cheaper with the same nutritional value. And they’d apply the same logic to many other products. The result is that in a case like this you’re not really measuring inflation, i.e., how much the price is going up for a basket of goods, as you are measuring the imputed prices you have to pay to maintain the same style of living. There’s clearly a qualitative component here, which we have always had trouble with. Now, to look at another factor, the number of women with young children in the U.S. who now work – and we’re not talking here about the CEOs of Xerox or Hewlett Packard, but rather, women from lower income groups who typically take low-paying jobs and have to put their children in daycare in order to do so – has risen dramatically since the 1970s. This is a tricky and complicated area to talk about; we’re not sociologists, and neither do we take an extreme position at any spot along the male chauvinist – feminist continuum. But speaking from personal experience, and even knowing how difficult it can be at times to raise a child, it seems very hard for us to imagine that many woman (or men, for that matter) would really want to drop off their very young child at a daycare center on their way to a low-paying job, whether it be secretarial, bill collecting, retail, food service employment, etc. Again, we realize this is tricky territory from a social and political standpoint, and undoubtedly there’s a variety of different cultural, psychological and economic factors that come into play in determining the choices each individual makes. But the essential point we’re making is that if families truly need two incomes to sustain their standard of living, American standards of living may be vastly overstated. Also consider that we’re talking about real GDP per capita – which is nominal GDP per capita minus inflation. If inflation were sharply understated, you would be subtracting a much lower amount from nominal GDP and therefore arriving at a figure for real per capita GDP that’s distorted to the upside. If this is the case with the U.S., then even the measly 1.4 percent per year gain in real per capita GDP is sharply overstated. And coming back to our example regarding the increased participation of women with young children in the workforce, at a time of rising standards of living, there seems to be a disconnect with America circa 2012 and America circa 1970. In earlier years, young mothers’ participation in the workforce was much less frequent and single-income families were more common; today one-income families, even with very young children, are few and far between.
Yes, the numbers are often manipulated, and that's why I prefer to rely on my own person experience. Most of my peers agree with me that we're better off than our parents, but I acknowledge our case may not be representative. The numbers are all so fudged this way or that, however, it's hard to depend on anything but experience in my opinion.
Of course we now need both parents working today. We decided to nearly double the workforce starting back in the late 70's. Doing that without a doubling in the number of things that need to be done causes wages to fall. We're now living with the consequences; everyone has to work to break even with where we were. I don't know how my wife and I broke the mold; my parents both worked, yet we still seem to have done better than they.
By the way, I appreciate your return to respectful dialog. You're a smart guy, and alienating your reader does nothing but prevent folks from benefiting from your ideas because they're feeling insulted and defensive. You're biasing them against your ideas before they've even read them !
Edit: On reflection, I do know why we've done so much better. My dad was a "company man" who seldom changed jobs. Having participated in many salary planning sessions, I know people who are viewed unlikely to leave are discriminated against during distribution of pay raises; those that we value and are seen as a "flight risk" do much better. I bring in business, and I have been relentless in making sure my employer knows I'm mobile. I once left because I didn't like my pay raise just to make the point. I got a 20% raise by the new employer then got another 25% to return about 3 years later. My employer knows I'm a flight risk, and that has pushed my pay higher than an average 1960's CEO. I capture millions in contracts each year based on my designs, so I don't feel bad for my employer ;o)
i am sure you are not surprised but i have been told that before! some people deserve it -some have no chance of hearing any ideas other than what they want to believe. other times i am just cranky - 2 grandchildren 4 days a week then a full time job - and an uncle in diapers in nyc - i am his poa so lots of work for me these days! i think you have it backwards here - We decided to nearly double the workforce starting back in the late 70's. Doing that without a doubling in the number of things that need to be done causes wages to fall. We're now living with the consequences; everyone has to work to break even with where we were. - we didn't decide to double the workforce - paul volker and reagan decided to cut wages and increase profit - read "secrets of the temple" - about the fed by william greider - really good. here is a snippet from volker - "the standard of living for the average American has to decline." - here is more explanation - In August 1979, to restore world “confidence” in the dollar, President Jimmy Carter, himself a hand-picked protégé of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission, was forced by the big New York banks, led by David Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan, to accept Paul Volcker, a protégé of Rockefeller’s from Chase Manhattan Bank, as new Chairman of the Federal Reserve with an open mandate to do what was necessary to save the dollar as reserve currency.
On taking office, Volcker bluntly announced, "the standard of living for the average American has to decline." He was Rockefeller’s hand-picked choice to save the New York financial markets and the dollar at the expense of the nation’s welfare.
The Volcker ‘shock therapy’
Volcker’s shock therapy, begun in October 1979, lasted until August 1982. Interest rates shot through the roof to double digits. The US and world economies were plunged into a monster recession, the worst since World War II. Within a year, the prime rate had shot up to the unheard-of level of 21.5%, compared to an average of 7.6% for the fourteen previous years, a more than threefold rise in weeks. Official US unemployment peaked at 11%, while unofficially when those who simply had given up seeking work were counted, it was far higher.
Wow ! You're a busy man ! I'm "lucky" in that my kids are grown and in good jobs, I have no grandchildren, and both my own and my wifes parents passed away quite a while back. We dodged the "aging parent" problem, though we'd both gladly give up much of what we have to have them back.
I think at least some of the problem had to do with women demanding equal rights didn't it? Also, do you have a link to where Volker made those comments ? I wasn't aware he had said such things. I may be missing part of the equation. Time to dig deeper.
By the way, did you see my "EDIT:" to the comment you just responded to ? I think it probably explains part of the reason why I have done so much better than my father. The other part, of course, would be the fact that I grew up in a period that generated a lot of fake wealth by running up so many deficits per my original comment.
i missed the edit part - for sure some jobs and situations are much more likely to make money than in the past but you need to have the right skill set! auto worker or the workers in the power plant in my hometown will do less well these days. they used to make real money - played golf along side my father at the country club. ok, enough of that - "secrets of the temple" is a great book by greider where he quotes volker. it explains much about what is happening today though it was written in the 1980's - he explains money and credit and the fed. here is a snippet from chomsky then a link to where i got the volker quote - "There is a very simple principle that goes a long way towards explaining decisions of the Bush administration. If some policy is beneficial to wealth, privilege and power, it should be promoted.
"If some policy is beneficial to the large majority of the population but of no particular concern (or even marginally costly) to wealth, privilege and power, it should be undermined.""The administration's opponents are the large majority of the US population," says Chomsky. "The general 'starve the beast' strategy is hardly concealed, though few are willing to tell the truth. Namely, that the 'beast' they have in mind is the "great beast", to borrow the phrase of the Founding Fathers, the dangerous public." : http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/09B3A9EE-10E3-4ED0-83E3-F33DF298B869.htm here is the volker link - i think! http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7...
just read this from chomsky (while looking up starve the beast for slammer) and thought it was along the line of what i wrote to you - this is noam chomsky - again i thought this is common knowledge - "It should be recalled that for about 25 years, wages have stagnated or declined for the majority ... and incomes have been sustained only by work loads far beyond the norm in the industrial world, while the top few percent have become enriched beyond the dreams of avarice."
[Removed]
hahaha....you are a fool, you really believe in the static economic model, don't you? YOU aren't even intelligent enough to be 14 years old...
In the mid 40's we were at war.....nice try though
and there were massively more deductions available in the 50's and 60's to reduce the amount of income subject to taxation.......many more than are now available......
Each time the rate was cut revenue INCREASED to the treasury, as did shares of taxation borne by the rich proportionally more so than did the share of income...but, why don't you ignore that fact again and comment on something else to muddy the water...
it's not really much fun destroying your arguments - more like men playing with boys - not sure what the mid 40's has to do with anything but not surprised by any of your nonsense - i will not waste any more time on your silliness - one trip to google is enough for you - it would be very easy to show that the wealthy paid a larger share of gov't revenue than today - instead here is a response to your last comment -hahaha - Tax Cuts and Deficits
Congressional Budget Office data show that the tax cuts have been the single largest contributor to the reemergence of substantial budget deficits in recent years. Legislation enacted since 2001 added about $3.0 trillion to deficits between 2001 and 2007, with nearly half of this deterioration in the budget due to the tax cuts (about a third was due to increases in security spending, and about a sixth to increases in domestic spending). Yet the President and some Congressional leaders decline to acknowledge the tax cuts’ role in the nation’s budget problems, falling back instead on the discredited nostrum that tax cuts “pay for themselves.” Myth 1: Tax cuts “pay for themselves.”
“You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase.” — President Bush, February 8, 2006
“You have to pay for these tax cuts twice under these pay-go rules if you apply them, because these tax cuts pay for themselves.” — Senator Judd Gregg, then Chair of the Senate Budget Committee, March 9, 2006 Reality: A study by the President’s own Treasury Department confirmed the common-sense view shared by economists across the political spectrum: cutting taxes decreases revenues.
Proponents of tax cuts often claim that “dynamic scoring” — that is, considering tax cuts’ economic effects when calculating their costs — would substantially lower the estimated cost of tax reductions, or even shrink it to zero. The argument is that tax cuts dramatically boost economic growth, which in turn boosts revenues by enough to offset the revenue loss from the tax cuts.
But when Treasury Department staff simulated the economic effects of extending the President’s tax cuts, they found that, at best, the tax cuts would have modest positive effects on the economy; these economic gains would pay for at most 10 percent of the tax cuts’ total cost. Under other assumptions, Treasury found that the tax cuts could slightly decrease long-run economic growth, in which case they would cost modestly more than otherwise expected. (http://www.cbpp.org/7-27-06tax.htm)
The claim that tax cuts pay for themselves also is contradicted by the historical record. In 1981, Congress substantially lowered marginal income-tax rates on the well off, while in 1990 and 1993, Congress raised marginal rates on the well off. The economy grew at virtually the same rate in the 1990s as in the 1980s (adjusted for inflation and population growth), but revenues grew about twice as fast in the 1990s, when tax rates were increased, as in the 1980s, when tax rates were cut. Similarly, since the 2001 tax cuts, the economy has grown at about the same pace as during the equivalent period of the 1990s business cycle, but revenues have grown far more slowly. (http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm)
Some argue that, even if most tax cuts do not pay for themselves, capital gains tax cuts do. But, in reality, capital gains tax cuts cost money as well. After reviewing numerous studies of how investors respond to capital gains tax cuts, the Congressional Budget Office concluded that “the best estimates of taxpayers’ response to changes in the capital gains rate do not suggest a large revenue increase from additional realizations of capital gains — and certainly not an increase large enough to offset the losses from a lower rate.” That’s why CBO, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and the White House Office of Management and Budget all project that making the 2003 capital gains tax cut permanent would cost about $100 billion over the next ten years. (http://www.cbpp.org/policy-points4-18-08.htm)
yeah....that old line about tax cuts causing the deficits is just foolishness....government revenues ROSE the year succeeding the tax cut right through FY07 when the democrats took control of the checkbook, and promptly doubled the real dollar deficit to a cool trillion in FY08
the total debt of full Republican control of congress from FY95-FY07 was 4.034 trillion, over 13 years.....Democrats, and then Democrats with Obama bested that by a full trillion, in only 4 years...5.049.....1.619 trillion under Bush, and 3.430 trillion under Obama.....(and climbing)
Keep trying to blame debt on tax cuts......but the data shows clearly those in congressional power have more effect than tax policy...
Bush43/Republicans 3.255 Trillion, in six years (542.5 billion per year) Bush43/Democrats 2.126 Trillion (Fiscal year debt minus the 787 billion dollar stimulus, signed by Obama in Feb 2009) in two years (1.063 trillion per year)
it was the same under Clinton/Democrats 562 billion in two years (281 billion per year) Clinton/Republicans 833 Billion in six years (138 billion per year)
The deficit DOUBLES under democrats, with exactly the same tax policy and marginal rates....
feel free to check the number yourself:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/
you are boring - if you are interested in the dems are bad and republicans good then find another play thing - i didn't vote for obama in 2008 and won't this time around no matter what fool they put up against him (and it will be a fool!). that will be in part because he didn't have the balls to push through a real stimulus - maybe we would have been heading out of this mess already. as to your deficits you are wrong (not saying tax cuts are never in order) but it is clear from the past 50 years what has been done and needs to be done - if you don't want to see it fine but play somewhere else. here -i have no time for people who lie to try to make a point - especially a partisan one! i doubt the chart will come through but you can read the rest! .......The Bush Deficit Bamboozle
OK, even by contemporary standards, this is rich: the official Republican stance is now apparently that Bush left behind a budget that was in pretty good shape. Mitch McConnell:
They really do think that we’re idiots.
So, that 3.2 percent number comes from here (pdf). Where’s the bamboozle? Let me count the ways.
First, they’re hoping that you won’t know that standard budget data is presented for fiscal years, which start on October 1 of the previous calendar year. So this isn’t the “last year of the Bush administration” — they’ve conveniently lopped off everything that happened post-Lehman — TARP and all.
Second, they’re hoping you won’t look at what was happening quarter by quarter. Here’s net federal borrowing as a percentage of GDP, quarter by quarter, since 2007:
Can we agree that the deficit in the first quarter of 2009 — Obama didn’t even take office until Jan. 20, the ARRA wasn’t even passed until Feb. 17, and essentially no stimulus funds had been spent — had nothing to do with Obama’s polices, and was entirely a Bush legacy? Yet the deficit had already surged to almost 9 percent of GDP. Even in 2009 II, Obama’s policies had barely begun to take effect, and the deficit was already over 10 percent of GDP.
What this chart really tells us is what you should have known already: the deficit is overwhelmingly the result of the economic slump, not Obama policies. But the usual suspects want to fool you.
I’d like to think that the raw dishonesty of this latest Bush defense would be obvious to everyone. But after the past decade, I’ve stopped believing such things. They think we’re idiots — and they may be right.
it's funny how you apply blame to Bush...and yet Obama now get's a pass because of "obstructionist" republican's in the house....
The final two years of the Bush administration, all the spending authorizations and budgets were crafted and passed by liberal democrats in the house.....the president gets and up or down yes/no, he doesn't craft the legislation.....
The economic indicators in january 2007 were still rising, the "slump" as you put it didn't kick in until mid 2008, a lag succeeding the rise in spending and the uncertainty created by the tone in washington....
You keep talking about Obama/Bush like the president is the largest factor....congress is a MUCH larger driver of economic trend than the president.....The Democrats went on a 4 year spending spree, and the deficits INCREASED each year after they assumed control...reversing the trend of the Republicans before them who trimmed 100 billion off the yearly deficit from 2004-2007, despite two wars and a tax cut....
I don't care about your "opinion", nor do I care about the opinion of a reporter who's news story you decide is credible....just like with modestcapitalist...I want the data behind the story, that is where the truth lies..
i guess you don't read to well - i am no fan of the creep in the white house - he is a murderer and a quisling. google "starve the beast " then google david stockman - never mind - i did it for you . no, don't thank me i have a few minutes before i have to make dinner for the wife (an obama fan!). if you do not understand the old time capitalist idea of starve the beast you need to do some reading. this was the plan under reagan (not reagan's plan of course, he didn't know much - it was the plan of his handlers) and bush #2. it is not talked about in polite company but never the less in operation as we speak! here is david - Stockman's influence within the Reagan Administration decreased after the Atlantic Monthly magazine published the famous 18,246 word article, "The Education of David Stockman",[3] in its December 1981 issue, based on lengthy interviews Stockman gave to reporter William Greider. The White House's public relations team thereafter attempted to limit the article's damage to Reagan's perceived fiscal-leadership skills. Stockman was quoted as referring to Reagan's tax act as: "I mean, Kemp-Roth [Reagan's 1981 tax cut] was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate.... It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down.' So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory." Of the budget process during his first year on the job, Mr. Stockman is quoted as saying: "None of us really understands what's going on with all these numbers," which was used as the subtitle of the article.
After Stockman's first year at OMB and after "being taken to the woodshed by the president" due to his candor with Atlantic Monthly's William Greider, Stockman became inspired with the projected trend of increasingly large federal deficits and the rapidly expanding national debt. On 1 August 1985, he resigned OMB and later wrote a memoir of his experience in the Reagan Administration titled The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed (ISBN 0060155604), in which he specifically criticized the failure of congressional Republicans to endorse a reduction of government spending as necessary offsets to the large tax decreases, in order to avoid the creation of large deficits and an increasing national debt...............here is a bit from chomsky on starve the beast. this is a few years old but still on the money - please read carefully - as i said this is getting boring - i am only doing this since someone else might read it and learn something! ............"The general 'starve the beast' strategy is hardly concealed, though few are willing to tell the truth. Namely, that the 'beast' they have in mind is the "great beast", to borrow the phrase of the Founding Fathers, the dangerous public." ....."There is a very simple principle that goes a long way towards explaining decisions of the Bush administration. If some policy is beneficial to wealth, privilege and power, it should be promoted.
"If some policy is beneficial to the large majority of the population but of no particular concern (or even marginally costly) to wealth, privilege and power, it should be undermined."
Foreign adventures The overall budget actually weighed in at $2.5 trillion. Defence spending is increased across the board, both internally in the US and for its foreign adventures.
There is a 4.8% increase on defence, plus larger increases for Homeland Security (7%) and counter-terrorism which shoots up by 17%. In total, since becoming president, Bush has increased military and defence spending by just over 40%.
Chomsky sees the budget not as a series of cuts but rather "to reorient (spending), so that it is even more focused on the interests of extreme wealth and power than before".
Before these spending hikes the United States already spent more on its military than the next 15 biggest national armies combined together. Even nuclear weaponry is set to get a boost to defend the US against "new threats, terrorism, failed states" as outlined by Condoleezza Rice in her Paris speech.
President Bush also said that his budget was going to control the US national budget deficit. However, even Alan Greenspan, chairman of the US Federal Reserve, has now admitted that the imbalances in the US economy are worsened partly by tax cuts created by Bush's administration.
Equity extraction In a low-key speech last week Greenspan admitted that US consumption has been driven by tax cuts and "equity extraction". This is the practice of taking on more debt on the back of rising house prices.
Indeed, the Bush administration predicts that by 2010 the US current account deficit will have amounted to a cumulative $1.257 trillion. By the same year the Bush administration tax cuts, as estimated by them, will have amounted to a cumulative $1.290 trillion.
Public debate between a choice of tax cuts or social security are off limits, says Chomsky, as "the US (administration says it) must dismantle a very efficient social security programme which faces, at worst, trivial financial problems that could easily be overcome by measures that cannot be contemplated and are never discussed.
"Most simply, by raising ... the outrageously regressive payroll tax, which means that Bill Gates pays nothing beyond the first roughly $90,000 of income."
The new budget is also based on some premises that are open to question. On the one hand ,Greenspan was warning that "market pressures" will come to "readjust" the US economy.
Do you even understand that those increases in revenue were the result of an increase in consumer driven economic activity and that the increase was in part, artificial due to sub-prime which never would have sold to begin with if it weren't for the shrinking middle class? Also that the lower majority were spending money they didn't have in part because it was being concentrated?
Do you even understand why the revenue to GDP ratio dropped to record low territory (16%) shortly after and remains there to this day WITH THOSE BUSH TAX CUTS STILL IN PLACE?
Its true. You can look it up.
God damn scammersworld. Can't you EVER think outside of that little partisan box?
By the way, I'm still waiting for you to dance your way around that multi-trillion dollar pharmaceutical favor signed into law by Bush which STILL hasn't been paid for.
Thats three times I've made reference to it with you.
Still, no response.
Its not that simple scammerswold. Just about every prominent economist has admitted that the Bush tax cuts DID NOT pay for themselves. A few years ago, Arther Laffer was asked specifically if they had. In die-hard conservative head-in-the-sand partisan puppet fashion, he whimped out and said:
Drum roll please...
"I don't know."
and thats Laffer. Your conservative God.
You don't seem to like civil discourse. My post was polite and respectful, and I'd appreciate it if you would try to behave in a similar fashion. Maybe we can both learn something from one another.
Victory Europe (VE) Day was 7 May, 1945. Victory Japan (VJ) Day was August 14, 1945. The Bretton Woods conference was in July 1944.
The 1960 Form 1040 is available at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/f1040--1960.pdf The instructions and tax tables are available at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040a--1960.pdf . Please read them then let me know if you still think your assertion that there were more deductions is accurate.
I don't want or need to argue. I am simply trying to move the discussion to a respectful and polite discussion based on fact rather than assertion.
I was responding to flip....it got posted in the wrong part of the thread
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, my son.
Apparently no one is without sin.
I guess wer're gonna all have to start throwing them!
I was working all day and just signed on this evening to find that Scammersworld edited his 'challenge' page. Now, he swears that I stated that the middle and lower classes paid an equal 'amount' in taxes as the top 10%. TOP TEN PERCENT.
THATS NOT WHAT I SAID. I NEVER SAID THAT. SCAMMERSWORLD IS A GOD DAMN LIAR.
I HAVE STATED FROM THE VERY BEGINNING THAT WHEN YOU ACCOUNT FOR ALL FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL TAXES AND FEES, THE MIDDLE CLASS PAY ABOUT THE SAME RATE AS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME AS THE RICHEST ONE PERCENT. IN FACT, THE 2ND PERCENTILE ACTUALLY PAYS A HIGHER RATE ON AVERAGE THAN THE RICHEST ONE PERCENT. THATS A FACT.
THERE WAS NEVER ANY DISPUTE REGARDING THE TOP TEN PERCENT OR THE SHARE OF FEDERAL TAXES PAID BY THE TOP TEN PERCENT. MY POSITION HAS ALWAYS BEEN REGARDING TOTAL FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL EFFECTIVE RATES FOR THE CLASSES AS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME.
Not only has Scammersworld been dead wrong on a dozen issues, now he can't even stick to the record. He is a God damn liar.
I can't spend a lot of time on this tonight because I have too much work to do this evening and tomorrow. But rest assured, I will be back online tomorrow evening or the following day to drive home the following issues like a runaway train through Scammersworld's back yard.
FACT: The richest one percent and the middle class pay about the same effective tax rate when you account for all Federal, State, and Local taxes and fees.
FACT: A significant portion of income for the richest one percent has been subsidized for decades with Federal, State, and City revenues and resources.
FACT: The single greatest factor driving up the cost of living has been and remains the incredible greed of the richest one percent.
FACT: There has been a multi-trillion dollar transfer of wealth from the middle and lower classes to the richest one percent over the last 35 years.
FACT: That concentration of wealth continues as we type causing economic instability in the US and around the world.
FACT: Wages have fallen for the majority of US workers over the last 35 years when you adjust for inflation. Household incomes for the lower majority have risen on average only because so many more households now require 2nd providers and retirees returning to work in order to compensate for the drastic increases in key items like energy, food, health care, housing, and higher education.
FACT: Energy, food, and home sale prices ARE NOT considered when core inflation is calculated.
FACT: The richest one percent have nearly tripled their income and more than doubled their actual buying power over the last 35 years while the middle and lower classes have lost actual buying power and net worth.
FACT: Consumer debt in America is nearly or possibly exceeding TWO TRILLION dollars (not counting home loans). This is FIVE TIMES what it was 35 years ago even after you adjust for inflation and population growth.
FACT: The bulk of consumer debt is held by the lower 90%.
FACT: Its a direct correlation. When the rich get too rich, the poor get poorer.
FACT: Those trends continue as we type. If they are not partially reversed soon, there will be a GLOBAL DEPRESSION.
FACT: The first Great Depression was also caused by a heavy concentration of wealth. The recovery involved a partial redistribution.
FACT: My critics can not prove their outrageous claims that the richest one percent on average pay the highest total effective tax RATE. THATS RATE. NOT AMOUNT. THE MIDDLE CLASS PAY ABOUT THE SAME TOTAL EFFECTIVE RATE.
FACT: My critics can not prove their outrageous claim that the middle class has expanded over the last 35 years. Only a die-hard conservative head-in-the-sand partisan puppet would even have the nerve to imply such a thing.
FACT: My beef HAS NEVER been with the richest 10%. NOT ON ANY ISSUE. Its been with the richest 1%. THE RICHEST ONE PERCENT. THEY hold 43% of all financial wealth in America. THEY run the energy, health care, and finance industries. THEY hire corporate lobbyists. THEY own our government. THE RICHEST ONE PERCENT. So don't let Scammersworld or anyone else divert your attention from the incredible greed and corruption of that richest 1% by lumping them in with the upper class in general.
ITS A TRICK. DON'T FALL FOR IT.
FACT: I'll be back tomorrow evening or Monday at the latest to slam through Scammersworld's BS like a runaway train through a picket fence.
Don't let ANYTHING he types fool you. There is ALWAYS another side to the story. Always without exception.
Another thing: Beware of OWS lookalike sites. I landed on one yesterday. It looks identical and appears to be linked with this site. But the internet address was entirely different. My system hasn't been the same since. As a precaution, I tried to change my password on this site. But I can't. Perhaps NewEnglandPatriot or another tech savvy user can advise us further.
One last thing: I see somebody has been busy voting down my comments with their multiple IDs. I lost 49 points in one day. It really doesn't matter. I have exchanged PMs with over a dozen users who share similar views. Most of you OWSers know that I'm on your side. We may not agree on every issue, but we agree on most.
FACT long list should use sub-categories
[-] 1 points by ebri (250) 1 day ago
Thank you for your work. Thank you for articulating the truth.
Those "voices in the wilderness" who've known about the outrageous wealth inequalities for decades have perhaps read about wealth throughout the centuries. I haven't, but suspect there have always been wealth disparities. It may be that the internet has sped up both increased concentration of wealth (automated, ongoing stock trades) and our awareness of and ability to communicate about it.
Hopefully the internet can speed up resolution of this issue. Today's Market Place report on NPR noted the big banks are getting a little smaller, but they are still "too big to fail."
Still, the very wealthy have gotten way too wealthy and it's dangerous for any one very small group of individuals to wield that much wealth, or power, over the rest of us. I haven't heard this issue particularly addressed except by OWS.
It is interesting to see how tenacious deniers of this reality have been. Many seem to take it personally that others are observing reality, when it's not meant to be anything personal at all. In so doing, they turn our observations into personal attacks and go on the offensive.
The "FACT" list doesn't have any sources, citations, or any verifiable data to back up the claims.....which is EXACTLY what this post was about....
Sorry, you lose....
Now, as I grow tired of Modestcapitalists constant repetition of fabricated and misleading data, I will.....once and for all, expose him as a propagandist who provides incorrect, misleading, and fabricated data......
His contention above, and many times in the past about the top 1% holding 43% of the financial wealth in the US is false, fallacy, and an outright lie...here is the truth, with official sources, and links for you to verify the data yourself.....
The latest data available is for 2004
here goes...are you paying attention Modcap?
Total US household Net Worth 2004 (1)
52.6 Trillion Dollars (52,622,300,000,000)
Total tax payers 2004 (individual returns) (2)
130,134,000....top 1% would be 1,301,340 tax payers (4)
Total number of top wealth holders with gross assets of $1.5 Million or more 2004 (3)
2,728,000
Total combined value of those gross assets (3)
11.1 Trillion Dollars (11,076,759,000,000)
Percentage of 2004 taxpayers with gross assets of $1.5 million or more (4)
2.08%
Percentage of total US net worth owned by that 2.08% of taxpayers (4)
21.1%
21.1% owned by the top 2% of Americans...not 43% owned by the top 1%....oops, your figures are bullshit......
Sources:
(1) http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/20110609/z1r-5.pdf
(2) Table 472: 2006 US Statistical Abstract http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/07statab/fedgov.pdf
(3) Table 718: 2012 US Statistical Abstract http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0718.pdf
(4) Simple calculations based on data cited....
You've got your head pretty deep in that die-hard conservative partisan puppet sand scammersworld. Its cutting off the oxygen to your brain.
Astonishing. All that smug overconfident arrogance and you can't even remember the basics that I have pointed out a dozen times with you.
FACT: The 43% of wealth I have referred to so many times is that of FINANCIAL wealth specifically. FINANCIAL WEALTH scammersworld. FINANCIAL WEALTH. THAT MEANS MONEY. CURRENCY, COIN, GOLD, SILVER, STOCKS, BONDS, ECT.
FINANCIAL WEALTH SCAMMERSWORLD. FINANCIAL WEALTH SCAMMERSWORLD. FINANCIAL WEALTH SCAMMRSWOLD.
Go back and read that 87 more times. Then another 87. Then read this:
I have also made many references to private wealth in general. Those references regarding the richest 1% have been 40%. Not 43%. So we are now down to an 18.9% spread between your assertions and mine.
How can this be explained? Thats easy.
For starters,
THE STATISTICS YOU JUST REFERRED TO ARE 8 FUCKING YEARS OLD SCAMMERSWORLD. 8 FUCKING YEARS OLD. THOSE ARE NOT THE LATEST STATISTICS AVAILABLE. NOT BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION. THERE HAVE ALREADY BEEN SEVERAL STUDIES DONE ON MORE RECENT FIGURES. ALL OF WHICH INDICATE A MUCH GREATER CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH.
That being said, the concentration of private US wealth in '04' was already far greater than your sources and calculations indicate. Far greater. I know this for a fact and I will gladly prove it. I am more than willing to analyze your sources and figures myself but as I've told you before, my ability to surf is limited on this terminal. I can not download PDF files on this slow computer using dial-up. Its out of the question.
Are you willing to create a page on this site and paste the text and figures from the sources you cite? This would include the summaries and explanations of what those figures include and don't include. Those inclusions and exclusions are vital. They will change everything. Are you willing to paste that information on this site for scrutiny?
If not, will you send it to me as a text file if I give you an email address?
I don't care about the return address. You can create a disposable one for all I care. I will do the same.
Scammersworld. You have a long record of leaving vital details out of your die-hard conservative 'defend the rich' partisan puppet essays and explanations. There is no doubt that your latest entry is no exception. One look at those 8 year old figures, which I KNOW are way off is proof of that. I already have a few suspicions regarding what was left out. I'm looking forward to confirming those suspicions and posting the results here.
I have told you several times that my ability to surf on this terminal is limited. I can not download the PDF files. I am requesting that you paste the unedited text and figures here or send them to me as text files.
My hunch is that you will refuse to do either because you know those figures don't include all forms of private wealth and debt. You know that when all inclusions are made, the true concentration of US wealth as of '04' will be shown to be much greater.
21.1% of private US wealth held by the top 2% as of '04'?
No way in hell. It was twice (ballpark) that in '04'. Its even worse now.
Please paste the unedited text and figures on a new page here or send them to me as a text file.
No? Thats what I thought.
You assertions are dead wrong. Not to mention 8 FUCKING YEARS OLD. 8 FUCKING OLD YEARS SCAMMERSWORLD.
The official info is contained in pdf form, that is the form that the government chooses...not me, I suggest a coffee shop....
The Federal Reserve and Statistical Abstract list the forms of Net Worth by category...including all forms of financial wealth...but I am sure that you will claim your sources have a crystal ball and can see sources of wealth that are not available to official sources...
The age of the data is the latest reported by government, and the figures as used in the calculations are accurate..
You are PROVEN wrong....and you can't accept that your suspect sources of propaganda are lies...
I think we are done here, as I have proven over and over that I am right and YOU are wrong and a liar who fabricates facts...
You are DISMISSED
I've noticed a trend with you. Every time I challenge you to do something which would jeopardize your position or record, you say "I think we are done here.".
Its become downright predictable.
No, I won't claim my sources to have a crystal ball. But as I've said many times, your 'official' sources often omit vital points and details which have been documented elsewhere.
I'm requesting the text and figures once again. Either pasted here on a new page or sent to me as a text file.
My hunch is that you will refuse to do either because you know those figures don't include all forms of private wealth and debt. You know that when all inclusions are made, the true concentration of US wealth as of '04' will be shown to be much greater.
you can get the statistical abstract files in pdf and excel files here: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/
It is not a matter of if "I" will or won't post text files....the Federal Reserve Report is several pages of data, and the statistical abstract is hundreds of pages.....presented in tables of data
Forgive me if I don't do hours and hours of data entry as a provision for your lack of technology.....go to a coffee shop, or a Kmart....
There is no jeopardy to my position, the data is the data...plain and simple...the figures I cited are straight from the documents I cited, and are available to anyone with an internet connection...I am sure if you clicked on the links and walked away for a few moments they would be loaded when you returned the files are not that big...The StatAB and federal reserve links are only 29kb, 745kb, and 61kb respectively.....easily within the limits of even dialup service....
This is but another diversionary tactic so you can try and change the subject...AGAIN, to deflect the fact that your figures are lying propaganda....
and, as an aside...I did make one error that I just noticed...I used "gross" assets...the actual "net worth" numbers are smaller......which means the total percentage of net worth of the tax payers with assets over 1.5 million is also smaller......would you like me to recalculate the figures?
You'll still be wrong, only more so.....
I am anxious to see what your excuse will be next as to why you can't verify the data.....the simple answer is you don't want to, you want to live inside your propaganda bubble...you feel safe there.....
Diversionary tactic huh? Thats a good one coming from you.
I will visit the local libary within the next few days. Possibly tomorrow if time allows. I will print every relevant page from your sources and determine what forms of wealth and/or debt you left out in order to draw such outrageous conclusions.
The richest 2% owned only 21.1% of private US wealth as of '04'?
NO WAY IN HELL. I PROMISE BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT I WILL DESTROY THAT OUTRAGEOUS CLAIM BY POINTING OUT WHICH FORMS OF WEALTH AND/OR DEBT WERE EXCLUDED BY YOU.
Thats a promise to you and everyone else on this site.
In the meantime explain this:
The other day, you swore that the top quintile owned just 32% of America's wealth. These were your exact words:
"The official data, doesn't place the number anywhere near your estimate....via the census bureau: "Wealth and Asset Ownership" detailed tables 2004: table 4 (the most recent info available, published/revised Oct 31, 2011) Top Net Worth of those in the highest quintile is 32%"
To which I replied:
"Top 20% only hold 32% of US net worth? Are you referring to private net worth?
If so, thats too absurd to be taken seriously. That would indicate a nearly flat distribtion of wealth. NEARLY FLAT."
To which you replied:
"Yes."
If the top 2% owned 21.1% of US private wealth as of '04', then how is it possible that the top 20% combined owned just 32%? Do you really expect me or anyone else to believe that those 3rd-20th percentiles from the top combined owned just 10.9% of US private wealth when the 1st and 2nd percentiles alone owned 21.1%
You only have two choices here. Either way, my next question will be:
If your assertion regarding that 32% held by the top quintile was that far off just two days ago, why should we take your latest assertion seriously?
As promised, I will visit the local library by Monday at the latest, print all relevant pages from your sources and return to let everyone know what forms of wealth and/or debt you left out in order to draw the outrageous conclusion that America's richest 2% owned just 21.1% of its private wealth in '04'. 8 years ago.
In the meantime, explain your assertion that the top quintile owned 32% as of '04'.
you misread that comment...32% of the top quintile has a net worth of over $500,000.00...that is what I said...and that 12.8% of all incomes have a net worth of over $500,000.00
Are you having trouble reading now too?
and please DO use only financial wealth...the number and total will be smaller still.....
No I didn't misread it. Lets take another look at what you entered two days ago and compare it with what you entered 5 minutes ago. Considering the exchange that took place in between.
You said:
"The official data, doesn't place the number anywhere near your estimate....via the census bureau: "Wealth and Asset Ownership" detailed tables 2004: table 4 (the most recent info available, published/revised Oct 31, 2011) Top Net Worth of those in the highest quintile is 32%"
To which I replied:
"Top 20% only hold 32% of US net worth? Are you referring to private net worth?
If so, thats too absurd to be taken seriously. That would indicate a nearly flat distribtion of wealth. NEARLY FLAT."
To which you replied:
"Yes."
Shit happens. But don't blame your communication mistakes on me.
Now, for the fourth time, respond to the points I made several days ago regarding inflation, key living expenses, 2nd providers, and retirees as they pertain to your 'official data' from the CBO indicating that household incomes rose across all quintiles from '79' - '07'.
Let me guess: Your response is "I think we are done here"?
you left off the rest, which completes the statement....."Top Net Worth of those in the highest quintile is 32%....those who's Net Worth exceeds $500,000.00,.....the total of all incomes exceeding this amount is 12.8%.."
none of those have anything to do with our discussion on this post....they are not income, or taxes, it is another of your diversions intended to proclaim that a middle income wage earner paying in a dollar is somehow contributing more that a high income earner paying in a million dollars....your "more taxes as shares of income" besides being bullshit, is irrelevant.....the rich have more left over because they earn more...that is the perk of the sacrifice, struggle, and effort it takes to become wealthy... Those with less initiative are left with less after living expenses, and if they want to get ahead, they must live more austere lives....in the report on net worth by the cbo the lower quintiles are also represented in the over $500,000.00 net worth sector 4.3, 6.2, 8.5, 13, and 32% of each respective quintile from lowest to highest have net worth's above $500,000.00.....
This post is dedicated to the fact that you make assertions without credible data to back them up...plain and simple.....I will not play your diversionary game with you any longer.....you are like a child who doesn't want to go to bed...you will change direction everytime your fallacies are illustrated.
When you have official, credible, data we can continue...until then I am calling your assertions false and asking you to provide qualifications for them...if you cannot..they remain false...
2% owning 21% is hardly flat.....but it's not the hyperbole that you contend...again..without reference, or proof......
You have admitted something important in the most recent comments....the fact that you cannot download or view PDF files.....now I understand why you have no official citations or sources....almost all the official data provided by the US Government that a person can use and track to verify the integrity of news stories, blogs, and internet postings, is provided in the form of PDF files...you have proven yet again that you do not check the data behind your assertions...you just believe what you desire to believe...without merit or factual analysis.....
You might want to try to educate yourself on some facts, it would make your arguments more credible....and prevent you from posting fallacies forwarded by others as fact...
You included the rest which still doesn't explain this line:
"Top Net Worth of those in the highest quintile is 32%..."
Again Sherlock. When I made the reference to a nearly flat distribution, I was responding to this line:
"Top Net Worth of those in the highest quintile is 32%..."
As promised on my new page, I will debunk your outrageous claim that the richest 2% held just 21.1% of America's private wealth in '04' in a few days after I've printed and scrutinized the relevant data from your own sources.
In the meantime:
Now, for the FIFTH time, respond to the points I made several days ago regarding inflation, key living expenses, 2nd providers, and retirees as they pertain to your 'official data' from the CBO indicating that household incomes rose across all quintiles from '79' - '07'.
FATAL FLAW: Your assertion that the richest 2.08% held just 21.1% of all private US wealth in 2004 was based on a sample of the reported gross assets of the top 2.08% of tax filers. It should have been based on the net assets of the top 2% of households.
FATAL FLAW: Your assertion that the richest 2.08% held just 21.1% of all private US wealth in 2004 was made without consideration of the 9.5 trillion in debt owed by the lower 98%.
You have already admitted (sort of) that you failed to consider the first fatal flaw when making your assertion. Your exact words were:
"Here is the "comprehensive study" by the IRS that say's exactly the same thing that I did (with a single exception, they listed the top as 1.2%, using the entire population as the comparison group....I can accept that, obviously newborns and toddlers COULD have "net worth)......"
Still you implied here that "newborns and toddlers" made up nearly half of that top 2.08 percent of wealth holders that you previously referred to. This was an absurd implication to make.
None of your 'official sources' of data account for that remaining 9.5 trillion in debt owed by the lower 98% in 2004 (including home loans).
Like I said before, the ability to do basic math is worthless in this field unless you also have the ability to think critically.
Take a lesson from sociologist G. William Domhoff and economist Edward N. Wolff who know well enough to carefully consider all forms of wealth and debt when determining the actual distribution of wealth in America.
According to this comprehensive study (and others) the richest 1% alone held 34.3% of all private US wealth in 2004. In particular, they held 42.3% of all privately held financial US wealth.
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
The Wall Street Journal reported the exact same statistic of 34.3% in April of 2006 along with another that the the next wealthiest 9% of American households held 36.1% of total private wealth in 2004. It would therefore have been mathematically impossible for the 2nd percentile of American households to hold any less than 4.011115% of total private wealth in 2004. Of course, this absolute minimum would indicate a nearly flat distribution of wealth across the 2nd-10th percentiles. Such an implication would be absurd.
http://faculty.morainepark.edu/jhalter/economics/docs/Wealth%20dist.pdf
Your original assertion was that the richest 2.08% of Americans held just 21.1% of total US private wealth in 2004. I have just established that the richest 1% alone held 34.3% and the 2nd percentile alone could not possibly have held any less than 4.011115%. Of course, that 2nd percentile held much more.
As I promised to prove, your assertion was off by around 100% or more.
You cannot cast the first, my son. Or the second, or third, or fourth ...
Bless me father, I have sinned.
i have a number of questions here - first is what is the share of income for all those groups? next you talk about income taxes - i assume you know that distorts the picture. the government gets money to fund it's programs from many sources - you would have to look at payroll taxes, real estate taxes, sales taxes, fees etc to find out who is really paying what. i assume (i hope incorrectly) that you do not want t real discussion of the way government is funded but want to make your point. i am not interested in some partisan nonsense. take a look at highway tolls and subway fares etc to see who pays what share of gov't revenue - i am sure you will find that at best we have a flat tax - probably the middle and working classes pay a higher percentage!
the federal government does not get real estate or sales taxes...those are taxes leveled by states.....
and tolls, subway fares, daily living expenses are paid by all, they are NOT "taxes" and there is no income level breakdown available on which sector pays for those items...the bottom line is: It costs money to live, your living expenses are your responsibility and not within the scope of how taxes should be distributed......the tax system is there to fund the government, not to reward, or punish, certain individual behavior....THAT is where you progressives, collectivists, and liberals, miss the boat........YOU want to use the tax code as a tool of behavioral modification, you think that the economic system is static, and if you take from one end of the spectrum that those in that group will continue to exhibit the same behaviors and actions, rather than adjust to the rules to benefit themselves.......that's foolish reasoning...and the reason tax increases and uncertainty/instability lead to lower revenue levels...
and we don't have set immovable "classes" in the US....they are dynamic, people move in and out of the different socioeconomic levels many times over their lifetimes.....well, except those who are supported by government benefits...they remain largely in the same socioeconomic group....enslaved to that government check......
no shit - taxes are taxes - state, federal, local - doesn't matter who takes in the money and who spends it. if fed taxes on the rich were low and state taxes on the rich high because the burden was shifted to the states you would be singing a different tune. total tax is what counts and how the totality of gov't services is paid for is the key. do not tell me what i think and keep your opinion to yourself - i have heard that shit from the rich and their quislings for long enough - stay on topic and keep going or just shut up! the question is what should gov't be doing - how do we pay for it and who pays how much. we have a flat tax at best right now - you want to change the gov't to fund only police and military that is fine but a different discussion. go ahead - try to get that through to the population
Well well. I just signed back on and found this page. It appears that I hit a nerve when I challenged scammersworld to put his record of making accurate predictions up against mine. I also hit a nerve each and every time I caught him in some stupid mistake.
Like the time he swore that those with "higher than average" incomes shared just 46% of total income (a mathematical impossibility). That was dead wrong. Or the time he swore that all State and Local taxes and fees were flat or progressive without exception. That was dead wrong. Or the time he swore that real estate taxes in particular were flat or progressive without exception. That was dead wrong. Or the time he swore that a recession didn't technically and by definition involve two consecutive quarters of negative growth. That was dead wrong. Or the time he swore that capital gains were not income. That was dead wrong. Or the time he swore that there was no such thing as a negative corporate tax rate. That was dead wrong. Or the time he swore that "combined Local/State/Federal taxes in the US are far in excess of any rates anywhere else in the world". That was dead wrong. Or the time he swore that no business enterprise paid taxes ever, they simply passed every penny onto the consumer. That was dead wrong. Or the time he swore that corporate profits made overseas could never be taxed in the US under any circumstances. That was dead wrong. Or the time he swore that there was no link whatsoever between distribution of income and/or wealth and economic stability as long as all levels expand. That was dead wrong. Or the time he swore that yearly deficits were cut by 18% from January of '03' to January of '07'. That was dead wrong.
If scammersworld tries to weasel his way out of these mistakes like he did on the pages which he made them, I will simply paste my responses from those pages which explain each mistake one at a time in detail.
Thank you for all you do. I wish I had time to do more, but I do what I can. Glad to be on your team, ModestCapitalist2229.
He's good? Ain't he?
He must be a bookmark master. Mine are a mess...........:)
This is a portion of a previous entry in which I address income shares by quintile and back it up with an official government report.
The CBO report I am about to make reference to breaks down shares of net American income by quintile. Since a quintile represents 1/5, the middle quintile would certainly represent the 'middle class'. But we'll expand further out to all 5 quintiles just to cover all bases. Keep in mind these statistics represent income AFTER taxes.
Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the lowest quintile dropped by 27.9 percent. Does that prove the expansion of the lowest class? Damn near it but lets eliminate all doubt.
Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the second quintile, dropped by 23.6 percent. Does that prove the expansion of the lower class? Isn't it possible that the lowest two quintiles were always the lower class and the middle class had always represented just 1/5 of the US population? Well, thats what justhefacts would swear so lets eliminate that last shred of doubt. Lets move onto the middle quintile. The indisputable 'middle class'.
Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the middle quintile dropped by 14.5 percent. There you go. Indisputable proof that at least 3/5 of Americans lost their relative share of net income between 1979 and 2007. Indisputable proof that America's middle class had shrunk and its lower class had expanded between 1979 and 2007. Indisputable mathematical proof. Still, lets move onto the next quintile.
Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the fourth quintile dropped by 10.3 percent. There you go. Indisputable proof that at least 4/5 of Americans lost their relative share of net income between the years 1979 and 2007.
Bankruptcy and consumer debt rose significantly during this time frame. By 2007, consumer debt alone rose to nearly $2,000,000,000,000. Thats NEARLY TWO TRILLION DOLLARS.
So we've proven the actual shrinkage of the middle class and the actual expansion of the lower class. We've clearly established a loss of financial assets.
So where did the money go? The highest quintile? Lets take a look.
Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the fifth quintile rose by 23.8 percent. Should we blame them? The highest quintile? Do we really want to blame a full 20% of the American population?
Not in my book. Lets take a closer look.
Between the years 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the top decile (one tenth) rose by 40.2 percent. Thats a 16.4 percent spread just within 10 percent of the population. Lets take a closer look.
Between the years 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the top ventile (one twentieth) rose by 61.9 percent. Thats a 21.9 percent spread just within 5 percent of the population. Interesting. Now, lets take a look at the final piece of the puzzle from this particular time frame.
Between 1979 and 2007, the start of the Great Recession and the worst financial crisis in nearly 80 years, the share of net income for the top centile (one hundredth, top 1%) rose by 128.0 percent. Thats a spread of 66.1 percent just within 5 percent of the population.
Update:
I did have a link here to the CBO report regarding these statistics but the page has just very recently been replaced with the usual crap about 'Federal Income Tax rates'.
I can't help wondering why that page which was in place for several months at least was replaced with another after I posted the link on this site.
There is no doubt. It was good a few days ago. Now, its been replaced.
Thank you again, ModestCapitalist2229! This is exactly what the world needs to know! Most people weren't sure why things were so wrong before we examined the actual numbers. We live in the Age of Reason, in which mathematics, physics, science, and effective government GOT US TO THE MOON, after all, among other things. People didn't waste time being slammersworldisback or anyone like this person since they had more important things to do. Thank you ModestCapitalist2229.
This is a portion of a previous response to scammersworld in which I quote a research group and provide a source.
Note: There are no official government reports on total (Federal, state, and local) effective tax rates for any income group. There never have been. These studies have only been done by independent research groups. There are conflicting figures but all independent studies have indicated that the middle class end up paying about the same effective rate as a percentage of income when all Federal, State, and local taxes are considered.
Sorry about the profanity. Scammersworld had it coming.
"When you include these many Federal, State, and Local taxes and fees, the middle class end up paying about the same rate as a percentage of income as the rich. The difference is within 5 percent. In fact, I state that disclaimer just to be safe. It's probably more like 2 percent. You want a source? You tell me to "put up or shut up"?
Check out this report from Citizens For Tax Justice:
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2009.pdf
Fucking read it bitch. In the meantime, read this quote from the report:
"The total federal, state and local effective tax rate for the richest one percent of Americans (30.9 percent) is only slightly higher than the average effective tax rate for the remaining 99 percent of Americans (29.4 percent). From the middle-income ranges upward, total effective tax rates are virtually flat across income groups." "
And another:
"If you still have even the slightest doubt, watch this video of independent economist and former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich debunking 7 lies about the economy. Pay special attention to that 7th lie.
http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=mM5Ep9fS7Z0
I type the truth. When you account for all Federal, State, and local taxes, the middle class pay about the same effective rate as the richest one percent."
The following quotes make reference to official income statistics for 2009 and 2010.
"According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 99% of Americans (actually more like 98%) saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively.
The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion. In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009."
Note: As I explained on a previous page, these statistics were first published by CBS.com in October. I only added a brief correction in parenthesis.
The following are quotes from the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) which confirm the rapid rise in inequality and the growing concentration of wealth.
"FACT: The CBO Study Notes That Rising Income Inequality Slowed During Recessions But Points To Different Causes
CBO: Income Inequality Rose Over 30-Year Period, Except During Recessions. From the Congressional Budget Office's report, "Trends in the distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007": "The dispersion of household income rose almost continually throughout the nearly 30-year period spanning 1979 through 2007 except during the 1990-1991 and 2001 recessions. The recent turmoil in financial markets, the prolonged recession that began in December 2007, and the ongoing slow recovery may have caused a pause in that upward trend, but the present analysis does not extend beyond 2007." [Congressional Budget Office, October 2011]
CBO Report Measures Change In Income Inequality From 1979 To 2007 Because Those Years Both Preceded Recessions And Therefore Had "Similar Overall Economic Activity." From the Congressional Budget Office's report, "Trends in the distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007": "To assess trends in the distribution of household income, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) examined the span from 1979 to 2007 because those endpoints allow comparisons between periods of similar overall economic activity (they were both years before recessions)." [Congressional Budget Office, October 2011]
Despite Similar Economic Forces In Both Years, Income Inequality Has Risen "Substantially." From the Congressional Budget Office's report, "Trends in the distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007": "The distribution of after-tax income (including government transfer payments) became substantially more unequal from 1979 to 2007 as a result of a rapid rise in income for the highest-income households, sluggish income growth for the middle 60 percent of the population, and an even smaller increase in after-tax income for the 20 percent of the population with the lowest income."
The Congressional Budget Office also included in its report the following chart showing the share of after-tax income enjoyed by each quintile in 1979 and in 2007:
CBO: "Major Reason" For Rising Income Inequality Between 1979 And 2007 Was Wealthier Households' Share Of Market Income Increased. From the Congressional Budget Office's report, "Trends in the distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007":
CBO: Change In Market Income Occurred Because Sources Of Income Became More Concentrated With The Wealthy And Because Capital Gains, Which Are Skewed Toward The Wealthy, Grew. From the Congressional Budget Office's report, "Trends in the distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007":
Thanks, ModestCaptialist for putting together all of this important information. It is no small task.
[Removed]
[Deleted]
It's hilarious. Where'd he go? Why isn't he responding after all the fuss? We should support our own, don't you think?
[Deleted]
Look. I treat everyone like a human being. I'm not saying you have to, but I do. It's in my personal code. Ad hominem attacks have no merit.
Yeah...douche, some of us have jobs and mortgages.....WE contribute to society and don't stay up all night typing like a giggling dim bulb Bevis.....
The following are two quotes of Albert Einstein which address the link between concentration of wealth and economic instability:
I have included a link to a source where Einstein's entire essay "Why Socialism" can be read. As can be verified, my quotes of Einstein are accurate.
Note: I have never called for socialism and I never will. Personally, I think it would be too boring. But in Eistein's day it was far more stable than capitalism.
" "Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society." -Albert Einstein 1949
"The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions." -Albert Einstein 1949"
www.ucm.es/info/bas/es/einstein/html/why.htm
"
This is another previous entry in which I cite multiple sources for the quotes of experts who have gone on record acknowledging the link between concentration of wealth and economic instability.
Does the "detailed look" make one single reference to the record high concentration of wealth reached in 1929? If not, its diversionary hogwash.
John Kenneth Galbraith and Marriner Eccles Explained 50 Years Ago that Inequality Causes Crashes
Preface: If you think that only liberals are concerned about inequality, please read this.
In his definitive study of the Great Depression, The Great Crash, 1929, John Kenneth Galbraith wrote:
Galbraith wrote that in 1954.
Marriner S. Eccles - Federal Reserve chairman from 1934 to 1948 - made a similar point in his 1951 book Beckoning Frontiers:
Numerous prominent economists in government and academia have since agreed that large inequalities can cause - or at least contribute to - financial crises, including:
Paul Krugman and Simon Johnson are also open to the possibility..
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2011/02/john-kenneth-galbraith-explained-that.html
Some of Einsteins comments regarding the concentration of wealth and the relationship to economic instability were made in a long essay published in 1949. First, a quote, then a link.
http://patrickmylund.com/blog/albert-einstein-on-capitalism-and-socialism/
Just for the record: I don't want socialism. I never have. I never will. I want modest capitalism.
I have stated many times that FDR's policies (designed to partially reverse the record high concentration of wealth) were successful every year but one. I have stated that his policies resulted in economic growth and job creation every year but one. Also that he did in fact, officially end the Great Depression.
The following is an entry from 'looselyhuman' who has gone on record with a similar claim. One source to verify our claims is included. Out of respect for 'looselyhuman', I will post not only the source, but also his entire entry unedited:
Its a good one. Looselyhuman said:
"Revisionist history. Check this out re: FDR's taxes that long outlived him (until 1980-82): http://www.brianrogel.com/the-100-percent-solution-for-the-99-percent
Unemployment declined every year from 1933-1940 except 1938 when FDR listened to the GOP and cut back on the New Deal. GDP grew every year except 1938 as well. The rest of the world was in free fall. There was no trade or commerce and without government spending it would have been total collapse. Then, yes, things took off even more during the Keynesian economic stimulus known as WWII.
Unemployment (% labor force)
1933 24.9
1934 21.7
1935 20.1
1936 16.9
1937 14.3
1938 19
1939 17.2
1940 14.6
Percent change GDP
1933 -4%
1934 15%
1935 10%
1936 13%
1937 9%
1938 -7%
1939 7%
1940 9%
How would you feel about 15% economic growth today?"
there's a blog post used as a credible source.....again proving my point...
Appeal to authority is another logical fallacy....a proper and correct assertion bears up under scrutiny...it doesn't require the autobiography of the person making it to be considered.....
But, we've already establish your illogical tendency...
No. Appeal to authority is not 100% conclusive. It should never be taken as gospel. But its not illogical.
it IS logical fallacy argumentum ad verecundiam.....
Huh?
Albert Einstein was a physicist....not an economist
Albert Einstein was also a mathematician. That makes his quotes relevant.
Mariner Eccles was chairman of the Federal Reserve under FDR. In case you forgot, he was the president in office when the Great Depression OFFICIALLY ENDED.
"The United States economy is like a poker game where the chips have become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, and where the other fellows can stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit runs out the game will stop." -Mariner Eccles Chairman of the Federal Reserve under FDR
Allen Greenspan was Chairman of the Federal Reserve under 4 administrations from both sides of the isle.
"The income gap between the rich and the rest of the US population has become so wide, and is growing so fast, that it might eventually threaten the stability of democratic capitalism itself." -Allen Greenspan testifying before congress in spring of '05'.
Robert Reich, Paul Krugman, and a dozen more prominent economists have gone on record with similar views.
Next.
economics is not mathematics....
They overlap heavily. Otherwise calculations could never be made. Every economist on the planet would simply say.
"The economy will get better." or "The economy will get worse."
"We have more jobs." or "We have fewer jobs".
"Inflation is up." or "Inflation is down."
"Growth is up." or "Growth is down."
Like I said, they heavily overlap.
I have work to do. At least 3 hours worth. I'll continue this later.
The problem right now is that the people with all the capital are not creating any demand. and that goes right back to what Einstein wrote, "Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands
mathematics and engineering,or chemistry also overlap....but neither are the same as mathematics.....just as economics is not mathematics. Those economists who don't understand the dynamic economic system are ignorant...regardless of their accreditation or certification...
an educated fool is more foolish than a common fool
Better tell all your conservative partisan puppet talk radio hosts to shut up about the economy. None of them are economists. Better call FOX news and tell most of them to shut up about it. Better tell EVERYONE here including yourself and the rest of my critics to shut up about the economy.
None of us are economists.
You set the example. Shut up about all of it.
No?
THATS WHAT I THOUGHT.
Einstein was a mathematician.
Eccles was an economist. So is Greenspan, Reich, Krugman, and Wolff.
Eccles and Greenspan were both Chairmen of the Federal Reserve. Reich was Secretary of Labor and is a professor of economics. Wolff has long been a professor of economics. Krugman is another prominent economist.
All of the above have gone on record acknowledging the link between a heavy concentration of wealth and economic instability.
Still, its not brain surgery. The relationship is incredibly easy to grasp.
100 Americans with $500 each will buy more TVs, spatulas, sneakers, and fuzzy dice than 1 American with $50,000.
Incredibly easy to grasp.
Even your conservative hero Paul Ryan acknowledeged it.
Thats right. Paul Ryan.
well.....that is not exactly true, your quote from Einstein is Einstein on economics.....giving it more credit as authority than it deserves is foolish, like if I quoted Rush Limbaugh....not that Limbaugh is comparable directly to Einstein, but, in the realm of political entertainment there aren't many who can match his achievements...I would Give Steven Colbert or Jon Stewart equal credit for changing the dynamic of political humor on TV, but I wouldn't use ANY of them as an authority in a discussion........talk show hosts, or news, or print media expressing their opinion on economic issues is not taking a stand on their authority, as you are trying to grant, in the case of Einstein....anyone can have an opinion, and everyone is entitled to their own....but, their own facts...that they are not entitled to......
Like your opinion on the 100 Americans with 500 each......who do you suppose buys more quality products actually produced here in the US?
Most of the production of low cost items (those things purchased by the people with $500) has been located overseas for at least a couple decades now....but, someone buying a BMW made in SC, or other high end products, many of which are still made in this country...You tell me......who benefits the economic system of the USA more?
The idea that will actually succeed, is getting people back into a participatory mindset, where they have a DESIRE to contribute, and a will to achieve and create......much like that of the late 80's-the mid 2000's
The entitlement mentality, the idea that we are "owed" just for existing, is the idea that has raped the economy and driven down the lower income groups.....those at the top still hold these idea's...and that is why they are more successful. Those who start wherever they can, delivering paper as children, doing field work, waiting tables, stocking shelves, warehousing, driving a truck, etc etc etc....those are the people that will see the country through...NOT those who "expect" so much without the merit of having earned it through personal effort......you want to see better days.......spread THAT attitude amongst more people...and you'll have it.
Friedman was also an Economist....a former Keynesian, and he disagree's with your assertions...Russell Kirk, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams......I think you get the point
I see the first five paragraphs as mostly spin.
My take on the last paragraph regarding Friedman and other conservatives is this:
The Great Recession and the Great Depression were BOTH preceded by a heavy concentration of wealth. Friedman went on record regarding the Great Depression but he never even ACKNOWLEDGED the record high concentration of wealth in 1929.
HE NEVER EVEN ACKNOWLEDGED IT. THAT TANKS ANY CREDIBILITY HE MAY HAVE EVER HAD ON THE ISSUE. THE SAME GOES FOR ANY DIE-HARD CONSERVATIVE HEAD-IN-THE-SAND PARTISAN PUPPET WHO WON'T ACKNOWLEDGE IT OR THE CURRENT SIMILARITIES.
There will always be some grey area on certain economic issues but regarding the link between concentration and instability or lack there of, someone has to be right. Someone has to be wrong. Someone has to be wrong. Someone has to be right.
You're on one side. I'm on the other.
Update: With regard to your entry below that I can't respond to because of thread limits, my positions are:
I realize that America's wealth has always been somewhat concentrated. I don't see somewhat concentrated as a problem. In fact, I see somewhat concentrated as somewhat just and even somewhat productive. But the degree of concentration has gone too far. Its gone too far at certain points in our history going back two centuries. Each time (at least a half dozen), a depression followed.
I understand the differences between the various forms of wealth. Still, the points regarding concentration are valid. In particular, the concentration of financial wealth. The richest 1% hold 43% of all financial wealth in America.
I understand the fluctuations in value. I also understand that market returns depend on a transfer of funds from one party to another. You can not sustain market returns on funds transferred from a shrinking middle class unless those funds are borrowed. As Eccles pointed out 60 years ago, when the credit runs out, the game stops. Market futures are based on the potential of transfers to occur.
For the past 3 years, massive government spending has to some degree compensated for the shrinking middle class. This explains the mixed signals and remaining instability. The spending at this rate can not be sustained much longer unless taxes are raised significantly on the rich and their corporate golden geese.
You forgot to adjust for inflation when comparing market activity.
where do you suppose the wealth was concentrated in the 1850's or the turn of the 19th/20th century? How do you suppose the Astor's, Vanderbilt's, Carnegie, Rockefeller's, Armour's, Belmont's, Cabot's, Drexel's, Du Pont's, Peabody's, Winchester's, Remington's, Samual Colt, Henry Ford, Nicholas Biddle....etc etc etc faired in "Wealth shares"
Also, the richest Americans didn't do as much financing of politicians.....they WERE the politicians.....do a check of the richest americans and see how many names you find that were also members of congress and other members of government....
You make the mistake of thinking that there is some anomaly to more wealth being held by a smaller group of individuals.....and also the mistake as viewing that "wealth" as actually liquidity.....most of the "wealth", in modern vernacular, resides the the value of the companies owned and managed by particular individuals....
Is Bill Gates actually WORTH 56 billion dollars? well...theoretically, yes...but in practical terms...as in, could he "cash out" for 56 billion dollars....not in a million years.....his wealth is DIRECTLY tied to the success of Microsoft, as are most of the "richest" tied to their enterprises...
Zuckerberg lost half his net worth in 2008, Michael Jackson, Larry King, Mike Tyson, Al Goldstein, etc.....had MILLIONS..then lost almost all of it
The Great Depression was not caused by concentration of wealth, it was caused by debt, more specifically borrowing to invest in the stock market...inflating prices....much like the housing crisis of 2008, caused by debt and inflated prices
You use the so-called "wealth share" from the mid-seventies as your "proof" that it was cause by the disparity that occurred preceding the depression...but, in real terms...the "wealth" held by the owners, creators and producers as measured by the equity holdings in their own companies (the measure which gives us today's "wealthy) didn't rise much in the interim between the 1929 crash and the early eighties....
The close of the market on Black Tuesday Oct 29, 1929 was 230.7, and the first time it broke 1000 and stayed above that point (It was up and down from those referenced numbers many times over that span of time) was November of 1982...a rise of 433% in 53 years.....
It only took another 13 years to match that performance when the market closed over 4300 in April of 1995
Raising the "Net Worth" of those holding equities in their companies, and others who held share in the companies of others...
The market today is at 12360......123% higher than it was in 1982.....
Pretax Income shares of the top 1% from 1982-2007 were up by 102% from 9.6 to 19.4......add in another 4 years and voila' you have the explanation for the wealth disparity...what they "owned" became more valuable........very simple.
It's not a concentration of "wealth" it's where the market value lies...and the market value lies where the most overall contribution and participation lie....
"delivering paper as children..."
Have you noticed newspapers have become obsolete?
Are you advocating a return to feudal times in which children were routinely denied education but instead forced into lives of servitude with no regulations preventing this?
It sounds as if you prefer we live in the old days, of kings and queens who keep the rest of us illiterate, unorganized, and permanently impoverished. It sounds as if you would prefer we give up this "dream" of human dignity and human rights.
The more you fight us, the stronger will be our resolve.
no we should protect children from learning the reality of work until they are from their mid 20's to nearly 30...that seems to be working well.....
It appears you are engaging in a psychological defense mechanism known as "projection" in which you unconsciously project your own inconsistencies onto others. We all do it if we don't watch ourselves.
..now your calling Einstein ignorant ?
MC your wasting your time with this guy
Einstein was the FIRST person to admit that he was not an economics "expert" and that his opinions about the economy were Marxist based. No one is calling him ignorant.
If Einstein wasn't an expert, then "slammersworldisback" is REALLY not an expert. At least Einstein wasn't proud of any shortcomings, as is "slammersworldisback," who takes pride in continually denying reality.
Sorry to sound insulting, but you haven't worried at all about how your remarks come across, "slammersworldisback."
By attacking Einstein you are showing the depths to which you have begun to descend in order to continue to promote a point of view that just isn't valid.
Save yourself the effort.
TO: "justthefacts": Slammers didn't say he was an expert.
I don't know who anyone is. I am not interested in insinuating anything.
I would like to understand how it benefits anyone, including the very wealthiest, for 400 U.S. citizens to be worth, all together, 1.7 trillion dollars.
I came up with this question myself. I am not representing someone else.
Did slammers say he was an expert? I haven't read that he did. I also can't read someone else's mind or heart to know when someone is being prideful or not. But you seem pretty proud of the fact that YOU can....will you show me how to do that?
Wait....are you using quotation marks to insinuate that I am "slammers"??? You're starting to sound just like MC...making up stuff and then declaring that his vain imaginings ARE "reality". Insanity.
I hate to break it to you, but I'm not.
But I wonder....is "ebri" another ID for ModestCapitalist?
in some ways Einstein was ignorant......he had difficulty with personal relationships, and dressing himself, and was known to be absent-minded about things.......pick up a biography of him sometime....he was an interesting guy
I'll check my library for a specific one...if you like?
you and MC have a lot of accumulate knowledge , I suggest working together .. and setting an example for the rest of us .. this fighting and bickering throwing insults .. is this capitalism .. is this americanism .. ? does all this wasted energy mean anything .. what is it that you hate about MC so much ? he seems like an important part of this discussion with a very important message. Are you on here to disrupt progress ? like so many others ..
we define progress differently....
Those without sin may cast the first stone -- or something.
Please leave Einstein alone. Despite your comments, he still had an incredibly deep understanding of the world in many of its facets.
We are all capitalists here. It is a matter of degree, not kind.
Let's use the capitalist model to work for positive results in the world.
we define progress differently....
Yes, you define progress.. as "being destructive"
For the RECORD,
Mathematical economics is the application of mathematical methods to represent economic theories and analyze problems posed in economics. It allows formulation and derivation of key relationships in a theory with clarity, generality, rigor, and simplicity. By convention, the applied methods refer to those beyond simple geometry, such as differential and integral calculus, difference and differential equations, matrix algebra, and mathematical programming and other computational methods.
Mathematics allows economists to form meaningful, testable propositions about many wide-ranging and complex subjects which could not be adequately expressed informally. Further, the language of mathematics allows economists to make clear, specific, positive claims about controversial or contentious subjects that would be impossible without mathematics. Much of economic theory is currently presented in terms of mathematical economic models, a set of stylized and simplified mathematical relationships that clarify assumptions and implications
Yes, economics are largely mathematically based.
What kind of a statement is "economics is not mathematics?"
Sorry, those of us who deal in reality will continue to use mathematics, despite your best efforts.
Einstein was much, much more intelligent -- and wiser -- than you. No one is perfect, but his conclusions have very rarely been proven wrong.
They quit using numbers now?
Now wonder things are screwed up.
For another view, try this. They do use numbers though.
http://pragcap.com/resources/understanding-modern-monetary-system
Ah....careful what you portray as a credible source....as you must also then ACCEPT it as a credible source.....
in reference to my comment above...from the same report you excerpt from here:
Page 13:
"high-wage workers (those at the 90th percentile of the wage distribution) and middle- wage workers (those at the 50th percentile)"
and....
"Numerous researchers have concluded that, on balance, the technological changes of the past several decades— and perhaps the entire past century—increased employ- ers’ demand for workers with higher skills and more education. That increase, along with a smaller increase in the supply of workers with higher skills and more educa- tion, generated substantial gains in the relative wages of more-educated workers. Specifically, researchers have argued that the demand for skilled workers, particularly for highly educated workers, was spurred by innovations in information and comput- ing technology in the 1990s and 2000s. Moreover, innovations in the production process—such as new technology and organizational changes—also may have increased the productivity of higher-skilled workers more than that of lower-skilled workers. For example, some researchers have hypothesized that information technol- ogy might complement highly educated workers engaged in abstract tasks while substituting for moderately edu- cated workers performing routine clerical, mechanical, and analytical tasks. Those researchers have also surmised that the demand for workers performing “low-skilled” service jobs has not been affected because many of those jobs—such as health aides, security guards, orderlies, cleaners, and servers—are not amenable to automation.13 Owing to those various changes, firms have increased their demand for highly skilled workers. At the same time, changes in the relative supplies of higher- and lower-skilled workers have been more grad- ual. The growth in the educational attainment of the workforce has slowed, leading to slower growth in the number of higher-skilled workers compared with the number of lower-skilled workers. That change, coupled with the increasing demand for such workers, has led to the rising relative compensation observed in recent decades for skilled and educated people."
funny....I think someone else just said that?
I don't completey disregard the phenomenon you just made reference to. There is some truth to it. But it doesn't excuse the mass layoffs, outsourcing, subsidies, tax breaks, record high profits, record high pay for executives, celebrities, pro athletes, and RECORD HIGH CHARGES FOR ENERGY, FOOD, HEALTH CARE, AND HIGHER EDUCATION.
It also doesn't address the social and economic instability caused by a heavy concentration of wealth. Thats an absolute deal breaker.
Because it hits the nail on the head, I will simply repeat it: "...It doesn't excuse the mass layoffs, outsourcing, subsidies, tax breaks, record high profits, record high pay for executives, celebrities, pro athletes, and RECORD HIGH CHARGES FOR ENERGY, FOOD, HEALTH CARE, AND HIGHER EDUCATION.
It also doesn't address the social and economic instability caused by a heavy concentration of wealth. Thats an absolute deal breaker."
I will add: it also doesn't excuse the destruction of millions of people's retirement plans due to corrupt financial mismanagement of those in the "financial services industry" who because they were in a competitive frenzy with each other in effect "played casino" with our retirement investments. What kind of "financial services" professional would think of betting against our houses' values through credit default swaps? Only a frenetically out-of-touch financial manager would do this. Yet they, just as certain dictators throughout history, got away with this for many years.
Again, it is a matter of degree, not kind, of financial system we want in this world. We just want a brand of capitalism which uses government regulation to help temper it, in order to avoid the kinds of abuses I describe.
Again, just a matter of degree,not kind.
You make a great point there. Those 'financial services' were not services at all. They were gimmicks. They can not be considered actual contributions to society by any stretch of the imagination.
Thank you. I was always suspicious of "financial services" salespeople over the decades who claimed greater returns through -- what? somehow knowing the market better than everyone else? Keeping life simple without completely withdrawing from the market seems to work for me.
Thanks for the great posts! I am grateful for them and appreciate your contributions a lot. What would we all do without you?
You were doing great before I came along in the end of October. Now, we're part of a team. It will be very interesting to see how this cause gains strength over the next few years.
You are most kind. I've done nothing compared to you and I am so grateful. It's great to be on your team.
It will take years. Keep up "the good fight."
all costs increased by government intrusion.....and litigation by trial lawyers....
funny how you just dismissed both of those points in my above comment.....I said the same thing...both about the reason for the disparity and the bracket that encompasses middle income
Again, some truth (not total). I have no problem acknowledging that.
I have work to do. At least 3 hours worth. I'll continue this later.
"in reference to"...but no citation to official sources.....AGAIN you prove my assertion
yep...there's the youtube video and the appeal to authority....instead of merit......and the link to the biased, partisan website which is sourced to another website that uses it's own "model" as it's only source.....thanks for reposting this one and proving my point.....AGAIN
Again, I never said that the word of any one man or woman should be taken as gospel. Otherwise, I would have just posted the Greenspan quote and nothing else.
I don't even agree with Reich on every issue. and he is my favorite economist by far.
That being said, I agree with him on the link between a heavy concentration of wealth and economic instability. Damn right.
If we're wrong about that, then this economic instability worldwide will soon pass.
Wanna put some money on it?
the problems here, and worldwide will cease when participation and contribution increases...and probably not until massive austerity measures become necessary due to debt/revenue pressures....
the days of "free shit" are drawing to a close...
Is there such a thing as a truly non-partisan website when it comes to these issues? Where are your sources from, and how do you know that they are not biased in any way?
I checked the US Statistical Abstract, CBO, and IRS, for a breakdown of property and sales tax by income group, I also called my state (PA) dept of revenue, to see if such data was available, and there is no computation of sales or property taxes by income class......
the link provided by Modcap is sourced to another website http://www.itepnet.org/ and they list their sources as follows:
"Miscellaneous IRS data; Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation fore- casts; other economic data (Moody’s Econo- my.com, Commerce Department, WEFA, etc.); state tax department data; data on overall levels of consumption for specific goods (Commerce Department, Census of Services, etc.); state spe- cific consumption and consumption tax data (Census data, Government Finances, etc.); state specific property tax data (Govt. Finances, etc.); American Housing Survey; Census of Population Housing; etc."
I have checked those listed official sources and no distribution of property/sales taxes by income group exists...they are estimating what each group spends on certain sectors of goods and services and using those estimates as the basis for their assertions.......
you cannot base facts on estimates, estimates are an opinion and should be cited as such...I don't have any argument with Modcap reciting an opinion about anything, right or wrong, but...to portray what is clearly NOT a fact, AS a fact is exactly what this post is about......
I use .gov sites.....the US Statistical Abstract has most of the data needed to draw legitimate conclusions....
Check the Central Intelligence Agency's own figures on the distribution of wealth in the world. I don't know about you, but the C.I.A. strikes me as the least non-partisan data source, compared to others.
First of all, and try to keep up,,,,,,, you are making the, incorrect, claim that the "middle class is the center quintile in the CBO calculations......there is no "official" definition of "Middle Class" (as we are not a class based society) but, it is generally understood that the "middle class" encompasses the 50th-90th percentile....and that the High income is the 10% and above, while low income is below 50%......these definitions are based partly on the tax rates which are currently 10,15,25,28,33,35%.....the middle tax rates applying to "middle income" those earning $34,500-$106,150 per year... this group also lies within the above/below on the us family of 4 median income of the high of $70,759 in MD and the low of $37,515 in MS...a range of 46% from low to high median income...and applying that same factor to the high, to get a range....we come up with $104,003.....well within the tax rate ranges (median income figures, for the year in question (2007) here: http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/acsbr08-2.pdf)
Using the same link one can easily find that all incomes rose over that same period (even when factored for inflation) as referenced in this chart:http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/average_after-tax_income.pdf..
Your assertion that because the shares have changed, those at the bottom have less is not only misleading, it's an outright fabrication...you are saying if I have 100 dollars today, and you have 25 dollars, that you have less than you did yesterday when I have 50 dollars and you had 10....it's just not true...ALL incomes rose over the period from 79-07, yes...more was concentrated toward the top, as our economy has shifted from a large number of unskilled, semi-skilled jobs that paid well.....due to automation, computerization, and a shift from a manufacturing to service economy....those with lesser skills are worth less in the marketplace, and those who can organize effort, systems, manage output and production are worth more...hence the movement toward the top sectors (the ones who do those things that are valuable in the marketplace) take a look at who is in the 1% and the .01%...it is people like Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, The Walton's, Sheldon Adelson, Michael Bloomberg, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Michael Dell, Phil Knight, Steve Jobs, Oprah...etc etc etc.....people who revolutionized their industries and added MASSIVE value to the US economy.....many of who do not own industries which require a huge cadre of factory or low/semi-skilled workers...but instead employ a smaller number of very well paid skilled person.....
You, of course leave all this out in your faulty analysis, and concentrate only on the figures, which you incorrectly interpret, as "theft" from the lower income.....most of those people I mentioned created their wealth from NOTHING, they achieved great things that added to the overall size of the economy, and for that they got a larger piece of a much larger pie.....but everyone got a larger piece than they had ever gotten before...and that is a fact, Jack...and you cannot dispute it...the numbers tell the story......
as for totals...there were, 92,694,000 tax returns filed in 1979....(82-83 statab table 433) 142,979,000 filed in 2007...(2011 statab table 482)
so, just in sheer numbers the income levels rose, as did the amounts they earned....and yet you want to point to "share" to disprove the obvious...everyone's income level rose....well, those who participated, that is......
we can keep doing this all week, if you like......you are making a fallacious claim, and basing it on a corrupt analysis model.....
WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. AGAIN, YOU'RE REFUSING TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE WHOLE POINT.
The 'middle class' has never been 'generally understood' to be compromised by only the 50th to 90th percentiles. You're using that upper middle range in order to make it seem as if the middle class is not shrinking when you know damn well that it is.
The 'middle' 3 quintiles were doing much better 35 years ago than they are now. Again, you're refusing to aknowledge the huge point I made yesterday. That is the HUGE difference between core inflation and the ACTUAL cost of living.
There is a HUGE difference between the rate of inflation and the actual cost of living. THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING.
Between the years 1990 and 2008, key living expenses like energy, food, health care, housing, and higher education increased far beyond the rate of inflation.
For example:
Housing: UP 56%. Health care expenses: UP 155% Four year public college education: UP 60% Four year private college education: UP 43%
I don't have figures for energy and food but everyone knows that they have risen DRASTICALLY over the last few years alone.
Then you have consumer debt. Its nearly $2,000,000,000,000. THATS NEARLY TWO TRILLION DOLLARS. MORE THAN FIVE TIMES WHAT IT WAS 30 YEARS AGO EVEN AFTER YOU ADJUST FOR INFLATION AND POPULATION GROWTH.
The majority of that debt is NOT held by the lower 50%. Its held primarily by the lower 90%. That drastic increase in consumer debt along with the stagnated and dropping wages of the majority (wages Sherlock. Not household income.) over the past 30 years along with the points I made regarding inflation vs ACTUAL living expenses and 2nd providers/retirees working in order to compensate shatters your outrageous claim that the middle class has not lost strength.
The one thing we can agree on is that the definition for 'the middle class' has always been somewhat vague.
But don't feed me that 50th to 90th percentile crap. By the actual definition of 'middle', thats just dead wrong. Nothing but die-hard conservative head-in-the-sand partisan puppet CRAP.
This was a quicky because as I suspected, you saved multiple essays on your computer and posted them all within minutes of eachother. That was a cheap psychological trick designed to intimidate me.
Update: I take back the last point. I signed on to find 6 replies all posted within a short period of time. But only two of them were essays.
I like portions of the argument you each give. And therein lies the problem.
The "middle class" means something different to everyone. Just take a look at polls where the question is asked "are you lower, middle or upper class".
Look at the differences in how politicians use the term middle class - full well knowing that it means something different to each individual out there and therefore, they are appealing to a broader audience than will actually benefit from the policy.
The one thing I KNOW for sure is my own family's circumstances. We raised three children on a single income - we now have three of us at home (two have grown up and out of the household one in 2004 and one in 2006). Our grocery bill is actually HIGHER now than when we fed five people. Our energy bill is actually higher now than when we housed five people. Our insurance costs are rising every new term even though there are less of us covered under the policies.
We have a higher income than at any other point in our 30 years of marriage, yet, we struggle now to cover the needed things in life - don't even try to factor in those things we "want". We have no debt other than our mortgage - no car payments, no credit cards, no other loans etc. Yet we struggle more than when we had all of those.
But my perception of why these things have gone up and face this struggle don't focus solely on the corporations and the "rich 1%". I place blame also on the fact that my cell and land lines now have up to 30% local, state and federal taxes and fees added to them. Same with my utility bills. Same with my homeowners insurance and my automobile insurance and my health insurance (although those are more hidden than other insurance policies). I understand that the food I buy is laden with hidden excise taxes as are all the other products we purchase (i.e. peanut butter has a 143% excise tax).
I know that despite health care reform (not necessarily because of it) our family premium has gone up $3000 in two years; our co-pays have more than doubled in those same two years (i.e. emergency room from $75.00 to $200 and in patient from $150 to $500.00. In the previous 8 years of holding that policy, our increases were usually in the $200.00 range per year with little to no change in our co-pays.
That is what I KNOW. We make less than $75,000 annually before taxes. And we are being squeezed.
We can argue over the "why" and "how", but arguing the truth of the people being squeezed is pointless. We are. And it is as much the income tax code that is responsible as it is the hidden fees and taxes (and those not so hidden) that are put in place to make up for the tax breaks given to every one of those so called "classes" and "quintles" ..........
Anyone can twist the facts to make their own point....it gets us nowhere.
I do appreciate your fair and non-combative attitude regarding our debate. I just want to make one thing clear regarding my views of Corporate America and the richest one percent.
There is a direct correlation between their obscene charges, obscene profits, obscene incomes, obscene share of total wealth, and the hardship felt by ordinary people. If they would simply step down to Earth, it would be a better place for the vast overwhelming majority. Thats what I believe.
Good points regarding hidden taxes and fees.
I don't in any way, shape or form wish to argue that CEO pay and bonuses are ridiculous (not tied to performance of the company and so on).
I believe that the whole system of taxation in this country is one place to start. The treaty the US signed that doesn't allow corporations to be "double taxed" for example. While I agree they should not be double taxed, the way the code is written it promotes those corporations putting their business "profit" side overseas where the corporate income tax is lower and the "loss" side here where it higher. This loss of revenue must be made up somewhere....in those hidden taxes and fees on everything the middle class purchases maybe?
Those tax credits for ....ethanol...what has ethanol done for us really? Increased the cost of the world's food supply because of the acres of land that have been rezoned for growing the corn. Done nothing measurable for the environment. Increased the cost of a gallon of gas - not just because of the subsidy itself but because of the increased production cost. It was a good experiment but it failed. Brazil does it better both cost wise and environmentally - yet those subsidies here by the US are still hitting the middle class hard because somebody has to replace the revenues lost by the ethanol subsidies.
The whole argument of the 47% who don't pay federal income tax - of which is included an ever enlarging number of those making $75,000 to $150,000) misses the fact that to make up that lost revenue, we are getting more and more of those hidden taxes and fees to make up for all the special programs that the US can't pay for anymore....and that doesn't even get into the ones the states and localities are adding every year.
In my personal opinion, any convincing of the people about the unfairness of the system must start closer to home. Get them to look at those cell and land line bills, their utility bills, their insurance bills to register all those hidden taxes and fees. Most people simply send in the check without ever realizing it includes up to 30% in taxes/fees. Send them links to articles listing the excise taxes we pay on our goods and services. Educate them on the failed ethanol situation.
Only when we let the politicians know that we are on to them will they really get down to real tax reform....and that will include the corporations by necessity.
now...see, we can agree on much of this...things DO cost too much, but the source of that cost is not "The 1%" as contended by Modcap, or OWS in general....the source of the price increases of the last 40 years are almost solely from the increase in taxation and government regulatory intervention in commerce.......
Healthcare cost have increased because of the NOW necessary cadre of administrative and legal persons to manage the rules, filing, regulation, liability and application of payments and procedures.......the guidelines for care and what is covered are based on the baseline for medicare "reasonable and customary" charges......that is the model used by private companies now as well to set their coverage limits and parameters....
also the drop in the value of the dollar due to debt and expansion of the money supply......something that lies equally in the hands of BOTH political parties....that increases the price of EVERYTHING
Sorry. Despite your best efforts, you still try to sway the argument back to your perceived scapegoat, "the government."
People are in the 'free market," and people are in "the government."
The same problems you cite are the exact same situations which routinely come up in administering private enterprise, unless they are actively trying to effect a return to feudalism.
the bureaucratic administration is not "the people" and is not subject to "the people" via elections......and many in those positions are protected by organized labor and contractual barriers....
It is a good thing that hospital administrators, doctors, nurses, and others with the expertise to cure diseases and sustain life aren't voted out every four years, and have contractual barriers and union protections.
I am also grateful federal employees and others with proven expertise in their fields enjoy solid job protections. Without them, our government and society would be as unstable as those third world countries we all would rather avoid! Nepotism, cronyism, and corruption would be that much more rampant here as there.
"Government" and "unions" are such easy targets. I know we can do better than scapegoat people in these positions.
If that were true, then profits would have remained flat adjusting for inflation. They havn't. Records continue to break in the energy, health care, and finance industries. Hell, they even break as we type in electronics and entertainment.
Check the stats regarding the most profitable companies in the US and worldwide. More than half are in the health care industry.
So much for that theory about high overhead driving up health care costs.
TRY HIGH PROFITS.
and the M1/M2 money supply has been increased by around 2-3% annually going back decades. That can't begin to explain the obscene charges AND PROFITS in the energy, health care, and finance industries.
Then you have this (again):
According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 99% of Americans (actually more like 98%) saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively.
The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion. In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009.
G R E E D
Agree
Folks don't seem to get the "pass through" nature of all the costs of the regulation and tax breaks and "fees" (taxes by another name). I try to get people to really look at insurance premium statements, utility and phone bills and so on. Most just keep their heads buried in the sand.
We have been the victims of a vast bait and switch....a tax break on our income taxes while taxes and fees are added to all our goods and services to make up for those breaks. As more people are added to the percentage that pays no federal income tax, this is only going to get worse...people need to wake up.
Sure we get it. We also get this:
If scammersworld's explanation were true, then profits would have remained flat adjusting for inflation. They havn't. Records continue to break in the energy, health care, and finance industries. Hell, they even break as we type in electronics and entertainment.
Check the stats regarding the most profitable companies in the US and worldwide. More than half are in the health care industry.
So much for that theory about high overhead driving up health care costs.
TRY HIGH PROFITS.
and the M1/M2 money supply has been increased by around 2-3% annually going back decades. That can't begin to explain the obscene charges AND PROFITS in the energy, health care, and finance industries.
Then you have this (again):
According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 99% of Americans (actually more like 98%) saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively.
The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion. In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009.
G R E E D
I am not for a "consumption tax" per-say, but...I think ALL taxes for products should be represented at the point of retail sale....this prevents the "hidden" taxes we have now that increase the cost of living......taxes in the various production and development of products are passed onto consumers anyway......no business pays taxes in a practical sense...it's all factored into the base, and is paid for by consumers......either directly, through increase in prices, or indirectly through downsizing of labor....but the bottom line is that business operates in a income/expense bubble....and if you push on one side the other side is effected...
and regulations should be voted and approved by congress, not in the administrative bureaucracy.....and the true costs, and savings, known to voters instead to the secrecy that now exists, and the misinformation that is put forth about "dirty air, and water" and the like when regulations, of which only a portion deal with environmental issues....
good luck with trying to get people to read those things...most people don't even read food labels or their own pay stub's.......many people are purposefully ignorant..... they can't be bothered with the complications of life...
I don't disagree as much on effect with Modcap....but I disagree greatly in the details and greatly on the philosophy on what needs to change...
I also think that government salaries, benefits payments, including Social Security, should be adjusted to compensate for net dollars and classified as non-taxable income, and issued a yearly statement and tax document for the amounts received, for those who earn income from other sources........the idea that we have people receiving funds from the government then returning a portion of that same income BACK to the government is a foolish shell game.....just the reduction in administrative costs from that move alone would me massive, considering the size and scope of the federal government pay out's......
Maybe you would benefit from a more mathematically-based examination of the facts.
Please apply basic math to your analysis.
You will quickly conclude the very wealthy simply own and continue to accrue way, way too much wealth while the rest of us find it increasingly harder to simply plan for a dignified retirement -- emphasis on DIGNIFIED, not opulent.
also from below:
where do you suppose the wealth was concentrated in the 1850's or the turn of the 19th/20th century? How do you suppose the Astor's, Vanderbilt's, Carnegie, Rockefeller's, Armour's, Belmont's, Cabot's, Drexel's, Du Pont's, Peabody's, Winchester's, Remington's, Samual Colt, Henry Ford, Nicholas Biddle....etc etc etc faired in "Wealth shares"
Also, the richest Americans didn't do as much financing of politicians.....they WERE the politicians.....do a check of the richest americans and see how many names you find that were also members of congress and other members of government....
You make the mistake of thinking that there is some anomaly to more wealth being held by a smaller group of individuals.....and also the mistake as viewing that "wealth" as actually liquidity.....most of the "wealth", in modern vernacular, resides the the value of the companies owned and managed by particular individuals....
Is Bill Gates actually WORTH 56 billion dollars? well...theoretically, yes...but in practical terms...as in, could he "cash out" for 56 billion dollars....not in a million years.....his wealth is DIRECTLY tied to the success of Microsoft, as are most of the "richest" tied to their enterprises...
Zuckerberg lost half his net worth in 2008, Michael Jackson, Larry King, Mike Tyson, Al Goldstein, etc.....had MILLIONS..then lost almost all of it
The Great Depression was not caused by concentration of wealth, it was caused by debt, more specifically borrowing to invest in the stock market...inflating prices....much like the housing crisis of 2008, caused by debt and inflated prices
You use the so-called "wealth share" from the mid-seventies as your "proof" that it was cause by the disparity that occurred preceding the depression...but, in real terms...the "wealth" held by the owners, creators and producers as measured by the equity holdings in their own companies (the measure which gives us today's "wealthy) didn't rise much in the interim between the 1929 crash and the early eighties....
The close of the market on Black Tuesday Oct 29, 1929 was 230.7, and the first time it broke 1000 and stayed above that point (It was up and down from those referenced numbers many times over that span of time) was November of 1982...a rise of 433% in 53 years.....
It only took another 13 years to match that performance when the market closed over 4300 in April of 1995 Raising the "Net Worth" of those holding equities in their companies, and others who held share in the companies of others...
The market today is at 12360......1230% higher than it was in 1982..... Pretax Income shares of the top 1% from 1982-2007 were up by 102% from 9.6 to 19.4......add in another 4 years and voila' you have the explanation for the wealth and income disparity, as this group is paid largely by dividend and Capital Gains...what they "owned" became more valuable........very simple.
It's not a concentration of "wealth" it's where the market value lies...and the market value lies where the most overall contribution and participation lie....
Ah....careful what you portray as a credible source (below)....as you must also then ACCEPT it as a credible source.....
in reference to my comment above...from the same report you excerpt from here:
Page 13:
"high-wage workers (those at the 90th percentile of the wage distribution) and middle- wage workers (those at the 50th percentile)"
and....
"Numerous researchers have concluded that, on balance, the technological changes of the past several decades— and perhaps the entire past century—increased employ- ers’ demand for workers with higher skills and more education. That increase, along with a smaller increase in the supply of workers with higher skills and more educa- tion, generated substantial gains in the relative wages of more-educated workers. Specifically, researchers have argued that the demand for skilled workers, particularly for highly educated workers, was spurred by innovations in information and comput- ing technology in the 1990s and 2000s. Moreover, innovations in the production process—such as new technology and organizational changes—also may have increased the productivity of higher-skilled workers more than that of lower-skilled workers. For example, some researchers have hypothesized that information technol- ogy might complement highly educated workers engaged in abstract tasks while substituting for moderately edu- cated workers performing routine clerical, mechanical, and analytical tasks. Those researchers have also surmised that the demand for workers performing “low-skilled” service jobs has not been affected because many of those jobs—such as health aides, security guards, orderlies, cleaners, and servers—are not amenable to automation.13 Owing to those various changes, firms have increased their demand for highly skilled workers. At the same time, changes in the relative supplies of higher- and lower-skilled workers have been more grad- ual. The growth in the educational attainment of the workforce has slowed, leading to slower growth in the number of higher-skilled workers compared with the number of lower-skilled workers. That change, coupled with the increasing demand for such workers, has led to the rising relative compensation observed in recent decades for skilled and educated people." funny....I think someone else just said that?
added 01/09/11:
Debt and living expenses are not taxation...debt is a choice, if you want to keep up with the Joneses that is your personal business, and living expenses are widely varied, so using those is misleading, as well.....you are still not addressing with any credible source the idea that the poor and middle class pay a higher share of taxes.......because they don't.
You are now trying to add in debt, after trying to use sales and property taxes, two things you cannot back up with verifiable data, and if there is no data to corroborate your contention..it's fabricated, or an opinion...which are fine, but don't try to sell them as facts.....
living expenses and debt are
I told you before, I don't entirely disregard the phenomenon that long paragraph refers to. But it doesn't excuse the obscene charges in the energy, health care, and finance industries. It doesn't excuse the record high profits, automation, mass lay-offs, outsourcing, child labor, or Federal, State, and City subsidies. It sure as hell doesn't excuse the growing concentration of wealth.
The richest one percent in America hold 43% of its financial wealth. Thats too much. Period. It has been causing economic instability and actual hardship for years. If the trend is not partially reversed, it will cause a US/global depression.
I never said that debt was a tax. I NEVER SAID THAT. But debt is not simply a choice. Consumer debt has multiplied by at least 5 (adjusting for inflation and population growth) over the last 35 years for two reasons:
We have become a bunch of consumer junkie credit card drug and doctor morons. It didn't just happen. We are the product of our own mass market BS get rich or die trying blood thirsty capitalist system.
The costs of key living expenses like energy, food, health care, housing, and higher education have risen far beyond the rate of inflation. It didn't just happen. These increases are due primarily to the incredible greed of the richest one percent.
I told you before. None of the data is fabricated. The bulk is collected from federal, State, and City sources. A portion is modeled based on simple demographics. As far as modeling goes, I could consult ten friends and ten family members and whip up an accurate model regarding effective sales and property tax rates in a matter of hours.
So your claims that an experienced research group like CTJ must have 'fabricated' their data in order to conclude that the lower majority pay about the same total effective rate (as a percentage of income) as the richest 1% just doesn't wash.
the "concentration of wealth" isn't causing anything of the sort......
The official data, doesn't place the number anywhere near your estimate....via the census bureau: "Wealth and Asset Ownership" detailed tables 2004: table 4 (the most recent info available, published/revised Oct 31, 2011) Top Net Worth of those in the highest quintile is 32%....those who's Net Worth exceeds $500,000.00,.....the total of all incomes exceeding this amount is 12.8%........ http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/wealth/2004/wlth04-4.html
As I have explained several times now, the "wealth" in modern terms is a chimera....it doesn't really exist....Gates, Zuckerberg, Buffett, and others... they haven't "concentrated" anything, the value of their commercial enterprises has risen, exponentially....and those who make their living trading equities, or being paid in equities have seen a similar increase in their income due to the rise in the market, and in the value of those equities...your theory only works in a zero sum game....where there is a limit of resources, in our economic system (for good, or bad...probably both) there is no "limit" to the amount of wealth available...so the "shares" don't represent any barrier to a rise in actual income or net worth. and according to the data, from links you yourself have provided and claimed credible....all income groups have rising income.....
As for the sales tax data....I will once again affirm there is no data breakdown available for sales tax by income level....I called the PA Dept of Revenue and was told that data is impossible to calculate as there are too many variables......personal spending habits being the largest hurdle in obtaining credible data.....
You could consult ten friends but that would not be a model that you could use with any accuracy when determining the behavior of the entire nation. The data is estimated, guessed, fabricated....it does not represent actual levels of taxation...only projected estimates, and as such is not credible to use as a basis for factual discussion.....you can protest that fact all you like..but truth is truth....
here is a breakdown of expenditures, by income level.....from BLS, you will see that the higher incomes...those over 70k per year pay vastly more for every example of expenditure, and when it comes to state/local and "other" taxes... those making more than 70k spend 3-4 times more on those things than do those at each income increment below that income level, and double on property taxes.....there are no more specific breakdowns than this by income, or expenditure......
Your CTJ info is fabricated......
http://www.bls.gov/cex/2010/Standard/income.pdf
Could you please explain why "those over 70K per year pay vastly more for every example of expenditure...?"
Thank you.
progressive taxation, and they spend (as in contribute back to society) more......and their money isn't recycled money....taken from the market, funneled through government, handed out to people and then placed back into the market with no increase in value.....quite the opposite...it DECREASES the value of the original amounts pulled from the market by government.....
I still don't understand your world view.
Could you please explain "...and they spend (as in contribute back to society) more.....and their money isn't recycled money....taken from the market, funneled through government, handed out to people and then placed back into the market with no increase in value.....quite the opposite...it DECREASES the value of the original amounts..." etc.
It seems we have different definitions of the term "money." Isn't money just neutral currency whose value fluctuates independently of people's net worths, income levels, or consumer behavior?
Currency fluctuations are mysterious to people like myself, living in a more stable economy but are perhaps better understood by citizens of third world countries.
I confess to a lack of understanding of how you are portraying the financial world. It seems a very mysterious place.
Top 20% only hold 32% of US net worth? Are you referring to private net worth?
If so, thats too absurd to be taken seriously. That would indicate a nearly flat distribtion of wealth. NEARLY FLAT.
C'mon. Open your door. Look outside. Pick up any magazine. Turn on the TV. Its obvious.
I'll check out the report later from a high speed connection (I'm on dial-up now.) but right off the bat, I can tell that its either dead wrong or some group of die-hard conservative partisan puppets brainstormed for a week to spin the data. In which case, it will be easy to spin back into the correct universe.
Top 20% hold just 32% of US net worth?
Right. and I'm Oprah's biggest fan.
Some of the tax data is impossible to calculate to the last penny. But as I've said many times, its not impossible to estimate within a degree or two. Its been done.
Name the study and quote the figures to challenge the CTJ report.
Yes....and also, according to the Census report: These sectors of Income earners have a net worth of over $100,000.00
23.4% of the bottom quintile 33.9% of the second quintile 40.8% of the middle quintile 53.6% of the fourth quintile
I guess maybe the lower income sectors aren't doing so bad after all....
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division Last Revised: October 31, 2011
Please consult the C.I.A.'s figures on wealth and income distribution.
Those statistics you refer to are incredibly misleading. From that angle, if grandpa and grandma go broke and lose their home, they would be in the lowest income quintile. If they move in with their son and daughter in law, their combined assets would be considered 'household net worth'. The same goes for college grads who can't find a job and laid off workers who move in with parents or siblings.
This trend has been growing for several years now.
C'mon already. Stop sugar coating everything with your conservative spin.
But first satisfy my curiosity one more time.
What do you have to say about those points I made regarding inflation, key living expenses, 2nd providers, retirees, and the misleading 'household income' statistics from the CBO report?
I know you're going to spin and dance your way around those valid points.
So get to it. Lets see those moves.
now the CBO is misleading? HAHAHAHAHA! I guess they are no CTJ :-/
I think we're done here...I've proven my point...you're going to believe what you want to believe regardless of the facts, as your argument is largely emotional and hence, irrational......
What I say about your points, which still continue to be unverified and fabricated, and the shifting subjects are constantly moving the goalpost so as to deflect the lack of credibility.......They, and you...have no credibility. It's that simple....you try hard to prove a point that is a fallacy, and to do so you have to use assertions and notions that are all over the place......first it's taxes, then it's inflation, then it's something else, then it's that the poor have less left over after living expenses than the rich (um...duh...they earn less), it's circular argument with you.....you just continue to go back, lap after lap, to the same unproven incorrect point, even after is was shown to be a deceptive fallacy....
There is little hope for someone on whom credible, official verifiable information has no influence...
You are certainly allowed your opinion....right or wrong (wrong in this case) but own up to the fact that they ARE opinions, since you have no facts to back them up....
In other words, you simply won't respond to those points I made regarding inflation, key living expenses, 2nd providers, retirees, grandpa, grandma, college grads, and laid off workers until if and when you've come up with a die-hard conservative spin.
I've responded to all of yours.
and no way in hell does the top quintile hold just 32% of America's private wealth. No way in holy hell.
What the hell do those individual percentages refer to?
Just start over and state the share of private net worth in the US by the top centile, by quintiles and the source.
Make sure the 5 shares by quintile add up to 100% of private net worth in the US.
The latest data available is for 2004
here goes...are you paying attention Modcap?
Total US household Net Worth 2004 (1)
52.6 Trillion Dollars (52,622,300,000,000)
Total tax payers 2004 (individual returns) (2)
130,134,000....top 1% would be 1,301,340 tax payers (4)
Total number of top wealth holders with gross assets of $1.5 Million or more 2004 (3)
2,728,000
Total combined value of those gross assets (3)
11.1 Trillion Dollars (11,076,759,000,000)
Percentage of 2004 taxpayers with gross assets of $1.5 million or more (4)
2.08%
Percentage of total US net worth owned by that 2.08% of taxpayers (4)
21.1%
21.1% owned by the top 2% of Americans...not 43% owned by the top 1%....oops, your figures are bullshit......
Sources:
(1) http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/20110609/z1r-5.pdf
(2) Table 472: 2006 US Statistical Abstract http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/07statab/fedgov.pdf
(3) Table 718: 2012 US Statistical Abstract http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0718.pdf
(4) Simple calculations based on data cited....
Are you looking at "per capita" figures or just figures based on "taxpayers?"
FATAL FLAW: Your assertion that the richest 2.08% held just 21.1% of all private US wealth in 2004 was based on a sample of the reported gross assets of the top 2.08% of tax filers. It should have been based on the net assets of the top 2% of households.
FATAL FLAW: Your assertion that the richest 2.08% held just 21.1% of all private US wealth in 2004 was made without consideration of the 9.5 trillion in debt owed by the lower 98%.
You have already admitted (sort of) that you failed to consider the first fatal flaw when making your assertion. Your exact words were:
"Here is the "comprehensive study" by the IRS that say's exactly the same thing that I did (with a single exception, they listed the top as 1.2%, using the entire population as the comparison group....I can accept that, obviously newborns and toddlers COULD have "net worth)......"
Still you implied here that "newborns and toddlers" made up nearly half of that top 2.08 percent of wealth holders that you previously referred to. This was an absurd implication to make.
None of your 'official sources' of data account for that remaining 9.5 trillion in debt owed by the lower 98% in 2004 (including home loans).
Like I said before, the ability to do basic math is worthless in this field unless you also have the ability to think critically.
Take a lesson from sociologist G. William Domhoff and economist Edward N. Wolff who know well enough to carefully consider all forms of wealth and debt when determining the actual distribution of wealth in America.
According to this comprehensive study (and others) the richest 1% alone held 34.3% of all private US wealth in 2004. In particular, they held 42.3% of all privately held financial US wealth.
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
The Wall Street Journal reported the exact same statistic of 34.3% in April of 2006 along with another that the the next wealthiest 9% of American households held 36.1% of total private wealth in 2004. It would therefore have been mathematically impossible for the 2nd percentile of American households to hold any less than 4.02500000000000001% of total private wealth in 2004. Of course, this absolute minimum would indicate a nearly flat distribution of wealth across the 2nd-10th percentiles. Such an implication would be absurd.
http://faculty.morainepark.edu/jhalter/economics/docs/Wealth%20dist.pdf
Your original assertion was that the richest 2.08% of Americans held just 21.1% of total US private wealth in 2004. I have just established that the richest 1% alone held 34.3% and the 2nd percentile alone could not possibly have held any less than 4.02500000000000001%. Of course, that 2nd percentile held much more.
As I promised to prove, your assertion was off by around 100% or more.
First of all, THANK YOU.....for backing up every suspicion I had about you....you never checked any of the source links, or read the the report by the IRS...did you?
The post you have offered above is the proof that you never even checked the official sources.....
First, I addressed the difference in the percentages here:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/do-not-believe-scammersworlds-outrageous-claim-tha/#comment-585295
and....I already have said on several occasions that the study was on households with Net Worth at or exceeding 1.5 million dollars....so, now that that is out of the way (your misleading spin, notwithstanding)
I used toddlers and infants as examples of persons NOT included in the group that pays income tax, not as a bridge between the two groups...the 1.2% of all Americans, and 2.08% of taxpayers is still the same number of individuals.....2,728,000
As for debt......
IF you had checked the sources...which you obviously didn't....you would have seen that the figures you claim missing WERE stated..... In the Federal Reserve Release of June 9, 2011:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/20110609/z1r-5.pdf
All assets and liabilities of ALL americans are listed for the years of 2004-Q1/2011....
Total Liability/Debt in 2004 was: 11,035,600,000,000
broken down by category:
Home Mortgages: 7,838,200,000,000
Consumer Credit: 2,220,100,000,000
Municipal Securities: 189,100,000,000
Bank Loans: 26,700,000,000
Other Loans and Advances: 119,000,000,000
Commercial Mortgages: 182,600,000,000
Security Credit: 264,000,000,000
Trade Payables: 173,300,000,000
Life Insurance Premiums(deferred and unpaid): 22,500,000,000
Total: 11,035,600,000,000
Total Liability of those with Net Worth at or exceeding 1.5 Million: 850,622,000,000
Total Liability/Debt of the 97.92/98.8%: 10,184,978,000,000.. NOT 9.5 Trillion...sorry, wrong again...at least this time you underestimated though...
You see...the reason I didn't include the figures above in my earlier post...despite your puerile repetitive attempts to insist that it was because I didn't have the data, was because I was certain you would not check the sources, that your ego wouldn't allow you to be wrong, and any credible data that would prove you incorrect must be ignored and dismissed...
The sources I listed contain all of that information that you claim they leave out...and IF you had checked them and read the report you would have discovered that...
But, instead, you did what you always do....you looked for a web posting by the admitted and known leftist sociologist G. William Domhoff who uses the misleading data created by Edward N Wolff who calculates wealth without using personal residence value, which is where the bulk of most people's "wealth" resides....which is a "Fatal Flaw" in determining actual wealth..... Both of the links contain the same statistic because they both use the flawed notion, and "spin" posed by Wolff... The actual results of the Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances, and the IRS Statistics of Income are as I posted them....... Once again you try and make fallacy true and skew reality to fit your paradigm, and once again...you are wrong...
You've got your head pretty deep in that die-hard conservative partisan puppet sand scammersworld. Its cutting off the oxygen to your brain.
Astonishing. All that smug overconfident arrogance and you can't even remember the basics that I have pointed out a dozen times with you.
FACT: The 43% of wealth I have referred to so many times is that of FINANCIAL wealth specifically. FINANCIAL WEALTH scammersworld. FINANCIAL WEALTH. THAT MEANS MONEY. CURRENCY, COIN, GOLD, SILVER, STOCKS, BONDS, ECT.
FINANCIAL WEALTH SCAMMERSWORLD. FINANCIAL WEALTH SCAMMERSWORLD. FINANCIAL WEALTH SCAMMRSWOLD.
Go back and read that 87 more times. Then another 87. Then read this:
I have also made many references to private wealth in general. Those references regarding the richest 1% have been 40%. Not 43%. So we are now down to an 18.9% spread between your assertions and mine.
How can this be explained? Thats easy.
For starters,
THE STATISTICS YOU JUST REFERRED TO ARE 8 FUCKING YEARS OLD SCAMMERSWORLD. 8 FUCKING YEARS OLD. THOSE ARE NOT THE LATEST STATISTICS AVAILABLE. NOT BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION. THERE HAVE ALREADY BEEN SEVERAL STUDIES DONE ON MORE RECENT FIGURES. ALL OF WHICH INDICATE A MUCH GREATER CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH.
That being said, the concentration of private US wealth in '04' was already far greater than your sources and calculations indicate. Far greater. I know this for a fact and I will gladly prove it. I am more than willing to analyze your sources and figures myself but as I've told you before, my ability to surf is limited on this terminal. I can not download PDF files on this slow computer using dial-up. Its out of the question.
Are you willing to create a page on this site and paste the text and figures from the sources you cite? This would include the summaries and explanations of what those figures include and don't include. Those inclusions and exclusions are vital. They will change everything. Are you willing to paste that information on this site for scrutiny?
If not, will you send it to me as a text file if I give you an email address?
I don't care about the return address. You can create a disposable one for all I care. I will do the same.
Scammersworld. You have a long record of leaving vital details out of your die-hard conservative 'defend the rich' partisan puppet essays and explanations. There is no doubt that your latest entry is no exception. One look at those 8 year old figures, which I KNOW are way off is proof of that. I already have a few suspicions regarding what was left out. I'm looking forward to confirming those suspicions and posting the results here.
I have told you several times that my ability to surf on this terminal is limited. I can not download the PDF files. I am requesting that you paste the unedited text and figures here or send them to me as text files.
My hunch is that you will refuse to do either because you know those figures don't include all forms of private wealth and debt. You know that when all inclusions are made, the true concentration of US wealth as of '04' will be shown to be much greater.
21.1% of private US wealth held by the top 2% as of '04'?
No way in hell. It was twice (ballpark) that in '04'. Its even worse now.
Please paste the unedited text and figures on a new page here or send them to me as a text file.
No? Thats what I thought.
You assertions are dead wrong. Not to mention 8 FUCKING YEARS OLD. 8 FUCKING OLD YEARS SCAMMERSWORLD.
you can get the statistical abstract files in pdf and excel files here: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/
It is not a matter of if "I" will or won't post text files....the Federal Reserve Report is several pages of data, and the statistical abstract is hundreds of pages.....presented in tables of data
Forgive me if I don't do hours and hours of data entry as a provision for your lack of technology.....go to a coffee shop, or a Kmart....
There is no jeopardy to my position, the data is the data...plain and simple...the figures I cited are straight from the documents I cited, and are available to anyone with an internet connection...I am sure if you clicked on the links and walked away for a few moments they would be loaded when you returned the files are not that big...The StatAB and federal reserve links are only 29kb, 745kb, and 61kb respectively.....easily within the limits of even dialup service....
This is but another diversionary tactic so you can try and change the subject...AGAIN, to deflect the fact that your figures are lying propaganda....
and, as an aside...I did make one error that I just noticed...I used "gross" assets...the actual "net worth" numbers are smaller......which means the total percentage of net worth of the tax payers with assets over 1.5 million is also smaller......would you like me to recalculate the figures?
You'll still be wrong, only more so.....
I am anxious to see what your excuse will be next as to why you can't verify the data.....the simple answer is you don't want to, you want to live inside your propaganda bubble...you feel safe there.....
Sorry, it's just not working, "slammersworldisback." I know you think you can "catapult" the truth by taking the "broken record" approach. I know you are using tactics used before in attempts to wear the rest of us down.
But isn't it great: technology prevents you from doing this.
what are you talking about?
Diversionary tactic huh? Thats a good one coming from you.
I will visit the local libary within the next few days. Possibly tomorrow if time allows. I will print every relevant page from your sources and determine what forms of wealth and/or debt you left out in order to draw such outrageous conclusions.
The richest 2% owned only 21.1% of private US wealth as of '04'?
NO WAY IN HELL. I PROMISE BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT I WILL DESTROY THAT OUTRAGEOUS CLAIM BY POINTING OUT WHICH FORMS OF WEALTH AND/OR DEBT WERE EXCLUDED BY YOU.
Thats a promise to you and everyone else on this site.
In the meantime explain this:
The other day, you swore that the top quintile owned just 32% of America's wealth. These were your exact words:
"The official data, doesn't place the number anywhere near your estimate....via the census bureau: "Wealth and Asset Ownership" detailed tables 2004: table 4 (the most recent info available, published/revised Oct 31, 2011) Top Net Worth of those in the highest quintile is 32%"
To which I replied:
"Top 20% only hold 32% of US net worth? Are you referring to private net worth?
If so, thats too absurd to be taken seriously. That would indicate a nearly flat distribtion of wealth. NEARLY FLAT."
To which you replied:
"Yes."
If the top 2% owned 21.1% of US private wealth as of '04', then how is it possible that the top 20% combined owned just 32%? Do you really expect me or anyone else to believe that those 3rd-20th percentiles from the top combined owned just 10.9% of US private wealth when the 1st and 2nd percentiles alone owned 21.1%
You only have two choices here. Either way, my next question will be:
If your assertion regarding that 32% held by the top quintile was that far off just two days ago, why should we take your latest assertion seriously?
As promised, I will visit the local library by Monday at the latest, print all relevant pages from your sources and return to let everyone know what forms of wealth and/or debt you left out in order to draw the outrageous conclusion that America's richest 2% owned just 21.1% of its private wealth in '04'. 8 years ago.
In the meantime, explain your assertion that the top quintile owned 32% as of '04'.
I answered above....
The official info is contained in pdf form, that is the form that the government chooses...not me, I suggest a coffee shop....
The Federal Reserve and Statistical Abstract list the forms of Net Worth by category...including all forms of financial wealth...but I am sure that you will claim your sources have a crystal ball and can see sources of wealth that are not available to official sources...
The age of the data is the latest reported by government, and the figures as used in the calculations are accurate..
You are PROVEN wrong....and you can't accept that your suspect sources of propaganda are lies...
I think we are done here, as I have proven over and over that I am right and YOU are wrong and a liar who fabricates facts...
You are DISMISSED
I've noticed a trend with you. Every time I challenge you to do something which would jeopardize your position or record, you say "I think we are done here.".
Its become downright predictable.
No, I won't claim my sources to have a crystal ball. But as I've said many times, your 'official' sources often omit vital points and details which have been documented elsewhere.
I'm requesting the text and figures once again. Either pasted here on a new page or sent to me as a text file.
My hunch is that you will refuse to do either because you know those figures don't include all forms of private wealth and debt. You know that when all inclusions are made, the true concentration of US wealth as of '04' will be shown to be much greater.
are you having trouble reading the chart?
Those are the percentages of those persons in the particular quintiles with a Net Worth exceeding $100,000.00
If you can't understand information presented that simply, I am not sure I can help you?
Are you having trouble with your memory? Let me refresh it for you:
"I'll check out the report later from a high speed connection (I'm on dial-up now.) but right off the bat, I can tell that its either dead wrong or some group of die-hard conservative partisan puppets brainstormed for a week to spin the data. In which case, it will be easy to spin back into the correct universe."
This is why I stated the following:
"Just start over and state the share of private net worth in the US by the top centile, by quintiles and the source.
Make sure the 5 shares by quintile add up to 100% of private net worth in the US."
Please do so.
But seriously. Those statistics you refer to are incredibly misleading. From that angle, if grandpa and grandma go broke and lose their home, they would be in the lowest income quintile. If they move in with their son and daughter in law, their combined assets would be considered 'household net worth'. The same goes for college grads who can't find a job and laid off workers who move in with parents or siblings.
This trend has been growing for several years now.
C'mon already. Stop sugar coating everything with your conservative spin.
But first satisfy my curiosity one more time.
What do you have to say about those points I made regarding inflation, key living expenses, 2nd providers, retirees, and the misleading 'household income' statistics from the CBO report?
I know you're going to spin and dance your way around those valid points.
So get to it. Lets see those moves.
I'll take the census bureau over CTJ....thanks
I'll take the C.I.A. over any of your sources, "slammersworld"
I know my posts will provoke you into a frenzy of hatred, insults, bad language, large caps, etc.
It still won't change reality.
Please post a link to this CIA data
I trust data provided by the University of California at Santa Cruz, which cites C.I.A. data in its analysis of wealth distribution in the United States.
I also trust Forbes Magazine in its recent (Nov. or Dec. of 2011) report on how much the 400 wealthiest U.S. citizens are worth (all together).
I trust just about all data provided by credible sources.
The census bureau has never done any study regarding total effective (Federal, State, and local) tax rates for any income group.
You didn't really expect anyone to fall for that one did you?
you can't even point to one source of raw data used to calculate the "comprehensive study"....in reference to sales or property taxes by income group...not one...
"comprehensive studies" are created from actual data and facts, or they are concocted from fictitious information, actual data can be sourced and cited....
and' since your CTJ like has no citations that lead to official sources....
Like I said, if it cannot be verified, it's fabricated....
As requested earlier, please consult the C.I.A.'s analysis of wealth distribution throughout our country and the world.
Ahh, the joys of technological innovation!
Newsflash: I didn't conduct the comprehensive study. They did. and they are not the only research group to conclude that total effective rates (Federal, State, and local) are nearly flat for the richest one percent and the vast overwhelming lower majority. Like I said before, others have reported similar findings.
I am going to contact CTJ this week for more information regarding their figures. In a week or so, I will create a new page devoted exclusively to the CTJ report. I will post any additional information they provide as well as their contact information.
But lets not kid ourselves. The word of God would not be good enough for you unless that word was die-hard conservative.
No...if you can point out data on the actual distribution of sales and property tax breakdown by income level, from a credible, official source...that will be enough......
Nothing on this issue is credible in your book unless it is reported by the government. But again, like I have told you over and over and over:
NO GOVERNMENT ENTITY HAS EVER REPORTED TOTAL EFFECTIVE TAX RATES FOR ANY INCOME GROUP.
As I can see from your entry below that I can't respond to because of thread limits, you've gone downright conservative psycho. Now, you're just denying everything.
Again Sherlock. Most of the records do exist. Modeling was done in place of those that don't (and no, that doesn't mean fabricated.). But no governmnent entity has taken the time to conduct any study regarding total effective rates (federal, State, and local combined) for any income group. Those studies have been done only by independent research groups.
If you still don't understand, then consider this:
It is the government that collects fees and issues permits to build front decks.
Tell me. What government website has posted 'official' statistics regarding all deck permits issued by quintile?
None you say? Does that mean the permits were never issued?
Of course they were issued bitch. But no government entity has taken the time to break them down by quintile.
Now, do you understand?
One last thing:
Self employed bitch. So take your managerial hogwash and chug it.
it is the government that levies and collects taxes...if they don't have the information, then it doesn't exist.....which is exactly what I have been saying from the start....you think your little biased partisan websites, youtube video's and blogs somehow have tax information that the tax collectors themselves don't have....you're insane...you hate the wealthy, it's that simple. You have no plausible reason to, so you search out information to make you feel better about that irrational hatred.......when really you should just look into a mirror (figuratively) and conclude what YOU can do to improve YOUR situation...not what you can expect, or force others to do for you (or dishonestly claim you want done for "others" out of fairness)....I have dealt with those like you many times during my time in management....it's always someone else, rather than your own marginal, or substandard, performance.....it's always unfair when the superstar worker gets a perk for that performance level that YOU don't get because of your substandard performance......everyone should be treated equally and fairly, you say...even though they don't perform or contribute (by choice) equally or fairly.....
Your arguments are nonsense, and excuses why the system should be tailored around your ability to succeed in it, and that should, of course, limit the ability of those already succeeding from surpassing your efforts......they must be weighed down and hobbled so as to make you appear to be contributing equally, and so you can feel OK about yourself...
It's all bullshit.....you don't care about the middle class, or poor.....if you did you would advocate that they pay less taxes, you're not doing that...you want to punish the rich and make them pay more...hoping you'll get a share of that plunder......those like you are the leeches on society...you say the rich take from the poor....that is nonsense.....the rich are rewarded with but a small percentage of the contribution they contribute to the lives of others via the market system, while those at the bottom just TAKE from the system via benefits, and it is only those benefits....NOT the contribution of those who receive them...that find their back into the system itself......it's life support for failures, and non-contributors, and you are like parasites devouring more and more, expecting more and more, multiplying and destroying the system that sustains your life support, and saying it's not fair that others don't give you more to consume.......
It is sickening to anyone with a work ethic and anyone who has worked their way up and EARNED (a word you obviously know nothing about) something...
they don't fabricate information.....
you got it Nostradamus, bring it on....and your usual web posting as sources ain't gonna do it, let's have some verifiable official data.....
since you brought it up, why don't you start with the state and local taxes that are higher rates for lower income sectors....and your breakdown of real estate taxes by income level...
I'll be waiting...
This is just for starters. I'll be posting many more in the order of my choice.
This is a portion of a previous entry in which I address income shares by quintile and back it up with an official government report.
The CBO report I am about to make reference to breaks down shares of net American income by quintile. Since a quintile represents 1/5, the middle quintile would certainly represent the 'middle class'. But we'll expand further out to all 5 quintiles just to cover all bases. Keep in mind these statistics represent income AFTER taxes.
Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the lowest quintile dropped by 27.9 percent. Does that prove the expansion of the lowest class? Damn near it but lets eliminate all doubt.
Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the second quintile, dropped by 23.6 percent. Does that prove the expansion of the lower class? Isn't it possible that the lowest two quintiles were always the lower class and the middle class had always represented just 1/5 of the US population? Well, thats what justhefacts would swear so lets eliminate that last shred of doubt. Lets move onto the middle quintile. The indisputable 'middle class'.
Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the middle quintile dropped by 14.5 percent. There you go. Indisputable proof that at least 3/5 of Americans lost their relative share of net income between 1979 and 2007. Indisputable proof that America's middle class had shrunk and its lower class had expanded between 1979 and 2007. Indisputable mathematical proof. Still, lets move onto the next quintile.
Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the fourth quintile dropped by 10.3 percent. There you go. Indisputable proof that at least 4/5 of Americans lost their relative share of net income between the years 1979 and 2007.
Bankruptcy and consumer debt rose significantly during this time frame. By 2007, consumer debt alone rose to nearly $2,000,000,000,000. Thats NEARLY TWO TRILLION DOLLARS.
So we've proven the actual shrinkage of the middle class and the actual expansion of the lower class. We've clearly established a loss of financial assets.
So where did the money go? The highest quintile? Lets take a look.
Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the fifth quintile rose by 23.8 percent. Should we blame them? The highest quintile? Do we really want to blame a full 20% of the American population?
Not in my book. Lets take a closer look.
Between the years 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the top decile (one tenth) rose by 40.2 percent. Thats a 16.4 percent spread just within 10 percent of the population. Lets take a closer look.
Between the years 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the top ventile (one twentieth) rose by 61.9 percent. Thats a 21.9 percent spread just within 5 percent of the population. Interesting. Now, lets take a look at the final piece of the puzzle from this particular time frame.
Between 1979 and 2007, the start of the Great Recession and the worst financial crisis in nearly 80 years, the share of net income for the top centile (one hundredth, top 1%) rose by 128.0 percent. Thats a spread of 66.1 percent just within 5 percent of the population.
This is a portion of a previous entry in which I address income shares by quintile and back it up with an official government report.
The CBO report I am about to make reference to breaks down shares of net American income by quintile. Since a quintile represents 1/5, the middle quintile would certainly represent the 'middle class'. But we'll expand further out to all 5 quintiles just to cover all bases. Keep in mind these statistics represent income AFTER taxes.
Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the lowest quintile dropped by 27.9 percent. Does that prove the expansion of the lowest class? Damn near it but lets eliminate all doubt.
Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the second quintile, dropped by 23.6 percent. Does that prove the expansion of the lower class? Isn't it possible that the lowest two quintiles were always the lower class and the middle class had always represented just 1/5 of the US population? Well, thats what justhefacts would swear so lets eliminate that last shred of doubt. Lets move onto the middle quintile. The indisputable 'middle class'.
Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the middle quintile dropped by 14.5 percent. There you go. Indisputable proof that at least 3/5 of Americans lost their relative share of net income between 1979 and 2007. Indisputable proof that America's middle class had shrunk and its lower class had expanded between 1979 and 2007. Indisputable mathematical proof. Still, lets move onto the next quintile.
Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the fourth quintile dropped by 10.3 percent. There you go. Indisputable proof that at least 4/5 of Americans lost their relative share of net income between the years 1979 and 2007.
Bankruptcy and consumer debt rose significantly during this time frame. By 2007, consumer debt alone rose to nearly $2,000,000,000,000. Thats NEARLY TWO TRILLION DOLLARS.
So we've proven the actual shrinkage of the middle class and the actual expansion of the lower class. We've clearly established a loss of financial assets.
So where did the money go? The highest quintile? Lets take a look.
Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the fifth quintile rose by 23.8 percent. Should we blame them? The highest quintile? Do we really want to blame a full 20% of the American population?
Not in my book. Lets take a closer look.
Between the years 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the top decile (one tenth) rose by 40.2 percent. Thats a 16.4 percent spread just within 10 percent of the population. Lets take a closer look.
Between the years 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the top ventile (one twentieth) rose by 61.9 percent. Thats a 21.9 percent spread just within 5 percent of the population. Interesting. Now, lets take a look at the final piece of the puzzle from this particular time frame.
Between 1979 and 2007, the start of the Great Recession and the worst financial crisis in nearly 80 years, the share of net income for the top centile (one hundredth, top 1%) rose by 128.0 percent. Thats a spread of 66.1 percent just within 5 percent of the population.
Update:
I did have a link here to the CBO report regarding these statistics but the page has just very recently been replaced with the usual crap about 'Federal Income Tax rates'.
I can't help wondering why that page which was in place for several months at least was replaced with another after I posted the link on this site.
There is no doubt. It was good a few days ago. Now, its been replaced.
Like I said, I'll be responding to your challenge soon enough. But first, I want to make it crystal clear that your challenge is nothing but a desperate swing taken at the guy who caught you in so many mistakes.
You done lost this challenge already.
Lose this:
This is a portion of a previous entry in which I address income shares by quintile and back it up with an official government report.
The CBO report I am about to make reference to breaks down shares of net American income by quintile. Since a quintile represents 1/5, the middle quintile would certainly represent the 'middle class'. But we'll expand further out to all 5 quintiles just to cover all bases. Keep in mind these statistics represent income AFTER taxes.
Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the lowest quintile dropped by 27.9 percent. Does that prove the expansion of the lowest class? Damn near it but lets eliminate all doubt.
Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the second quintile, dropped by 23.6 percent. Does that prove the expansion of the lower class? Isn't it possible that the lowest two quintiles were always the lower class and the middle class had always represented just 1/5 of the US population? Well, thats what justhefacts would swear so lets eliminate that last shred of doubt. Lets move onto the middle quintile. The indisputable 'middle class'.
Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the middle quintile dropped by 14.5 percent. There you go. Indisputable proof that at least 3/5 of Americans lost their relative share of net income between 1979 and 2007. Indisputable proof that America's middle class had shrunk and its lower class had expanded between 1979 and 2007. Indisputable mathematical proof. Still, lets move onto the next quintile.
Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the fourth quintile dropped by 10.3 percent. There you go. Indisputable proof that at least 4/5 of Americans lost their relative share of net income between the years 1979 and 2007.
Bankruptcy and consumer debt rose significantly during this time frame. By 2007, consumer debt alone rose to nearly $2,000,000,000,000. Thats NEARLY TWO TRILLION DOLLARS.
So we've proven the actual shrinkage of the middle class and the actual expansion of the lower class. We've clearly established a loss of financial assets.
So where did the money go? The highest quintile? Lets take a look.
Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the fifth quintile rose by 23.8 percent. Should we blame them? The highest quintile? Do we really want to blame a full 20% of the American population?
Not in my book. Lets take a closer look.
Between the years 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the top decile (one tenth) rose by 40.2 percent. Thats a 16.4 percent spread just within 10 percent of the population. Lets take a closer look.
Between the years 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the top ventile (one twentieth) rose by 61.9 percent. Thats a 21.9 percent spread just within 5 percent of the population. Interesting. Now, lets take a look at the final piece of the puzzle from this particular time frame.
Between 1979 and 2007, the start of the Great Recession and the worst financial crisis in nearly 80 years, the share of net income for the top centile (one hundredth, top 1%) rose by 128.0 percent. Thats a spread of 66.1 percent just within 5 percent of the population.
This is a portion of a previous entry in which I address income shares by quintile and back it up with an official government report.
The CBO report I am about to make reference to breaks down shares of net American income by quintile. Since a quintile represents 1/5, the middle quintile would certainly represent the 'middle class'. But we'll expand further out to all 5 quintiles just to cover all bases. Keep in mind these statistics represent income AFTER taxes.
Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the lowest quintile dropped by 27.9 percent. Does that prove the expansion of the lowest class? Damn near it but lets eliminate all doubt.
Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the second quintile, dropped by 23.6 percent. Does that prove the expansion of the lower class? Isn't it possible that the lowest two quintiles were always the lower class and the middle class had always represented just 1/5 of the US population? Well, thats what justhefacts would swear so lets eliminate that last shred of doubt. Lets move onto the middle quintile. The indisputable 'middle class'.
Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the middle quintile dropped by 14.5 percent. There you go. Indisputable proof that at least 3/5 of Americans lost their relative share of net income between 1979 and 2007. Indisputable proof that America's middle class had shrunk and its lower class had expanded between 1979 and 2007. Indisputable mathematical proof. Still, lets move onto the next quintile.
Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the fourth quintile dropped by 10.3 percent. There you go. Indisputable proof that at least 4/5 of Americans lost their relative share of net income between the years 1979 and 2007.
Bankruptcy and consumer debt rose significantly during this time frame. By 2007, consumer debt alone rose to nearly $2,000,000,000,000. Thats NEARLY TWO TRILLION DOLLARS.
So we've proven the actual shrinkage of the middle class and the actual expansion of the lower class. We've clearly established a loss of financial assets.
So where did the money go? The highest quintile? Lets take a look.
Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the fifth quintile rose by 23.8 percent. Should we blame them? The highest quintile? Do we really want to blame a full 20% of the American population?
Not in my book. Lets take a closer look.
Between the years 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the top decile (one tenth) rose by 40.2 percent. Thats a 16.4 percent spread just within 10 percent of the population. Lets take a closer look.
Between the years 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the top ventile (one twentieth) rose by 61.9 percent. Thats a 21.9 percent spread just within 5 percent of the population. Interesting. Now, lets take a look at the final piece of the puzzle from this particular time frame.
Between 1979 and 2007, the start of the Great Recession and the worst financial crisis in nearly 80 years, the share of net income for the top centile (one hundredth, top 1%) rose by 128.0 percent. Thats a spread of 66.1 percent just within 5 percent of the population.
Update:
I did have a link here to the CBO report regarding these statistics but the page has just very recently been replaced with the usual crap about 'Federal Income Tax rates'.
I can't help wondering why that page which was in place for several months at least was replaced with another after I posted the link on this site.
There is no doubt. It was good a few days ago. Now, its been replaced.
It seems like you and your friends are now voting down my comments.....perhaps I shouldn't have defended you yesterday.......
It does appear that way. But it wasn't me. The scoring system has been ruined. It no longer means anything.
keep going, I'll wait until your done...but, you've already made assumptions and misinterpreted the data, and since you are only using this single source to craft your assumptions....they are also incomplete.....careful of making incomplete assumptions with singular data...
Just like on the rifle range...I am lining up my sights and controlling my breathe....I'll pull the trigger in good time
But, please...continue...
I accepted your challenge 8 hours ago and this is all you've got? A cheap psychological trick and a gun analogy?
I don't care what you're up to. It won't work. You could return with a dozen friends from the CATO institute. You could create a dozen more IDs to give the illusion of a tag team. You could save a dozen essays on your computer and post them all tomorrow. No matter what you do, I won't be intimidated. I'm in this for life. Thats right. I'll still be doing this in 10 years when we're well into the worst depression in US/global history. I'll still be ripping on you pigs for concentrating too much wealth.
Nothing you say or do will stop me. Ever. I'm in this for life.
I'll post more sources tomorrow.
One last thing: You want to prove me wrong? Then prove my biggest prediction and biggest motive wrong.
Make the coming US/global depression not happen.
I love your dedication, MC. I may not agree with everything that you say, but you definitely have halls.
Run for delegate in the 99percentdeclaration. Please.
[Removed]
Here's some stuff from that CBO report MC doesn't like to talk about or acknowledge. I'm watching this whole event with pity and irony. He'll change arguments on you as often as you'll let him. And when he no longer can, he'll say you're married to yourself (you're a husband and wife tag team of rich capitalists taking turns arguing against him) and creating multiple entities to combat him. lol. I wish you well!
"The CBO report I am about to make reference to breaks down shares of net American income by quintile. Since a quintile represents 1/5, the middle quintile would certainly represent the 'middle class'. But we'll expand further out to all 5 quintiles just to cover all bases. Keep in mind these statistics represent income AFTER taxes."
Also from the actual CBO report:http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/124xx/doc12485/10-25-HouseholdIncome.pdf
Income in "adjusted for inflation" Income is adjusted for difference in household size Income categories are defined by ranking all households by their size adjusted income. Percentiles and quintiles contain equal numbers of people.Households with negative income are excluded from the lowest income category but are included in totals.
From the CBO Director's Blog: http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=2909
After-Tax Income Grew More for the Highest-Income Households (note-grew MORE...but other quintiles ALSO grew)
CBO finds that between 1979 and 2007:
Again Sherlock. There is a HUGE difference between inflation and the actual cost of living. THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING.
When you account for key expenses like energy, food, health care, housing, and higher education, the middle and lower classes have lost actual buying power. Consequently, they have lost net worth as well.
MATH problems-
MC said above: "Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the lowest quintile dropped by 27.9 percent."
CBO says http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3220: "The share going to the bottom fifth of households declined from 6.8 percent to 4.9 percent." THIS EQUALS A 1.9% drop NOT a 27.9% drop!
MC said: "Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the second quintile, dropped by 23.6 percent. " PLUS "Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the middle quintile dropped by 14.5 percent." PLUS "Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the fourth quintile dropped by 10.3 percent." Those three totals = a drop of 48.40% for the three "middle" quintiles according to MC
CBO says: "The share of income going to the middle three-fifths (or 60 percent) of households shrank from 51.1 percent to 43.5 percent." WHICH EQUALS A 7.6% drop in the SHARE for the three "middle quintiles".
CBO SAYS: "The share going to the bottom four-fifths (80 percent) of the population declined from 58 percent to 48 percent."
That is a 10% drop across all 4 bottom quintiles.9.5% of that income drop came from the bottom 4/5ths-so the TOP quintile (the top 20%-NOT the 1%) ALSO saw a .5% drop in income shares.
Which is why the CBO says: "The top 1 percent’s share of the nation’s total after-tax household income more than doubled, from 7.5 percent to 17.1 percent." (Where the 10% "drop" went)
I'm not denying the FACT that there is a vast income inequality. Nor am I denying the FACT that the top 1% is becoming exponentially richer than the lower 99%.
I DO have a problem with people who look at statistics and then come up with "creative" ways to make certain statistics appear WORSE or more disturbing than they are on their own.
Now, MC might have a perfectly acceptable explanation for HOW he arrived at the SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER percentages that HE STATED, which are not reflected by those stated by the actual CBO. He needs to EXPLAIN himself-in order to prove his method was accurate-rather than EXPECT total strangers to just accept "his math" and statements as if they ARE THE SAME as the math and statements in the CBO.
People who just glow and clap for his stats without question are viewed as intelligent, wise, and civilized human beings. Those who want clarification for WHY his statements do not match the CBO's-are idiotic, diversionary, "rich loving" morons who can't possibly actually CARE to know exactly what they are asking.
You're looking at it all wrong. Those drops refer to percentages of income lost within each of the lower four quintiles.
For example: Deduct 27.9% from 6.8. You will come up with 4.9 every time.
The math is correct.
the "math' is misleading, and purposely so....
call it what you like....the results will determine the mistaken party....
and....let's not forget that I challenged you to do this WEEKS ago, with the caveat that I would make a public declaration of my error IF you could provide official verifiable sources for your assertions about the rich paying an equal amount of taxes to the poor and middle class....
Ha, ha, ha, ha! Go far, far away, slammersworldisback. You're just wrong. Get over it.
You know damn well I never said equal amount. I said about the same effective rate as a percentage of income. I just caught you in ANOTHER mistake.
effective rate as a percentage of income? what kind of manipulation is that....hahaha....I guess in your world rich and poor should end up with the same amount after taxes?
[Deleted]
'..and certainly you do not have the ability to feel remorse or humility...so what's the point..."
To whom is this addressed?
[Removed]
Soon he will address his logical fallacies...but not until he adds Ad Hominem to the list first......hahaha
Precious!
I'll save him the trouble.
Yer a boob, and just as blind!
ModestCapitalist posted these stats:
(you can find them at the original Forum Post here.)
And repelicans signed a no tax pledge . . . the fuckers.
Hey ZenDog. In the interest of truth and accuracy, I just want to add the note that I went back and added to the original post several weeks ago.
Note: This claim was made by Forbes.com in April of '10'. Shortly after, they published a followup article which included a rebuttal by Exxon Mobil. Forbes.com did acknowledge a mistake based on incorrect line items filed by Exxon Mobil. http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2010/04/07/exxon-says-it-does-pay-u-s-income-taxes
Hey MC.
I don't care about Exxon - although I do appreciate your efforts to remain accurate. That is important.
Accuracy is important.
Did you post that disclaimer here:
I don't mind either way - but if you insist, I will amend the Forum post itself to reflect the Forbes correction.
My response to this same post in a previous thread:
It's funny how you pick and chose years, and semantics to "prove" your point.....listing "refund" amounts, "tax breaks", Bailouts (which were LOANS not unencumbered "bailouts") and multi-year statistically manipulated figures and not the actual tax liability paid by the mentioned corporations......or choose single year payment examples.....
Any person or entity that receives a refund must first pay withholding or quarterly tax payments TO the IRS...but, again...you make no mention of those figures, or what the actual taxes paid were...leading the uneducated to think that corporations actually received money from the treasury while paying nothing...which is false.
Even your examples, such as GE, whose net-zero taxes were a result of the 30 billion in losses from GE finance during the financial collapse....
You list "subsidy" amounts but not gross payrolls, or actual tax liabilities....so you can create a falsely painted picture that incorrectly identifies the actuality of taxation in the US.....
You fail to identify the confiscatory tax rate and cost of regulatory control as the leading driver of increased prices, and instead blame "profits" of the large corporations...profit margins that a small business couldn't exist on...
The profit margins of the large corporation are cents on the dollar, and a rise from 6 cents per dollar of revenue over sales, to 9 cents, is listed as a 50% rise in profits....which is statistically accurate, but isn't telling the whole story....the leader in profit, of the large corporations you listed, is Carnival Cruise Lines at 26 cents per dollar, with Apple Inc at 23 cents, BOA and Citigroup at 14 cents, Chevron at 12 cents, Exxon at 8 cents, GE at 7 cents, Boeing at 6 cents, Valero and Conoco Phillips at 4 cents, Goldman Sachs at -8% (a loss)..... you can find net profits listed here: http://ycharts.com/
Not the "MASSIVE" profits that you allege, at all...
But, I guess you have a dual standard, taxation we must look at percentages, to be fair...but profits...that we are supposed to look at actual dollars.....more smoke and mirror deception....
Also....you list overall profits as your baseline in several cases, and not US profits.....the US government has no authority to tax income generated from profits gained in other countries...no country has that authority, or even attempts to do so..... (Edit: no authority to tax those profits if kept outside the US...they can tax the funds if they are "repatriated", but no company does that, the purpose of locating outside the US is to avoid the highest in the world combined corporate tax rate)
and this was my response to scammersworld:
"First of all, I want you to know one thing right off the bat. You can't confuse me with sheer volume of statistics. You just can't. I did read every single word of your response. and I understood every single word. So if your strategy is to break my will be confusing me with sheer volume of statistics copied from any source, I can promise you that strategy will fail.
Your claim that I pick and choose years and semantics is outright bullshit. I'll remind you again: You stated in an earlier post that those with a "higher than average" income shared just 46% of the income. This isn't only false, it is mathematically impossible.
I didn't research the statistics on corporate welfare one at a time. I copied them as they appear from another site. That being said, they are legit. Your attempts to dance your way around them won't work with me. I realize that in order to receive a refund from the IRS, an entity must first pay taxes. Its not only common knowledge. Its just about universal. Even my dog understands this and he didn't even graduate. He also understands the following:
THAT DOESN'T MATTER. THOSE ENTITIES GOT THEIR REFUNDS. SOME OF THEM ACTUALLY PAYED NEGATIVE TAXES. THEY WERE GIVEN OUTRAGEOUS TAX BREAKS AND ACTUAL SUBSIDIES BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
Why in holy hell do you think that corporations spend so much time and money lobbying congress? Are you even aware that dozens of corporations spend more money lobbying congress than they do in Federal taxes? Do you even understand how significant that is? What is your strategy going to be with regard to this issue? To deny this claim outright or simply ignore it?
No. You're wrong. Business enterprises can't simply pass every penny of taxes onto the consumer. That is a half-baked claim that I've heard a thousand times. They can attempt to pass a portion onto the consumer but risk driving the consumer to a competitor instead. The consumer may also decide not to purchase the product or service from anyone, which in many cases would be in their best interest. Therefore, the business enterprise has no choice but to absorb the difference. As a die-hard capitalist/corporate welfare junkie, you must understand this. If you don't, I'll ask you again:
Why do you think corporations spend so much time and money lobbying congress? Do you even realize that dozens of corporations spend more money lobbying congress than they do in Federal taxes?
If GE finance lost billions during the financial crisis which they helped cause, then let them take their losses. The parent company is still a juggernaut. Let them take their losses. Let them sell off assets. Let the executives pay back every penny of bonus reaped during the time in which bad decisions were made. Let them be fired. Maybe even prosecuted. Let the shareholders take their losses. LET THEM TAKE THEIR LOSSES. ANYTHING ELSE IS CORPORATE WELFARE.
I will not judge profits only by percentage. No way in hell. Not when they use deceptive accounting practices. Not when the executives, accountants, and attorneys are paid millions. Not when they spend millions in lavish perks. Not when they lobby congress. Not when they receive subsidies. Not when they divert funds. NOT WHEN THOSE PERCENTAGES REPRESENT BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. So don't pull that 'modest margin' crap on me. It won't work.
I think you're mistaken. There are circumstances under which profits reaped overseas can and should be taxed. I don't recall those circumstances but I do recall that those rates are incredibly low. I think you're mistaken. In which case, you will certainly refuse to admit it claiming instead that those circumstances don't apply to your previous claim that "no country has that authority, or even attempts to do so".
Bullshit. I've heard that bogus claim that our tax rates are "far in excess of any rates anywhere else in the world" many times. Thats just bullshit. Most are lower. Some are higher. In fact, some are MUCH higher. Again, you will refuse to admit your mistake by claiming that those circumstances don't apply to your bogus claim that our combined Federal, State, and local tax rates are "far in excess of any rates anywhere else in the world". Thats just not true. Its a steaming pile of crap when you account for the many loopholes and corporate subsidies provided by Federal, State, and local governments.
Question: Which major industry has reaped record high profits and paid record low rates during a time of war in which hundreds of billions were spent on the war effort and over 4000 soldiers died in part, to protect the primary resource of this major industry?
Hint: Unscramble these letters: LIO
Don't you think that a portion of the expense should be covered by this major industry? Save the "pass on to consumer" excuse. Its not that simple. If you're so in love with the free market, then shut up and let it adjust on its own with ZERO subsidies.
One more huge point on this issue:
WE ARE BY FAR, THE LARGEST CONSUMER MARKET IN THE WORLD. THE HIGHEST PROFITS BY FAR ARE REAPED HERE. FROM OUR CONSUMERS. AS A DIRECT RESULT, WE HAVE JUST ABOUT THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH ANYWHERE IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD. OUR CORPORATE TAX RATES SHOULD BE THE HIGHEST IN THE WORLD. IF THE RICH AND THEIR CORPORATE GOLDEN GEESE DON'T LIKE IT, LET THEM SELL THEIR OVERPRICED CRAP SOMEWHERE ELSE.
Now tell me that they would rather abandon the largest consumer market in the world just to get a lower tax rate overseas. No way in hell. They would rather lobby congress for more corporate welfare and reap those record profits right here from our consumers. They can, they have, they are, and they will.
I've already made it crystal clear. My beef is with the richest one percent. Not the richest ten percent. I've also made it crystal clear that when you account for all FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL taxes and fees, the little guy pays about the same rate, as a percentage of income as the big guy. So throw out your 30 years of statistics regarding Federal Income Taxes paid by the top ten percent and start all over with 30 years of FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL taxes and fees paid by the richest one percent.
While you're at it, just try to deny my claim that the benefits of corporate welfare have been hoarded at the top. Not passed on proportionally to the little guy. Check those statistics I posted in the last reply, confirm them, and just try to deny it.
I see you tried to divert my attention with your little comment regarding relatively flat rates of income for the top ten percent over an 11 year time frame. Again, not for the top one percent. Not even the 30 year time frame that I have based my position on. Did you really expect me to fall for such a lame psychological trick?
Question: How have the incomes of the richest ONE PERCENT been effected by the current crisis?
Question: How have the incomes of the lower ninety eight percent been effected by the current crisis?
Do you have the guts to answer these straight questions or shall I throw the statistics in your face?
The next paragraph in your response is crap. It was another lame attempt to divert my attention by focusing on the short time frame for an economic model that is dead. In case you havn't heard, Federal revenue is now in record low territory as a percentage of GDP. In fact, the entire model was based in large part on consumers spending money they didn't have. It amazes me that you die-hard conservative partisan puppets don't understand this.
THAT MODEL YOU REFERRED TO IS DEAD.
Holy albino lobster crap! How the hell can you stand by such a shallow position that all income levels increased from '79' to '07' and completely ignore the point that I made immediately after?
HELLO. EARTH TO DIE-HARD CONSERVATIVE PARTISAN PUPPET. EARTH TO DIE-HARD CONSERVATIVE PARTISAN PUPPET. THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CORE INFLATION AND THE ACTUAL COST OF LIVING. ENERGY AND FOOD AREN'T EVEN CONSIDERED IN THOSE STATISTICS REGARDING INCOME GROWTH.
How could you miss that? What the hell have you been smoking?
I'll check the link but I really don't need it at the moment. This post was written from memory.
One last thing: This is the phrase I wanted you to expand on: "87% of corporate taxes". Go back, check the context, and tell me exactly what you meant by that. Then, I will respond to it.
Next."
net operating loss carryforwards are a taxpayer subsidy of previously suffered losses. i think use it or lose it would be a better policy, it would certainly put more money in the treasury.
how are they a taxpayer subsidy? bankruptcy would be better?....losses are losses, corporate taxes are zero-base, meaning you cannot have losses exceed tax prepayment......eliminating carryover would destroy start-ups who routinely run losses in excess of tax prepayment...for years until they "catch" in the marketplace...
It's not a "subsidy" unless it comes from the taxpayers...not if it is never contributed to revenue.....don't compare the two....
they're subsidies because taxpayers pay for them to take these losses via reduced government receipts (and hence higher taxes on the taxpayer than would otherwise be necessary) in subsequent years. every tax benefit, such as a deduction or exclusion is, in effect, a subsidy paid for by the taxpayer. when it comes to mature companies, like GE, i don't think we should pay for companies to take previous losses since as that does not reflect current year net income--at most they should be very limited, as is the case for individuals that have $3,000k capital loss limitation that can be carried forward. if GE couldn't take those losses this year, they wouldn't go bankrupt. yes, there would have to be an exception for startups vs. mature companies--that could be a tricky distinction.
so you believe income belongs to the government first, and they determine what a person or business is allowed to keep?
yes, the government, in fact, has absolute legal priority over all other claimants. for example, don't pay your taxes and don't pay your bills-- all entities sue, and get wage garnishments. who gets your next bit of income you earn? you? electric co.? or the taxman? answer: taxman, then electric co., then lastly, you. but the GE example, i am saying that the odd results where GE gets a refund, while the government needs money desperately, results from the refusal to compartmentalize losses to a single year and allowing them to be carried. it's true of income too: companies can defer certain items for years too so they don't have to pay a big tax bill this year. i am against the extreme cases of tax management that are permitted under the IRC, particularly now when the government is swamped in debt--and these result in a government starved of tax revenue sufficient to work down the debt.
Yes.
The money for these roads have to come from somewhere. Is there such a thing as a functioning modern society with no taxes?
[Removed]
yep.....where's the source?....that's from a news story...
and, it's statistically manipulated, incomplete, randomly compared, cherry-picked assertions....
You are welcome to refute them. Saying they are bogus without backing it up is simply bullshit.
no.....shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy:
Onus probandi – the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim).
you make the claim, YOU back it up....or Mod, as the case may be.....
sorry if logic escapes you.....
My son, you made a claim and can not prove it. That negates your claim, not the statement.
what claim did I make?
[-] slammersworldisback (74) 0 points 7 minutes ago
what claim did I make?
[-] slammersworldisback (74) -2 points 36 minutes ago
yep.....where's the source?....that's from a news story...
and, it's statistically manipulated, incomplete, randomly compared, cherry-picked assertions....
Short memory or dementia?
that's not a "claim" that is criticism of a claim made without verification, or sourcing....once again, it's illogical that the questioner be responsible for the burden of proof of an assertion.....classic logical fallacy
I'm operating way above your collective pay grades, i see.....go to the library and read up on logic, then we can continue....
you aren't here to support the movement,
you obviously don't support exposing the one percent
so why are you here?
oh yeah
I get it . . . .
Related posts:
Forum Post: Memo spells out plan to undermine Occupy Wall Street
original PDF document:
I get it . . .
[Removed]
nah...I was here (under my original, blocked, screen name) way before all that....I like bringing a seed of truth to you drone dummies.....
I'm a lone critic, not part of any larger movement...I'm an individualist....I don't do "movements"
all I can say is that if you aren't down with getting money out of politics then you are a fool and a tool of the one percent -
you can't take the money out of politics, it's always been there...always will
disclosure is about the best you can do......
those who earn money are "we the people" too
corporations do not have tongues fool
we will get the money out of politics
and we will change the fundamental economic philosophy that underlies the deregulation of our economy
and the repelican party is DONE
HAHAHA!!! yeah, you're in for a rude awakening.....not soon enough, either...all you dim bulb Bevis's think you've done something....it's cute, like a baby that smears itself with it's own shit...
The Achiever's will crush you......just like we've done all your life...
bring it
libtards and the odumbo train are running out of steam
hahaha
BWA hahaha
bwa HA hahaha
ModestCapitalist nailed it below, you are now publicly humiliated!
what was it he nailed exactly?
Teabagge(R)s raised my taxes!!!
They are (R)epelicans, one and all.
Like (R)epelicans, all the way back to NIXON, they consider lying to us a (R)epelican "right"!
"I am not a crook!"
Yes you are.
when did republicans raise taxes....pray tell?
Wrong, wrong, wrong, again, slammersworldisback.
Reagans tax shift raised mine. Bush I raised 'em too.
Now, in my state teabaggers raised my taxes.
Teabaggers, like Nixon, are crooks and liars.
Just like the tears on Boehners face.
so....the 15/28% rate of Reagan RAISED your taxes? I just looked over the rate tables...I call Bullshit, I'll post them below....
and, the Bush 41 tax increase came from Congress.....it was signed by Bush under pressure..it was not "his" tax increase
tax rates in compact form:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fed_individual_rate_history-20110323.pdf
or if you like more research to get the same data:
http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/statab.html (found in the Federal Government Finances and Employment section of each respective year
If the president signs under pressure its not his increase. Now THATS spin!
You hear that everybody. Obama was under pressure to pass universal health care so its not his fault.
Clinton was under pressure to scrap Glass-Steagall so its not his fault.
Bush was under pressure to invade Iraq so its not his fault.
Oh the hell with it. All presidents are under pressure from both parties. Lets just give them a free pass on everything.
Right scammersworld?
What that you say? Only Bush gets a free pass?
Yeah. Thats what I thought you would say.
Now, get out of my face. I'm digging up sources to verify my assertions.
"...signed by Bush under pressure..."
...Just like the repeal of Glass-Steagall was signed by Clinton "under pressure," right?
actually, it was....and in order to get the white house to go along with it they demanded that it include the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act..which allowed loans to be given to otherwise unqualified applicants...that deal was brokered by Chuck Schumer.....
It passed congress on wide bipartisan support...90 yea, 8 nay 2 NV in the senate 38/51/1 D/R/I- yea / 7/1-D/R-nay......and 362 yea, 57 nay in the House 153/207 D/R-Yea / 50/6/1-D/R/I-nay
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s106-900
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
Just be quiet, scammersworldisback. You're done.
What happened to your paycheck under Reagan?
I know what happened to mine.
I was a teenager under Reagan.....it went up, and in 87-88 I paid NO taxes, however in 86 I did....with similar income levels
You're done.
Whatever BS they want to push. I paid higher taxes.
Especially under Reagan, made worse by his recession.
Teabaggers raised my taxes.
Lying (R)epelicans!!!!!!!!!!!!!
you liberals have a special math, I guess....
Done. Using terms like "dumb ass" diminishes your credibility. It doesn't help solve any problems.
Really....well, you began with idiot......and, really, you have added nothing to the discussion but short foolish comments...so you're cordially invited to fuck right off...
thank goodness your monkey ass is no longer going to comment......did you think I'd be offended?
As I said, bad language diminishes your credibility. Why don't you at least clean it up a little bit?
PC is not for me.....
You know what you like. Just imagine that for others. Treat others as you would like them to treat you. You're all right because you're interested enough to write about this.
I responded, in kind, to your original posting....we could evolve beyond that...but, it hasn't happened yet
You can't think. If thinking were easy, everyone would do it, even you, slammersworldisback. Too bad for you.
wow..you are an idiot......hahaha
We've proved you don't think. You're inability to see this after all the proof we've provided is proof that YOU CAN'T THINK.
You can't think. Get over it. Until you begin to show signs of thinking clearly, I won't respond to any more of your posts.
But you are the TRUE IDIOT. We all know that. Get a clue, for once.
what has your dumb ass provided, besides a lot of annoying posts?
Classic "slammerworldisback."
here's some special math for ya . . ..
as soon as the glaciers are gone
so are the repelicans!!
bwa hahahaha
bwa hahahaha
bwa hahahaha
bwa hahahaha
No.
That's the (R)epelicans.
Remember......................."I am not a crook!"
He was. So are teabaggers.
Are you a teabagger?
[Removed]
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/124xx/doc12485/10-25-HouseholdIncome.pdf
that's been referenced already......but, thanks
I challenge thee to a virtual dual...Have at you! Futile you say?..Take that and that and that!
Yes and when the economy is completely divided between ultra rich and ultra poor and getting poorer, using the same progressive tax system we've had for quite some time..Expect the rich to keep complaining.
Gee Wiz...Lots of people marginally employed in low wage jobs...I just can't figure out why I pay a greater amount of taxes then they do....
Maybe if people had jobs that paid better incomes..Like those IT jobs we farmed out to India and China.
Maybe if "The job creators" actually got penalized for not creating jobs instead of rewarded for BS.
I've got an idea! Force the poor to pay more! They could put it on the CC..What a great day for the banking sector this would be! Then when they can't pay that we send them off to my little "holiday" camp to work off their debt!
A lot of people have marginal skills and put forth marginal effort....so, they're paid fairly..
Question: have you ever managed people?
Maybe if people had the skills and conviction to MERIT larger incomes....you act as if "Jobs" are like candy tossed out at a Christmas parade...a job is a responsibility, opportunity, and chance.....not a gift, donation or handout......
Debt is the problem, those who begin life with debt, or take on more debt than they can manage are the problem.....whether low, middle, or high income...and I assure you there are paycheck to paycheck people at nearly all income levels.....
I've managed people, I'm not in that role now though...
I don't think jobs are like "candy" tossed out at a Christmas Parade..But be prepared for when a great many of your populace is without jobs and what the consequence of that situation will be. Maybe that's what the NDAA is for?
Look I've seen people in this world get jobs not based on merit or ability, but because of their associations. Example: Presidential appointees.
Globalization will cause jobs to go to the cheapest labor countries...Even for the highly skilled..
http://www.research.uky.edu/odyssey/spring05/surgery.html
As for debt, we have a debt based monetary system that needs the vast majority of people to be in debt in order to work...Sorry...Debt is encouraged in our little paradigm and making sure we have poor people is a great way to keep this Ponzi Scheme going.
It's a trap and if you can get out, whether someone thinks you merit "getting out" ..I'd highly recommend it.
We have the same monetary system now as in 1913....save for the gold/silver standard......for that you can thank FDR, not the 1%
Yes and before 1913 this country ws actually doing well without a Federal Reserve...
We came completely off the gold standard Bretton Woods in 1973...
Oh look at this graph...
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/history.gif
Just a coincidence...
the rise also coincides with the massive expansion of government in the early 70's and the welfare state and entitlement culture that was drastically increased in the mid 60's......rewarding and supporting poor lifestyle choices and non-participation......
that is not a coincidence either........
Let's not forget the Vietnam War...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock
Another bad choice we all have to pay for..Let's not forget the thousands and thousands of dead we accumulated also..For what?
To kill Communism...For what? So that China would become the greatest Communist/Capitalist nation that we now trade with, for rubber dog shit I-Pads, Kindles, computers and TV's from Foxxconn.
"Free Trade" means "Slave Trade"
Oh, humanity is "winning"
no, I did not read past the title
Seriously, take this shit to PMs, or emails. Fencing, perhaps?
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit, it's the liberal way. :)
Sorry.
The (R)epelicans cornered that market with the words "I am not a crook!"
They haven't given it up yet.
Plenty of dickhead immorals reside in the Dimocrat party, Al Franken, Tim Giethner, Tom Daschle, just to name a few of Obamas tax cheat pals. Pelosi has gotten rich on insider trading, the legal kind that congress is entitled to. Harry Ried on his land deals, Jack Murtha and ABSCAM. I know plenty of repubicans can be blamed for the same shit. Bill Clinton, ("I did not have sex with that woman") was not a crook either, just a sex addict , control freak liar under oath.
I see you're still blinded by the RupertRush juice.
(R)epelicans, were first, and still the VERY best.
Hard to admit, I know, yet it's so true.
I stated FACTS shmuck. Live in your little bubble of denial. You think Dims are for you. They are, all for control of you.
What facts are those?
The ones you stated from partisan hacks?
FLAKESnews, makes flakes. It's what they do.
Limbaugh, is a loony.
The mini-Limbaughs are even loonier.
Are you one of those?
Bite shit. Your a fool to think Dimocrats are for you. GOVERNMENT controls US. These assholes make tax law, and cheat. You think that's okay? Seriously? Power craving control freaks that are above us. I dont go for that shit.
Well, you most certainly go for some kind of shit.
Would that be (R)epelican shit?
Or do you prefer the FLAKESnews shit, for it's wonderful "fair and balanced" texture?
Limbaugh shit, for it's drug induced hysteria?
Must be Limbaugh shit. as your comments reflect a certain level of hysteria.
The real control freaks are to be found elsewhere.
OccupyWallStreet!!!
bwa hahaha
that's hysterical!
I see you are uninterested or incapable of discourse, on even an infantile level. Good bye.
Pot?
Meet kettle.
Discourse has not exactly been your strong point.
Nor, has the truth.
It was you, who started the "shit stained" conversation.
You sir have never responded to the facts stated except with childish, grade school style insults, about radio hosts and news channels. Wtf?
they informed your comment
you forget to mention that Murtha paid for his mistakes . . . .
what was I thinking . . .
Are you implying, that he was, uh, taken out? Most people when caught do pay up for the sins. Either in money, or jail time.
that's just silly.
I'm not implying anything.
it's a fact.
Questions were raised about his political connections and maneuvering to the benefit of his constituents.
As these questions surrounding him began to coalesce, he underwent a fairly simple and straight forward medical procedure.
And he died.
Simple.
As we agitate for more accountability and more transparency throughout government, and focus on the connections between public and private sector -
I think
.
and ya know what?
Well Zen, that is an amazing statement. Look at all of the suspicious deaths surroundin the Clinton's. It wasn't just Vince Foster.
So . . .
who was the guy who recommended Lewinski to Clinton?
riddle me that, bat man
Who is Hillary Rod-man?
wrong answer!
here's a hint . . .
Point number one about Exxon Mobil's is discussed at some length here:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/dec/10/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-filibuster-exxon-mobil/
I think that stating a single negative fact about someone or something that is true, can give an unfair impression of what the overall truth is. If we were all guilty of one negative thing we did in our lives, should our entire life be judged on that one event?
Truth has four dimensions. It can only be seen from every angle at every point in time.
I suppose if I follow the link it will turn out in defense of Exxon?
I'm not really interested in hearing their defense. They were provided with a court order to make restitution in Alaska over the Exxon Valdez spill a long long time ago - and their lawyers stalled and appealed until finally, sometime in the last couple of years - the courts came back and revised the settlement in half or less - can't recall.
there is something on that topic on my blog
but I just don't care.
I don't care.
The fossil fuel industry is intent on maintaining it's grip on both public policy and the consumer's paycheck.
So far they are doing a great job too.
That'll end soon.
Please read the comment after the link. It has nothing to do with oil, or politics. It only concerns how to honestly see what truth is. There is nothing more important.
yeah . . .
did you have a point behind illustrating that all of our perceptions on the world around us are based on moving targets and that this is key to theory and practice around shaping perceptions and bending minds?
You said:
Are you still defending Exxon?
What?
I mean - it doesn't matter. Even if they are consumed with altruism - it doesn't matter.
Global warming isn't coming - it's here.
Top three warmest decades: the last three
The top ten warmest years: All since 1995
And today in the history of weather:
Brian Williams just reported today, Thursday, January 5, 2012, that 98% of the nation is above freezing; and 115 cities around the country set all time record high temps for this day.
Jim Cantore elaborated on those numbers to state that of those 115 record high temps, four of them were 41 degrees above average and all time highs not just for day, but the entire month of January.
So I'm not really sure what your point is, perhaps you would care to elaborate.
One of my greatest heroes is Martin Luther King. Some people have said that he had numerous affairs with other women while married to his wife. Would it be fair to say MLK was an unfaithful womanizing baptist preacher! That is a true statement, but it only shows his life from one angle. It does not also include all the other angles, the entirety of the great contributions he made during his life. The reason why some only want to see that negative part of his life is because they fear seeing the truth. That a black man can be great, even greater than a white man. So the truth about any person or anything can only be seen from every angle and from any point in time. There are never just two sides to the truth, they are infinite!
I get that.
I also get that it is simply not possible to see any single point from every angle and from every point in time - especially when all I have is now.
But thanx.
Neither can I see truth from every angle, but I still see as many as possible that my limited senses allow. In the case of climate change you do see the future. You are looking from two different points in time already. But I hope it does not come to pass.
that's just silly.
I've worked outside most of my life.
Scientists have made claims.
Industry has made claims.
The shape of the debate, distorted as it has been over time with the influence of corporate pressure, makes the reality quite clear.
And last summer they found a ship that had been lost in the Arctic since 1853. Nations squabble even now over future control of the Northwest Passage.
As soon as the glaciers are gone
the repelicans are gone too!
this is simply inevitable. It has nothing whatsoever to do with prognostication.
sounds like bikini weather everywhere!! cant find anything wrong about that! hot girls in bikinis is what makes capitalism great. only problem with capitalism is a lot of potential bikini bunnies have too much fat because food is so cheap.
well I guess that makes two great things to look forward to . .
hot bodies
no repeliKans
LOL, funniest post today!
Can you prove that?
Great post,you're taking it to him in pit bull style. You're armed with the facts.
Why don't you find credible sources and prove him wrong. We would all like to see that.
in good time...but I won't submit to his Onus probandi, when he has provided his sources, and demonstrated his clear ignorance and partisan incited propaganda....then we'll address the lies, distortion, manipulation and outright fabrication of his posts....
That's "right", straight from CATO!!!!!
Nothing partisan there.
Slammersworldisback, "...Me thinks the lady doth protest too much..."
You are protesting too much, slammersworldisback.
[Removed]
I know...but this "out's" him as the "useful idiot" propagandist that he is.....
It does nothing but "out" you as a troll. You know as well as i do that the statistcs ModestCapitalist posted are available through multiple credible sources, and all you need to do is a quick Google search to find them. Your laziness is not his responsibility.
Would it be better if he posted citations? Sure. Then you had better post a few yourself if you accuse him of distortion. If not you are as guilty as he is for the "crime" you accuse him of.
What's good for the goose...........
apparently you do not understand logical debate either...
Onus probandi – the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, NOT on the person who DENIES (or QUESTIONS the claim).
because I refute the claim the burden of proof does not shift to me...it lies with Mod, who made the assertion....
as for the nonsense Zen posted from Mod...it's all over the place, various years, listing refunds, not actual taxes paid, in an effort to manipulate and distort the real facts, listing profits but not margins or gross sales, listing non-US profits and US taxes in comparison...etc etc
A fallacy is incorrect argumentation in logic and rhetoric resulting in a lack of validity, or more generally, a lack of soundness.
Onus probandi – from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion
A: I think your friend is a little bit sneaky
B: How do you mean? Why should you think that?
A: Explain to me why he isn't then
AS i said, citations would be better. But it is YOUR claim (that he is lying) that is the extraordinary one. Although technically, in the arena of formal debate, the burden should fall on him, this isn't such an arena, is it? Post your own citations. It would be a hell of a lot quicker than this back and forth.
(By the way, I know some of the sources for ModestCapitalist's numbers, and they check out. I suspect you won't post a refutation of substance, including your own citations, only because you have nothing substantive to offer, not because of your belief in formal rules of debate..)
sorry, you'll be disappointed...that story has been around for over a year...I've well researched it's claims, and they are just as I described them..but it's not JUST that story...it's about Mod's use of unverified data as fact, most of what he asserts is biased (as is the story Zen reposted) and makes correlation of unrelated items....
If I were to post a bunch of claims based on Heritage Foundation, Freedomworks, or Tax Foundation site postings, right, wrong, or distorted...everyone would be up in arms...but, you accept his because you WANT them to be true, as does he.....
It's quite simple, source your assertions or admit they are self-fabricated opinion, or the opinion of others.....
"I've well researched it's claims, and they are just as I described them"
Then post YOUR sources.
He self-outed himself long ago. I suspect very few people here read his postings.
Don't do that! He's just going to post more annoying long winded comments! He's the poster I despise the most on this forum. I can't be bothered to read his rants because of their length, but I need to scroll through his verbiage which is a waste of my time. I consider his posts as nothing more than spam. Most are copy pasted texts.
yeah...I'm aware...but he likes to "challenge" people...let's see how he enjoy's the spotlight..