PDA

View Full Version : Tax cuts-the truth



Qtec
08-13-2004, 07:05 AM
Bush Tax Cuts Heavily Favor Rich, CBO Says -Reports
Fri Aug 13, 2004 03:01 AM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Bush's tax cuts have transferred the federal tax burden from the richest Americans to middle-class families, with one-third of them benefiting people with the top 1 percent of income, according to a government report cited in newspapers on Friday.
The Congressional Budget Office report, to be released Friday, is likely to fuel the debate over the cuts between Bush and his Democratic challenger in November, John Kerry.

The report said the top 1 percent, with incomes averaging $1.2 million per year, will receive an average $78,460 tax cut this year, and have seen their share of the total tax burden fall roughly 2 percentage points to 20.1 percent, according to The New York Times.

In contrast, households in the middle 20 percent, with incomes averaging $57,000 per year, will receive an average cut of only $1,090, the newspaper said, citing the CBO report.

Taxpayers whose incomes range from $51,500 to around $75,600, saw their share of federal tax payments increase , according to CBO figures cited by The Washington Post.

The calculations, requested by congressional Democrats, confirm the long-held view by independent tax analysts that the tax cuts, enacted in 2001 and 2003, have heavily favored the wealthiest taxpayers, the Times said.

Bush has said the cuts provided crucial support to the U.S. economy after the Sept. 11 attacks and the three-year decline in U.S. stocks.

But Kerry, who wants to roll back the cuts for households whose incomes top $200,000 per year, has said the cuts did little for the economy, and helped cause the federal budget to swing from a more than $100 billion surplus in 2001 to a projected deficit exceeding $400 billion this year.

The newspapers, citing the CBO report, said about two-thirds of the benefits from the cuts went to households in the top 20 percent, with an average income of $203,740. <font color="blue"> ie, Bush supporters</font color>
People in the lowest 20 percent of earnings, which averaged $16,620, saw their effective tax rate fall to 5.2 percent from 6.7 percent, though their average tax cut was only $250.



The have-not,s and the have-more,s? /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Q

Wally_in_Cincy
08-13-2004, 07:28 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>
...the top 1 percent.... <font color="blue">pay</font color> 20.1 percent <font color="blue">of all income taxes.

I suppose you think that is not enough. How much is enough? How much should they be paying? </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>

...households in the middle 20 percent, with incomes averaging $57,000 per year, will receive an average cut of only $1,090....

<font color="blue">ONLY $1,090? That's more than they got from Clinton. </font color>

<hr /></blockquote>



<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>

...People in the lowest 20 percent of earnings, which averaged $16,620, saw their effective tax rate fall to 5.2 percent from 6.7 percent, though their average tax cut was only $250.

<font color="blue">I'm surprised they're paying that much. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

ras314
08-13-2004, 08:59 AM
"In contrast, households in the middle 20 percent, with incomes averaging $57,000 per year, will receive an average cut of only $1,090, the newspaper said, citing the CBO report.

Taxpayers whose incomes range from $51,500 to around $75,600, saw their share of federal tax payments increase , according to CBO figures cited by The Washington Post."

Huh? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Popcorn
08-13-2004, 09:14 AM
I understand your interest in world events and the US. but what do you care about our taxes?

Wally_in_Cincy
08-13-2004, 09:58 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote ras314:</font><hr> "In contrast, households in the middle 20 percent, with incomes averaging $57,000 per year, will receive an average cut of only $1,090, the newspaper said, citing the CBO report.

Taxpayers whose incomes range from $51,500 to around $75,600, saw their share of federal tax payments increase , according to CBO figures cited by The Washington Post."

Huh? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif
<hr /></blockquote>

He means the percentage they pay as compared to the total taxes paid by all taxpayers.

Wally_in_Cincy
08-13-2004, 09:59 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Popcorn:</font><hr> I understand your interest in world events and the US. but what do you care about our taxes? <hr /></blockquote>

He just hates Bush. And anything Bush proposes. And rich people. Especially American rich people. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Qtec
08-13-2004, 11:19 AM
Who said I care? Why should I care?
For me this issue is only a point for debate. [ Ed might even back me up on this one /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif]
I merely draw attention to the difference between the rehtoric and the reality,ie the bottom 20% got $250 and the top 20% got $78,000.

BTW, Be sure and let me know what subjects I can post on and which are taboo. I wouldnt want to upset anyone by touching on any sensitive subjects. Do you have a list?
Why dont I just send you my posts and you can edit them for me ?

Its not the subject that bothers me, its the lies. OK?

Q

Cueless Joey
08-13-2004, 11:30 AM
[ QUOTE ]
BTW, Be sure and let me know what subjects I can post on and which are taboo. I wouldnt want to upset anyone by touching on any sensitive subjects. Do you have a list?
Why dont I just send you my posts and you can edit them for me ?
<hr /></blockquote>
How about this?
Quit talking about political issues here b/c you don't live here.
I couldn't care less if you guys are getting raped in taxes there or that the cable tv has a meter or something.
I don't live there. So what if your midget cars are dangerous? I don't give a kaka about it.

Wally_in_Cincy
08-13-2004, 11:37 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cueless Joey:</font><hr> I couldn't care less if you guys are getting raped in taxes there or that the cable tv has a meter or something.
I don't live there. So what if your midget cars are dangerous? I don't give a kaka about it.
<hr /></blockquote>

Not to mention the Arab gangs that have made Rotterdam unlivable or the rampant child molestation or the euthanasia commonly practiced on healthy old people. I don't care about that either /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

ras314
08-13-2004, 11:48 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> I merely draw attention to the difference between the rehtoric and the reality,ie the bottom 20% got $250 and the top 20% got $78,000.
<hr /></blockquote>
OK, swap the reality and the rehtoric and the bottom 20% should get the $78,000 and the top 20% the $250 worth of tax cuts. Would that make more sense to you?

Qtec
08-13-2004, 12:32 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote ras314:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> I merely draw attention to the difference between the rehtoric and the reality,ie the bottom 20% got $250 and the top 20% got $78,000.
<hr /></blockquote>
OK, swap the reality and the rehtoric and the bottom 20% should get the $78,000 and the top 20% the $250 worth of tax cuts. Would that make more sense to you? <hr /></blockquote>


The point is that the tax cuts profited he people who need the money the least. Not the ordinary citizen.

Q

Wally_in_Cincy
08-13-2004, 12:44 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> The point is that the tax cuts profited he people who need the money the least. Not the ordinary citizen.

Q <hr /></blockquote>

Just because they don't "need" the money why should the gov't be allowed to confiscate it?

I would rather see the rich guy buy a boat with that $78,000 which will provide jobs for the guys that build the boats, the marina workers, the guys that build boat trailers etc.

highsea
08-13-2004, 12:54 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> The point is that the tax cuts profited he people who need the money the least. Not the ordinary citizen.
Q <hr /></blockquote>A few more facts:

A key theme of the Kerry- Edwards campaign is “us-versus-them,” where “us” includes the poor and middle class and “them” indicates the greedy rich. The clear implication of the Democrats’ message is that the rest of us would somehow be better off if the rich were worse off. Yet according to a July 29 New York Times report, they’ve already received their wish.

According to the report, the wealthy were decimated by the stock market collapse that began in 2000. This group suffered the greatest income loss of any income group. Every income class above $200,000 — the top 2 percent that Kerry and Edwards say must pay more taxes — suffered an income loss between the years 2000 and 2002 (in inflation-adjusted terms). The losses ranged from 10.5 percent for those with incomes between $200,000 and $500,000, to an amazing 63.4 percent for those with incomes above $10 million.

One out of every eight persons with an income above $200,000 in 2000 had an income below that by 2002. The ranks of those with incomes above $10 million fell by more than half, with the aggregate income of this group falling from $300 billion to $110 billion.

Interestingly, the data show that the bulk of the middle class did fairly well between 2000 and 2002. Despite the recession and higher unemployment, every income class between $25,000 and $200,000 saw an income gain. Those with incomes below $25,000 saw a small income loss of 1.4 percent, which was probably compensated in large part by the 2001 tax rebate and increase in the child tax credit. (The data are for before tax income and thus exclude the effect of tax cuts.)

Kerry and Edwards would have us believe that the federal budget deficit is largely due to tax cuts for the rich. But the article refutes this idea, noting that those tax cuts mainly affecting the rich didn’t take effect until 2003. Says the Times, “Falling incomes, rather than tax cuts, appear to count for the greatest share of the decline in income taxes paid. That is because the higher one stood on the income ladder the greater the impact was likely to be from the stock market crunch.”

This raises an important point about steeply progressive income-tax rates, which are so strongly supported by liberals. For every $1 increase in income by the wealthy, the government gets about 35 cents. So when the wealthy do well, so does the government. That is why the share of total income taxes paid by the top 2 percent of taxpayers — those targeted by Kerry and Edwards — was 41.3 percent in 2001, according to the Internal Revenue Service, though their share of total income was 22.4 percent.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200408020719.asp

The truth is that the middle class in America are better off today than they were under Clinton. Kerry's spin ignores many facts. His claim that the new jobs created under Bush pay $9,000 less per year, is blatantly false.

Economic growth and per-capita GDP is also higher than it ever was during any of Clinton's 8 years as president.

Kerry's economic proposals cannot withstand scrutiny. Try to find anywhere in Kerry's campaign speeches, website, or the DNC's website where he explains how he will save Social Security. They all say he has a good plan, but they won't say what it is. Let me tell you what it will be. Doubling the payroll deduction, or cutting 20% of all government spending from education to defense. Take your pick.

-CM

eg8r
08-13-2004, 08:19 PM
Q,

Wow, you really picked a great article. I bet all those people are happy to have the extra money. If Gore was in control I bet all those poor people making 16K a year would not get the extra $250. Do you suggest the evil Bush empire take the money away, or should those people just sit back and complain they did not get more?

Did you bother to even think about those incomes and what they include? Do you even understand what happens to personal income as far as the tax law is concerned when that person is a small business owner? I doubt you have, considering your past posts. The article you chose even shows its ignorance. Here is a great example... [ QUOTE ]
People in the lowest 20 percent of earnings, which averaged $16,620, saw their effective tax rate fall to 5.2 percent from 6.7 percent, though their average tax cut was only $250.
<hr /></blockquote> Do you think these people even paid any taxes in? HELLO. No, they got everything back that was paid in plus some. Sure, highsea would be correct stating that SS and medicare would still be paid in, but that is completely nullified in all the extras the government will pay these people. LOL, you choose this as some sort of backup to a pathetic argument.

[ QUOTE ]
The newspapers, citing the CBO report, said about two-thirds of the benefits from the cuts went to households in the top 20 percent, with an average income of $203,740. ie, <font color="blue"> Bush supporters</font color>
<hr /></blockquote> This would also include all your hollywood heros. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r &lt;~~~Just weathered Charley with very few scars /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r
08-13-2004, 08:27 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Who said I care? Why should I care?
For me this issue is only a point for debate. [ Ed might even back me up on this one ]
I merely draw attention to the difference between the rehtoric and the reality,ie the bottom 20% got $250 and the top 20% got $78,000.
<hr /></blockquote> Back you up, I don't know, your ignorance is quite comical. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Do you think the bottom 20% should get in more money than they pay in? That should be a simple one for you? If so, from where do you think, constitutionally, the extra should come?

eg8r

eg8r
08-13-2004, 08:33 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The point is that the tax cuts profited he people who need the money the least. Not the ordinary citizen. <hr /></blockquote> This is the ignorance I am speaking of. The people receiving their refunds are not "profiting" from it, they are just GETTING IT BACK, it was theirs in the first place. Why is it so hard for you to understand?

Here is an example maybe you could understand... Two people go to a store to buy some goods. The store is having a sale on widgets. Person A buys $100 worth of widgets, and person B buys $1000. The sale is 10%. Do you think person A has a legitimate beef because he is only getting $10 off on his purchase and person b is going to get $100?

eg8r

bluewolf
08-14-2004, 07:59 AM
Look at the percentage that top 2% were paying vs those making 57000, not just the tax break. If everything were out in the open,(not hiding money made for comparison purposes) and some persons were making say 1 mil, I wonder if it is in some way a compensation for the fact that the wealthy were being taxed way too much anyway. Maybe a flat tax % across the board of about 15% for all but those that are very poor, would be more equitable to all.

I hate taxes anyway, especially when much of it goes into high beurocratic wages/perks instead of what it is supposed to be doing, paying for the military, education, the poor etc.

I think that the issue of tax breaks to the rich pales in comparison to the issue of where our tax dollar is going. Just look at charitable donations if you want an inkling. If you give to the American Cancer Society or the United Way, how much do you think percentage wise goes to cancer research,etc vs paying for high beaurocratic salaries and perks vs the % that goes to what you think you are contributing to charity wise when you donate your dollar to help smaller charities,especially local ones?

But, nobody wants to look at where the tax dollars are going because the politicians are getting richer on their high salaries, so you do not see any of them, dem or rep complaining about all of the overhead at all levels of federal govt.

Laura ---&gt;elect a libertarian

Qtec
08-14-2004, 09:37 AM
"According to the report, the wealthy were decimated by the stock market collapse that began in 2000. This group suffered the greatest income loss of any income group. Every income class above $200,000 — the top 2 percent that Kerry and Edwards say must pay more taxes — suffered an income loss between the years 2000 and 2002 (in inflation-adjusted terms). The losses ranged from 10.5 percent for those with incomes between $200,000 and $500,000, to an amazing 63.4 percent for those with incomes above $10 million.
HaHa LOL.
"OMG. Last year I had $20 million. Now i,ve only got $10 million. What am I going to do!!!!"


BTW, investing in the stockmarket is a form of gambling. Its a risk.

Q

Wally_in_Cincy
08-14-2004, 09:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>

HaHa LOL.
"OMG. Last year I had $20 million. Now i,ve only got $10 million. What am I going to do!!!!"

<font color="blue">You hate rich people don't you? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color>


BTW, investing in the stockmarket is a form of gambling. Its a risk.

<font color="blue">There you go again, veering off-topic /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif </font color>

Q <hr /></blockquote>

Qtec
08-14-2004, 09:51 AM
"Did you bother to even think about those incomes and what they include? Do you even understand what happens to personal income as far as the tax law is concerned when that person is a small business owner? I doubt you have, considering your past posts. The article you chose even shows its ignorance."

/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

http://www.cbpp.org/5-3-01tax2.htm

REDUCING THE TOP TAX RATES: HOW MUCH BENEFIT TO SMALL BUSINESS?

Many More Small Business Owners Would Fail to Benefit From
Bush Tax Plan than Would Benefit from Cut in Top Tax Rates
by Isaac Shapiro and Robert Greenstein


In recent months, the President and senior Bush Administration officials have repeatedly stressed the importance to small business of reducing the top income tax rate. The President highlighted this theme in an address to small business owners on March 16, in which he declared that more than 17 million small business owners would benefit from reducing the top rate.(1) A Treasury Department press release issued the same day stated there were 17.4 million small business owners and sole proprietorships whose business profits are taxed through the individual rather than the corporate income tax and that "many" of these 17.4 million owners pay the top rate and would benefit from a reduction in it.(2)

This brief analysis of small business tax data from the Internal Revenue Service, the Treasury Department, and Citizens for Tax Justice finds, however, that relatively few small business owners pay the top rate and that cutting that rate would be a highly inefficient way of helping small businesses, it would bypass most small business owners entirely. In fact, small business owners would be far more likely to receive no tax reduction whatsoever from the Administration's tax package than to benefit from a reduction in the top rate. Moreover, small business owners would be much more likely to benefit from an increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit — a tax credit for low- and moderate-income workers and self-employed individuals — than from a reduction in the top rate. The President's plan includes no improvement in the EITC.

For every small business owner who would benefit from reducing the top income tax rate of 39.6 percent, there would be 15 small business owners who would not benefit from the Administration's tax package.(3)
For every small business owner who would benefit from reducing the top rate, there are 12 small business owners who receive the Earned Income Tax Credit and could benefit from an improvement in it.
As Table 1 below indicates, only 1.4 percent of small business owners with positive business income are subject to the top rate of 39.6 percent. Another 2.3 percent are in the 36 percent bracket. By contrast, 21 percent do not earn enough to owe federal income tax. (They pay payroll and other taxes.)

Moreover, a total of 69 percent of small business owners either are in the 15 percent tax bracket or are not subject to income tax because their earnings are too low. A substantial number of these owners qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit; about one of every six small business owners with positive business income qualifies for the EITC."

This isnt a Tax cut to stimulate the economy or an incentive for small business owners either.

Q

Also, http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&amp;b=34039

Wally_in_Cincy
08-14-2004, 10:03 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> ... about one of every six small business owners with positive business income qualifies for the EITC."
<hr /></blockquote>

If that's the case the EITC should not apply to business owners. If you need a subsidy from the gov't to be a business owner then you are doing something wrong.

Qtec
08-14-2004, 10:38 AM
"If you need a subsidy from the gov't to be a business owner then you are doing something wrong."


"Brazil alleged that the United States has kept its place as the planet's second-largest cotton grower and largest exporter because the government paid $12.5 billion in subsidies to American farmers between August 1999 and July 2003. "

Are you sure?

Q

Wally_in_Cincy
08-14-2004, 10:58 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> "If you need a subsidy from the gov't to be a business owner then you are doing something wrong."


"Brazil alleged that the United States has kept its place as the planet's second-largest cotton grower and largest exporter because the government paid $12.5 billion in subsidies to American farmers between August 1999 and July 2003. "

Are you sure?

Q <hr /></blockquote>

All countries do that. I would bet yours is just as guilty.

Cueless Joey
08-14-2004, 01:17 PM
Bush is evil.
He shouldn't cut taxes.
What he should do is raise taxes for the rich so he can hand them out to poor moms.

eg8r
08-14-2004, 01:24 PM
With all the dealings I have had with the accountant here in the last month, I can surely tell you about 1000 small businesses in Florida and Georgia have benefitted just nicely. This is with just one accountant. Ughhhh, my tax day is Sunday and I am sure they will be sent in late since Charley has come through. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

eg8r

highsea
08-14-2004, 01:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>"Brazil alleged that the United States has kept its place as the planet's second-largest cotton grower and largest exporter because the government paid $12.5 billion in subsidies to American farmers between August 1999 and July 2003. " <hr /></blockquote>The subsidies help to keep the world prices of cotton down. The US is the largest exporter of cotton in the world. Remember that cotton is a commodity item, a raw material, not a finished product. An increase in cotton prices would negatively affect the textile industries worldwide, raising prices for manufacturers, a great many of whom are in undeveloped countries.

While it may help a few cotton exporting countries like Brazil, Uzbekastan and Mali, eliminating the subsidies would harm many more countries than it would help.

Personally, I am not a big fan of subsidies, but they are a fact of life. But don't try to claim that is only the US that does this. You want to talk talk about Airbus?

-CM

Ross
08-14-2004, 02:20 PM
Ahh, taxes, taxes, ... everybody throwing part of their money into a pot to pay for services for the common good (at least in theory). What's a fair way for a society to structure it's taxes? What's a smart way ? How do you decide? There are a number of possible taxing schemes to choose from:

1. Everyone pays the exact same dollar amount.

2. Everyone pays the same percentage of their income (so called "flat tax").

3. Progressive tax. Rich people pay the highest percentage of their income, the poor pay the lowest percentage. Our current system.

4. Consumption tax on everything. Everyone pays the same percentage on everything they buy or consume.

Each has reasons it is "fair": Method 1 could be said to be fair because everyone is literally paying equally. 2 is fair because everyone is paying an equal portion of every dollar they earn. 3 is fair because everyone is paying according to their ability to pay. 4 is fair because everyone is paying equally based on how much they consume.

Methods 1 and 4 are "regressive" taxes (rich pay a lower % of their income than the poor), 2 is neutral in that regard, and 3 of course is by definition a "progressive" tax (the rich pay progressively more).

The US, like most, if not all, other industrialized countries, has chosen a progressive tax system so far. Why? Why not go for the neutral or regressive systems?

The main reason is that, contrary to the claims of some, free market economies don't allocate income and wealth based on "fairness" principles. Some difficult and important jobs/occupations pay barely enough for necessities like food and shelter and health care. For example, even in a country as wealthy as the US, the bottom 20% of income earners are barely making it - they don't have enough money left after buying necessities to pay much in the way of taxes. At the other end, there are jobs/occupations that yield incomes many, many times that of the first group. People in these positions can afford to buy the best of everything and still have large amounts of money left over. And, speaking to the fairness issue, some of the workers in these jobs/occupations work less and do less essential tasks do the low wage earners. And, as our the mix of jobs in our society is changing, this disparity is getting greater and greater.

Here is a picture of the growing income disparities over the past 50 years:

http://www.duke.edu/~rulmer/incomedist.gif

So much for the trickle down theory. Where do you think this chart is headed? I think it illustates why the Democratic platform is not in favor of tax cuts for those making over $200,000.

Or another way of looking at it. Contrast the "all rising together" picture of the 40's through the 70's;

http://www.duke.edu/~rulmer/Rising_Together.gif

To the more recent rapidly growing income gap:

http://www.duke.edu/~rulmer/Family_Income_1979-2001.gif

So this income windfall for the upper income earners means they have quite a bit of money left over at the end of each month. This means that not only are they living higher on the hog and not worrying about starving or getting medical care -- they also can accumulate wealth over time.

But wait, there's more. They can also use the wealth they accumulate itself to generate even more wealth (buying businesses, stocks, etc.). This leads to a vicious (or happy, for them) cycle where over decades, the wealth starts flowing faster and faster to a relatively few.

All of THIS IS HAPPENING EVEN WITH OUR PROGRESSIVE TAX tax system in the US, especially over the last 30 or so years.

To show you where this has led, here is a chart of the current US wealth distribution. The width of the red line indicates how much wealth each percentile has:

http://www.duke.edu/~rulmer/wealthdist_us.jpg

You can see that most of the US's accumulated wealth has, over time, become concentrated in the hands of the relatively few. And because of the large numbers involved (million, billion, what's the difference?) most Americans don't really have a good grasp of how extremely lopsided it is already. As an illustration with more graspable numbers, the current US nationwide distribution of wealth is equivalent to the following division of $100 among 100 people:

1 person has $38.10
4 people have $5.32 each
5 people have $2.30 each
10 people have $1.25 each
20 people have .60 each
20 people have .23 each
and 40 people have 1/2 cent each

That is how, over decades, a free market with our current tax system has allocated our county's wealth. If you think that distribution at all corresponds to the value and work habits of US workers, then you have blinders on. Concerns about this growing difference in the haves and the have-nots is why Democrats are not fond of tax cuts for the rich. Conservatives are trying to demonize Democrats' concern about this growing gap by calling it "class warfare." I would call it opening yours eyes to the reality of a basic fairness and quality-of-life issue for Americans that is getting more and more problematic.

So, yes, the rich pay more in taxes. AND they get richer anyway. But Bush thinks it is not quite enough...He is not satisfied with the currently growing disparity - he pushes policies that will speed the process up! Go figure.

Do we really want the US to go in this direction?

highsea
08-14-2004, 02:27 PM
Source?

-CM

bluewolf
08-14-2004, 04:18 PM
Ross,

You lost me on all of your charts. Since we live in DC, an income of about 60,000 really does not get you much if you buy a house. In fact, many in that income bracket cannot afford one. Now, I also know some who make less and several families piled into one place, so the 60,000 income family is much better off but...when I was growing up, one parent could work hard, even a blue collar person and provide reasonably well for their family including a small house and a car. Things are not that way any more and well this is my break down in dc.

At the current low interest rates, a small house costs $250,000, believe it or not. That means about 1500 a month house payment. Then most people have a car payment, so that figuring $300 per month at the least. So just the car and the house is about $2000 per month. Then if you add utilities, car insurance, food, gas and so forth, this can easily add to close to $1000 or more in funds needed,especially considering occasional car repairs etc. And well, savings? ru kidding, who has anything left over?

This all adds to $3000 net needed. Then if there is divorce and child support or day care etc, well you can see where even someone making $60,000 is not doing all that well in dc. In a smaller place like less metro, it might be easier but then there are often a scarcity of jobs in those places.

Now let's take this a step further and say at 50, I inherit one million(which I wont) and live 30 years,it is neither taxed and I get a minimum amount from investment because the investment market is flakey. That puts me at 50,000 or less a year so with this one million, I could not afford a house, car etc in dc. And to get that amount, I added in for social security. And, if at some point, I need to go into assisted living, a decent one costs more per year than I am taking in.

Lets take a family who makes 200,000. They retire at 60 and live to be 80, or at least one of them does. Let's say that to have that 1 million to live on for 20 years and put two kids through school, including the possibility of assisted living, they have to save appoximately 70,000 per year. Now, if you subtract costs of a few kids activities like swim team and day care, this 200,000 a year family is now functioning much like an upper middle class family, rather than a wealthy one. And,It is possible that at the current tax rate, they really would not be that well off at all. They would be more fortunate than many, but filthy rich? I dont think so.

So, IMO, with the exception of those at the very top of the food chain like the bill gates of the world, those who appear rich are really upper middle class at best,the middle class are poor, and the poor and many elderly are destitute.

I am not going to point fingers because things are very wrong and they have been going wrong for a very long time with presidents of both parties having their chances.

Laura

eg8r
08-14-2004, 10:44 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Conservatives are trying to demonize Democrats' concern about this growing gap by calling it "class warfare." <hr /></blockquote> I would hope you are not confusing "class warfare" with noting differences. The democrats demonize the wealthy and pit the poor against the rich, and NEVER EVER EVER offer the poor anything in return. Well, unless you want to talk about income redistribution. Explain how it is "fair" to take from one of ability to give to one of "need"? C'mon take a stab at it. If you want some help look for it in the Constitution. There is nothing wrong with those with "ability" to give to those with "need" but to take will be a hard sell for you. Oh yeah, part of the giving will include jobs. As you know those with "ability" are the ones developing new jobs for those in "need".
[ QUOTE ]
I would call it opening yours eyes to the reality of a basic fairness and quality-of-life issue for Americans that is getting more and more problematic.
<hr /></blockquote> Please find somewhere in the Constitution where it states it is the governments job to enforce "basic fairness". If you can find it in there you might have a point. I completely understand your feelings for those not making much but you keep up the same mantra with no foundation as far as the Constitution is concerned. While you are at it, find some examples in the Constitution where it states the wealthy should support the "quality of life" for the poor. All your great little sayings are nice but they are not the government's job. I believe the government offers you the <font color="red"> pursuit of happiness </font color> , only a Democrat could mis-read this as, the <font color="green"> gift of happiness </font color>, from those with ability to those with need (sounds a lot like communism, just how far off do you think it is).

Whether you choose to ignore the top part of what I posted, I guess we will see, but maybe you will answer this...Do you think the American public is better off "individually" with the Bush tax cut, or would they be better off when Kerry comes in and taxes them? I am asking you to not talk about groups/classes/collections of people. I am talking about individuals. Do you think a person is better off keeping more of the money THEY EARNED, or getting taxed more on the money they earned. To make it clear, I am asking you to ignore the fact that someone might be rich or poor, and asking you to base you answer specifically on the fact that they will have an income (once again not worry about the amount).

This I feel, is the problem and I have said it time and time again. The American public is too busy trying to blame others. The Democrats are trying to tell the poor that they are poor because evil rich people are keeping all the money. When was the last time you heard a Democrat tell a laymen to be happy they have a job? I never heard it, but I do hear them saying, oh poor pitiful you, you should be making more money, those evil rich business owners do not pay you enough, get angry and vote for me, I will fight for you. They never ever congratulate the business owners for expanding business and offering new jobs to the community.

I never ever hear a Democratic politician thank foreign countries for opening up factories here in the US states and offering jobs to the community. On that same note, I NEVER EVER hear a Democrat blasting Toyota for opening a factory here and stealing those valuable high paying jobs from honest working Japenese. They are hypocrits when it comes to this and it should be blinding to all their constituents that these Dems are not doing anything to help them, they are just trying to pit them against the rich. The dems allow Toyota and Honda to set up factories here, and they are quiet about it, however when an American company moves a call center to India this is bad news.

Wouldn't this be a hoot...What if Warren Buffett really believed the crap he says (he already makes too much money and the tax cut for him was stupid), why has he not declared that he will be donating all the money he gained from the tax cut to a charity. He feels ashamed of the current government for giving him back this extra money so he would like to give ALL of it back to the needy. He would then show he cares.

Frankly, you can show all the graphs you want, but until the Dems backup what they say, all they are is hot air. I have yet to see Barbara Streisand out giving out checks to the poor because she is disgusted with the tax cut Bush has given her. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r &lt;~~~sorry for the rant, I got a little off topic but it is all completely related to the desire of the Dems to pit the poor against the rich

eg8r
08-14-2004, 10:51 PM
[ QUOTE ]
At the current low interest rates, a small house costs $250,000, believe it or not. That means about 1500 a month house payment. Then most people have a car payment, so that figuring $300 per month at the least. So just the car and the house is about $2000 per month. Then if you add utilities, car insurance, food, gas and so forth, this can easily add to close to $1000 or more in funds needed,especially considering occasional car repairs etc. And well, savings? ru kidding, who has anything left over?

This all adds to $3000 net needed. Then if there is divorce and child support or day care etc, well you can see where even someone making $60,000 is not doing all that well in dc. In a smaller place like less metro, it might be easier but then there are often a scarcity of jobs in those places.
<hr /></blockquote> 3k/month is 36k/year. The person is making 60k/year. Where is the other 24k? Taxes? Savings? BMWs? Why can't someone making 60k/year pay for your suggested bills? Is this because of prior debt? Could car maintenance suck up the balance? BMWs are ridiculously expensive to maintain. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r &lt;~~No one is getting rich off 60k/yr but that should be a decent wage just about anywhere outside "Silicone Valley"

Qtec
08-15-2004, 06:06 AM
Of course they do. I never said they didnt. The EU is a disaster when it comes to subsidising agriculture. Butter mountains, sea,s of grain , milk lakes etc.

Q

Qtec
08-15-2004, 06:14 AM
Well, I guess the Internal Revenue Service, the Treasury Department, and Citizens for Tax Justice must have made a mistake!?
Next time maybe they should check their figures with your accountant. LOL

I,ll bet your neighbour knows where the WMD,s are as well.

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

bluewolf
08-15-2004, 07:27 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>
<hr /></blockquote> 3k/month is 36k/year. The person is making 60k/year. Where is the other 24k? Taxes? Savings? BMWs? Why can't someone making 60k/year pay for your suggested bills? Is this because of prior debt? Could car maintenance suck up the balance? BMWs are ridiculously expensive to maintain. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r &lt;~~No one is getting rich off 60k/yr but that should be a decent wage just about anywhere outside "Silicone Valley" <hr /></blockquote>

If you take 60,000 then subtract taxes, that gets you 45,000, which is about 3750 a month. Then if you pay child support like many do or childcare, that reduces it to about 36,000 or 3000 a month for the basics. If a person has extra things like paying for orthodontist bills etc for your kids, several thousand a year on uncovered medical expenses, even if you have good insurance, that reduces it further.

That was really a low estimate. In metro dc, you are looking at houses about 350,000 which will house 2 adults and 2 kids, which puts the house payment up to about 2200 (with a 50k downpmt) per month, so the picture can get pretty bleary. This year, to get into a 290-300k house, you had to move out and have an hr plus commute. The only other way out of this is to get a condo for about 250,000,but they will probably be closer to 300,000 in a year, since a few months a go, some of those were going for 260-270.

Housing is out the roof, food costs more, gasoline costs more, the doctors charge more. 60,000 is not enough to make ends meet in dc. Basically, what it comes down to is that the increase in pay in a metro area does not offset the cost of living increase compared to a smaller place. That person would be better off in a lower cost of living place at 40,000 but the econony is very bad in many of those places.Unfortunatly, the job markets are next to dead in lots of places. So what you end up is the middle class poor.

But you also have to add in the factor that many even full time employees have to pay their own insurance, so if they are strapped, then end up not getting the medical help they need. And, unless you work for a federal or state agency, the insurance is often not that good, and many do end up paying medical.

BMWS, you have got to be kidding. When we were living in a condo, we took out a second mortgage to pay off our used car loans,cars we had bought used at carmax.OTOH, i do know some in the same income who did just have to have that bmw or brand new suv, and ouch , they are in deep doodoo.:)

Renting is just about as expensive as the house payments. The house market is plateauing in many parts of the country but the prices of houses will continue to climb at a disproportunate rate here to the increase in income for at least two years.

Ed, the best I ever had it financially was when I lived in a house in a small town with two other women, splitting expenses and delivering pizzas Geez.

Laura

Ross
08-15-2004, 09:50 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> Source?

-CM <hr /></blockquote>
Highsea, the data is from the US census bureau. The charts are from "Analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data in Economic Policy Institute, The State of Working America 1994-95 (M.E. Sharpe: 1994) p. 37, and U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Income Tables, Table F-3."

highsea
08-15-2004, 10:14 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> Source?

-CM <hr /></blockquote>
Highsea, the data is from the US census bureau. The charts are from "Analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data in Economic Policy Institute, The State of Working America 1994-95 (M.E. Sharpe: 1994) p. 37, and U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Income Tables, Table F-3."
<hr /></blockquote>Can you provide a link? I have a couple comments to make here, part anectodal, but I want to get my ducks in line first.

-CM

mred477
08-15-2004, 10:46 AM
Living paycheck to paycheck is the point of the argument for this post. After taxes, the 60k income is 45k. If you institued a 23% consumption tax, then you could decide what you wanted to pay that tax on. In addition, if you look at the details of such a proposal, most basic necessities (ie housing, food, etc.) would be tax exempt(www.fairtax.org).

I make 38,000 per year before taxes, have an apartment for 750/month, a car payment, and a wedding to pay for in December. We are comfortable with the income we do have, but both realize that children right now would be something we can't afford. Thus, we're going to start living on 20,000 per year while I go back to school. It will definitely be tight, but I'll be one of those "more fortunate" people who make six figures when I'm done. I'm going to live below the specified U.S. poverty line while I'm in school, working my butt off for 5 years for a Ph.D., and when I'm done, I'll have to pay 50% of every dollar I earn (counting SS and medicare) to the government to take care of those people who weren't as "lucky" as I am. Sounds like the poor may not be the people getting screwed in this deal.

Will

P.S. My wife to be is Chinese and in Hong Kong, their income tax rate is approx. 15%. Any wonder that they have one of the fastest growing economies in the world?

Ross
08-15-2004, 01:27 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I would hope you are not confusing "class warfare" with noting differences. The democrats demonize the wealthy and pit the poor against the rich, and NEVER EVER EVER offer the poor anything in return. <font color="blue">???</font color> Well, unless you want to talk about income redistribution. Explain how it is "fair" to take from one of ability to give to one of "need"? C'mon take a stab at it. If you want some help look for it in the Constitution. <font color="blue">(I don't think sarcasm contributes much to the discussion, but I will answer you anyway.)

Progressive tax rates (which is what I've been talking about) must be constititutional since they have been the law since 1862 when the income tax was established to pay for the Civil War. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate.

Also the 16th Admendment specifically gives Congress the right to set tax rates.

Progressive tax rates may even be a good idea., given that they have been supported by every Republican and Democratic President since 1862, and have been adopted in every industrialized country that I know of.

The only debate between the Republican and Dems is how you specifically structure the progressive rates. And even there, the disagreement is mostly over the rates for those in the top few % of the country in terms of income. </font color>

There is nothing wrong with those with "ability" to give to those with "need" but to take will be a hard sell for you. Oh yeah, part of the giving will include jobs. As you know those with "ability" are the ones developing new jobs for those in "need".

<font color="blue">The correlation between ability/virtue and income is very loose. Even thinking of only those who work hard, in a free market society, there is a lot of happenstance that determines your income. For example, when I was growing up, people who had the ability/desire to work under tough conditions, doing blue-collar work at the local Alcoa aluminum factory, did relatively well in our town. They were able to earn enough to feed a family and buy a house. But now, men with those capabilites are not in demand, so they make crappy wages. Blue-collar types didn't become less deserving - it was just technological advances that reduced the demand for them. Today, nerdy dot.commers have become billionaires - 30 years ago most would be making 30k as 9 - 5'ers. They didn't suddenly become more deserving - they became rich because of an historical fluke as much as anything. Shaquille O'Neal would be another working stiff if not for the happenstance of basketball and TV being invented. He is not more deserving than most of the people reading this - he just happens to be very, very tall and big and that happens to be in demand for entertainment purposes.

The counter-argument by conservatives is often "well, they chose their profession so it's their own fault whether they are rich or not." But that argument ignores real human differences. The alcoa blue-collar workers could no more become computer nerds, than the nerds could have made it in the aluminum plant.
</font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
I would call it opening yours eyes to the reality of a basic fairness and quality-of-life issue for Americans that is getting more and more problematic.
<hr /></blockquote> Please find somewhere in the Constitution where it states it is the governments job to enforce "basic fairness". If you can find it in there you might have a point. I completely understand your feelings for those not making much but you keep up the same mantra with no foundation as far as the Constitution is concerned. While you are at it, find some examples in the Constitution where it states the wealthy should support the "quality of life" for the poor.

<font color="blue">I'm not talking just about the poor. The main debate is on income tax rates for the top 5% of the country. I'm all for tax breaks for you and me! lol </font color>

All your great little sayings are nice but they are not the government's job. I believe the government offers you the <font color="red"> pursuit of happiness </font color> , only a Democrat could mis-read this as, the <font color="green"> gift of happiness </font color>, from those with ability to those with need (sounds a lot like communism, just how far off do you think it is).

<font color="blue">Gift? I didn't say anything about giving money to anyone. I just favor the Democratic progressive tax plan over the Republican progressive tax plan. You can call progressive tax rates gifts if you want, but you could also call it the government taxing based on ability to pay. </font color>

Whether you choose to ignore the top part of what I posted, I guess we will see, but maybe you will answer this...Do you think the American public is better off "individually" with the Bush tax cut, or would they be better off when Kerry comes in and taxes them?

<font color="blue">
Well, actually Kerry is calling for additional tax cuts for the middle class and businesses who provide domestic jobs. The only "tax increase" he proposes is letting the Bush tax cut on those making over 200k to expire. Of course, if elected he will inherit a huge deficit. Hopefully the economy will pick up enough to reduce that burden.

And to answer your question I think individually and as a nation all of us will be better off with a more progressive tax rate. The bottom 95% (that's all of us CCB'ers unless we have some really, really big shots on this board) will benefit directly because we will be paying a smaller share of the government expenses. The top 5% will be fine - as the figures show their income and wealth is already increasing more rapidly than any other income group in the country. </font color>

I am asking you to not talk about groups/classes/collections of people. I am talking about individuals. Do you think a person is better off keeping more of the money THEY EARNED, or getting taxed more on the money they earned.

<font color="blue">Individually, a person is better off the less taxes he/she pays, whether they earned it or not. No one is arguing that point. </font color>

To make it clear, I am asking you to ignore the fact that someone might be rich or poor, and asking you to base you answer specifically on the fact that they will have an income (once again not worry about the amount).

This I feel, is the problem and I have said it time and time again. The American public is too busy trying to blame others. The Democrats are trying to tell the poor that they are poor because evil rich people are keeping all the money. When was the last time you heard a Democrat tell a laymen to be happy they have a job? I never heard it, but I do hear them saying, oh poor pitiful you, you should be making more money, those evil rich business owners do not pay you enough, get angry and vote for me, I will fight for you. They never ever congratulate the business owners for expanding business and offering new jobs to the community.

<font color="blue"> I don't think it is as simple as benevolent business owners and victim-thinking wage earners. </font color>

I never ever hear a Democratic politician thank foreign countries for opening up factories here in the US states and offering jobs to the community.

<font color="blue"> You aren't listening then. Clinton made that exact argument when he pushed hard for the passage of NAFTA. And you will see Democrats at ribbon cuttings for new foreign factories all the time.</font color>

On that same note, I NEVER EVER hear a Democrat blasting Toyota for opening a factory here and stealing those valuable high paying jobs from honest working Japenese. They are hypocrits when it comes to this and it should be blinding to all their constituents that these Dems are not doing anything to help them, they are just trying to pit them against the rich. The dems allow Toyota and Honda to set up factories here, and they are quiet about it, however when an American company moves a call center to India this is bad news.

<font color="blue">Dems are fighting for more jobs in the US just like every other country is. Especially manufacturing jobs. They are also saying we should enforce NAFTA work rules so that we are playing on a more level playing field. </font color>

Wouldn't this be a hoot...What if Warren Buffett really believed the crap he says (he already makes too much money and the tax cut for him was stupid), why has he not declared that he will be donating all the money he gained from the tax cut to a charity. He feels ashamed of the current government for giving him back this extra money so he would like to give ALL of it back to the needy. He would then show he cares.

Frankly, you can show all the graphs you want, but until the Dems backup what they say, all they are is hot air.

<font color="blue">You can dismiss them as just graphs, but they tell a story. The disparity in income and wealth in the US is getting rediculously skewed. Not because of evil rich people - it's just the natural result of a free-market economy coupled with advancing technology. It's the result of wealth being able to generate more wealth.

In fact it is like Monopoly. You know how there is that point where you can go either way? If you get a few breaks, then you can put a house on your property, and then if some hits there you have enough for a hotel, then if someone hits there, you can buy two more hotels, and pretty soon you have ALL of everyone else's money. That is the extreme form of a completely free market economy. ALL of the wealth ends up in the hands of 1 person and the rest are broke. Sure it is "fair" in that everyone has the same chance at the beginning, but it is a fuxxed-up model for a nations economy.

The US and the rest of the world have wisely set up their tax systems to be progressive to help avoid this outcome. But even so, right now for every $100 of wealth in the US, 1 persn has $43 is owned by 1 person, and 40 people have 1/2 cent each. Honestly, would it be so terrible if that 1 person had, say $40, and the bottom 40 had 8 cents each?
</font color>

I have yet to see Barbara Streisand out giving out checks to the poor because she is disgusted with the tax cut Bush has given her. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r &lt;~~~sorry for the rant, I got a little off topic but it is all completely related to the desire of the Dems to pit the poor against the rich <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">Given what is going over the past few decades with US income and wealth, I don't see being against tax cuts for the rich as "pitting the poor against the rich." And I don't see many rich people complaining that they feel victims of class warfare. I just see differences in opinion on what is best for our country.</font color>

Ross
08-15-2004, 01:31 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> <hr /></blockquote>Can you provide a link? I have a couple comments to make here, part anectodal, but I want to get my ducks in line first.
-CM <hr /></blockquote>

The charts are at http://inequality.org/facts.html. To check their accuracy you would have to google for the tables at the US Census.

highsea
08-15-2004, 02:16 PM
Thanks Ross. I'll check'em out.

-CM

bluewolf
08-15-2004, 04:47 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mred477:</font><hr>
. Thus, we're going to start living on 20,000 per year while I go back to school. It will definitely be tight, but I'll be one of those "more fortunate" people who make six figures when I'm done. I'm going to live below the specified U.S. poverty line while I'm in school, working my butt off for 5 years for a Ph.D., and when I'm done, I'll have to pay 50% of every dollar I earn (counting SS and medicare) to the government to take care of those people who weren't as "lucky" as I am. Sounds like the poor may not be the people getting screwed in this deal.

Will

P.S. My wife to be is Chinese and in Hong Kong, their income tax rate is approx. 15%. Any wonder that they have one of the fastest growing economies in the world? <hr /></blockquote>

Congrats to you on going for your phd. That is another point. There are many of us who worked and went to school, went without while going to school and then the hard work finally paid off and we made more money. My son , also hoping a few years down the road for a payoff, for his working and going to school, essentially putting in 60-70 hours a week with work, school, and study. And he took out loans(which he will have to pay back) so that he would have that opportunity. he is also looking at six digits (he hopes) in a few years. So he and many others are working very hard and long hours, so it is not fair to 'pick' on you guys for working hard.

I think that the middle guys are screwed too and the current tax break proposal brings down their tax about 2% and the wealthy I am guessing from 50 to 42, which is imo still too high. Perhaps what is being proposed is proportionate to the inequities.

The point I guess i was making was that the middle 60-80k earners are not making as much as it appears and the 200k are not either.I talked about the 200k ones in another post on this thread. Both groups worked to get something more and are not getting it under the current system.

I am essentially libertarian so believe that the flat rate is fairer for most people too.

Laura

eg8r
08-15-2004, 06:27 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Progressive tax rates (which is what I've been talking about) must be constititutional since they have been the law since 1862 <hr /></blockquote> I am not sure about this but just because something made its way through Congress and became a law makes it Constitutional? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Also the 16th Admendment <hr /></blockquote> Correct you are. However, you have avoided the question and only solidified the fact it is in the Constitution. I was asking you how you find it fair.

[ QUOTE ]
The correlation between ability/virtue <font color="red"> My post is about those with ability (the ones with the money) to those in need (poor). This has nothing to do with people who are working hard, and those that are not.</font color> and income is very loose. Even thinking of only those who work hard, in a free market society, there is a lot of happenstance that determines your income. For example, when I was growing up, people who had the ability/desire to work under tough conditions, doing blue-collar work at the local Alcoa aluminum factory, did relatively well in our town. They were able to earn enough to feed a family and buy a house. But now, men with those capabilites are not in demand, so they make crappy wages. Blue-collar types didn't become less deserving - it was just technological advances that reduced the demand for them. Today, nerdy dot.commers have become billionaires - 30 years ago most would be making 30k as 9 - 5'ers. They didn't suddenly become more deserving - they became rich because of an historical fluke as much as anything. Shaquille O'Neal would be another working stiff if not for the happenstance of basketball <font color="red"> A big what if. Seems he has excelled at what he does, would you not think there was a great chance he might have excelled at something else thus paying him well. Would you then call it happenstance also? Does it matter at all how someone has money, it was just happenstance anyways? </font color> and TV being invented. He is not more deserving than most of the people reading this - he just happens to be very, very tall and big and that happens to be in demand for entertainment purposes.
<hr /></blockquote> Is this the best you got, a giant WHAT IF??? You mention it yourself, the mine workers make a crappy wage because their skills are not in demand. Tell me please, why is this the government's fault? Why is it the business owner's fault. Don't you think if your skills were not relevant anymore it would make sense to learn a new trade or move on? Or, is it better to keep the status quo and hope people will vote to steal from the rich to support them?

[ QUOTE ]
The counter-argument by conservatives is often "well, they chose their profession so it's their own fault whether they are rich or not." But that argument ignores real human differences. The alcoa blue-collar workers could no more become computer nerds, than the nerds could have made it in the aluminum plant. <hr /></blockquote> I would gracefully disagree because you have generalized to a great extent (something you have more than once asked me not to do). You are limiting the rich to computer nerds, however I would bet 100 to 1 you could find more computer nerds successful in the mine than you would find a miner who could write complex algorithms. Too bad, white collar pays more. Maybe you could step out and start your own business, and pay all your hourly people more than you pay yourself. I wonder how long that will continue, considering you figure yourself to receive a fair wage for a business owner.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not talking just about the poor. The main debate is on income tax rates for the top 5% of the country. I'm all for tax breaks for you and me! lol <hr /></blockquote> This must be a bit of a difference between you and I, I am not looking for a handout from the rich, I just want to keep the money I earned.

[ QUOTE ]
You aren't listening then. Clinton made that exact argument when he pushed hard for the passage of NAFTA. And you will see Democrats at ribbon cuttings for new foreign factories all the time. <hr /></blockquote> Well you could be correct about Clinton, how about now, when the big issue is sending US jobs overseas? Why is the only publicity negative? Why aren't the Dems in the news giving praises to other countries for paying the high cost of American labor?

[ QUOTE ]
Gift? I didn't say anything about giving money to anyone. I just favor the Democratic progressive tax plan over the Republican progressive tax plan. <hr /></blockquote> So then this is a game you are playing? You did not use the actual word gift, so please enlighten us as to what you call it, charity? It is taken from the rich and given to the poor, is this not a gift to the poor? I guess from your posts you believe the rich should be tax more and your tax burden should be relieved some, would you not call that a gift?

[ QUOTE ]
Well, actually Kerry is calling for additional tax cuts for the middle class and businesses who provide domestic jobs. The only "tax increase" he proposes is letting the Bush tax cut on those making over 200k to expire. Of course, if elected he will inherit a huge deficit. Hopefully the economy will pick up enough to reduce that burden.
<hr /></blockquote> More games? If Kerry is wanting to lower the tax burden of the poor, and allow the rich to pay a higher percentage, you don't call that a tax increase???? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif Where do you think the difference will be made up? Rich getting taxed more? Is that not an increase? The rich will have to make up for what the poor and middle are no longer paying. You don't by any chance remember Kerry mentioning and cut in government do you? So tell me, how do you think things will be paid for if the poor and middle do not have to help as much. LOL, you seem to be playng games.

This is funny, a while ago there was a post that said Bush wanted to reduce hazard pay to the military. I believe you were part of it and agreed. However the truth was that Bush wanted to allow the current pay increase to expire near the end of the year. So, as far as the Dems are concerned if Bush allows a pay increase to expire then he is LOWERING hazard pay, however if Kerry allows a tax cut to expire he is doing nothing? Games that is all this is.

[ QUOTE ]
And to answer your question I think individually and as a nation all of us will be better off with a more progressive tax rate. The bottom 95% (that's all of us CCB'ers unless we have some really, really big shots on this board) will benefit directly because we will be paying a smaller share of the government expenses. The top 5% will be fine <hr /></blockquote> I guess you just could not do it. I was asking very specifically about an individual with absolute no mention of wealth. You just could not bring yourself to answer the question as is. Don't you find it a bit humorous that you have the audacity to determine if someone else will be fine if they are taxed more. What if we are in store and buying the same thing, and I tell the cashier to just charge you 30% tax and I will pay tax free. Don't worry you will be fine.

[ QUOTE ]
Individually, a person is better off the less taxes he/she pays, whether they earned it or not. No one is arguing that point. <hr /></blockquote> I did not make mention that anyone is arguing this, but your post was about fairness. If we all get the same tax cut would that not be more fair than one person paying 30% and another paying 5%? If you want to talk about being fair, then bring it to the lowest denominator (a person with a job) instead of adding in all the extra stuff like wealth.

[ QUOTE ]
Dems are fighting for more jobs in the US just like every other country is. Especially manufacturing jobs. They are also saying we should enforce NAFTA work rules so that we are playing on a more level playing field. <hr /></blockquote> So would a Democrat be upset if Ford decided to move its entire manufacturing company to Mexico? I hardly believe if this happened Clinton would be praising he hard work and NAFTA for allowing this to happen.

[ QUOTE ]
You can dismiss them as just graphs, but they tell a story. The disparity in income and wealth in the US is getting rediculously skewed. Not because of evil rich people - it's just the natural result of a free-market economy coupled with advancing technology. It's the result of wealth being able to generate more wealth.
<hr /></blockquote> I am sorry I did not mean to insult your graphs, I obviously am not as close with them as you are. Besides that, anyone can paint any picture they want with a graph, surely you would understand this first. So, because the disparity in wealth is getting skewed and the wealthy are reaping more wealth, by using their money intelligently, you believe it should be taken from them?

[ QUOTE ]
Sure it is "fair" in that everyone has the same chance at the beginning, but it is a fuxxed-up model for a nations economy.
<hr /></blockquote> Your better model would include patting the losers on the back and stealing the money and giving it back them? In effect, the ones who have made the wrong choice should benefit from the one who made the correct choice?

[ QUOTE ]
Honestly, would it be so terrible if that 1 person had, say $40, and the bottom 40 had 8 cents each?
<hr /></blockquote> I honestly don't believe you would be honest in being the one who decides to steal from the one with 43. Honestly, would it be so terrible if some of those with 1/2 cent went out and got another job instead of staying home making babies and bagging groceries?

[ QUOTE ]
Given what is going over the past few decades with US income and wealth, I don't see being against tax cuts for the rich as "pitting the poor against the rich." <hr /></blockquote> LOL, then what do you see it as being? The pitting of the rich against the poor is what the Dems are doing. The disparity of income is not able to do this on its own.

[ QUOTE ]
And I don't see many rich people complaining that they feel victims of class warfare. I just see differences in opinion on what is best for our country. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, your opinion is that what is best is that you can put your hands in some rich man's bank account since he will probably never know the difference. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif


eg8r

eg8r
08-15-2004, 06:30 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If you take 60,000 then subtract taxes, that gets you 45,000, which is about 3750 a month. Then if you pay child support like many do or childcare, that reduces it to about 36,000 or 3000 a month for the basics. If a person has extra things like paying for orthodontist bills etc for your kids, several thousand a year on uncovered medical expenses, even if you have good insurance, that reduces it further. <hr /></blockquote> I guess it appears you were not being completely forthcoming in your first post. Here in your rebuttal you have added more bills and alas, children. In the next post will the wife be bringing in a paycheck?

[ QUOTE ]
Ed, the best I ever had it financially was when I lived in a house in a small town with two other women, splitting expenses and delivering pizzas Geez.
<hr /></blockquote> Yuck, LOL, I hated delivering pizzas and do not look back on that time.

eg8r

Ross
08-15-2004, 08:52 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> ... Honestly, would it be so terrible if some of those with 1/2 cent went out and got another job instead of staying home making babies and bagging groceries?

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Those with the 1/2 cent share each are not the "grocery baggers and baby makers" (and you accuse Dems of fostering class warfare?) It is the bottom 40% income earners in the country. In other words, we are talking almost one-half of the US working force - their share is 1/2 cent each, and getting smaller. We are talking teachers, librarians, secretaries, factory workers, carpenters, etc.

bluewolf
08-16-2004, 04:57 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> <hr /></blockquote> I guess it appears you were not being completely forthcoming in your first post. Here in your rebuttal you have added more bills and alas, children. In the next post will the wife be bringing in a paycheck?

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Ed, the best I ever had it financially was when I lived in a house in a small town with two other women, splitting expenses and delivering pizzas Geez.
<hr /></blockquote> Yuck, LOL, I hated delivering pizzas and do not look back on that time.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Nope. In the first post, I was approximating with less details. Since you questioned a person in the 60krange being able to get by in a METRO area, that is why I added more details. The figure I quoted was a 'what if' and based on total family income, whether both work or one does, whether it is a single parent home or two parents in the home. And oh, BTW, a person in a nonmetro area, with no kids,can make it on 30,000. My son was in a nonmetro area, with no kids and figured he could squeek by on his 25k salary. Then he got a raise,but since he is still in a lower tax bracket, is not hurt as much as others, but in a nonmetro, he could have still squeeked by on 25k. BTW, he has also taken out loans to go to school so that one day he can have more, and also has chosen not to have kids now, so may one day be in that group that the liberals seem to be complaining about.

of course, having kids is a choice. But the fact is that sometimes it is affordable with one spouse staying home with the kids, defraying childcare expenses, and there is a divorce, resulting in child support payments for one, and childcare for the other, which, regardless of what dollar amount they were making, adds more financial burdon. That does not mean that this(having kids) is someone elses responsibility, but that because the middle class as well as the upper class is taxed too much, that each of them deserve breaks.

Then the person who makes 200k worked hard to get that,often taking out loans they have to pay back, lived like a pauper while they were going after that advanced degree, waited to have kids so they they could afford to save for their college and so forth, and the govt taxes them 50%(about 42% under bushes plan) and we call that fair?

This, imo, is not fair at all. It is penalizing a person for working hard, going without, so that one day, this would pay off.

Laura

Qtec
08-16-2004, 06:08 AM
Lucrative Cash Package Came as Fairchild Reported $53.2 Million Loss


By David S. Hilzenrath
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, August 16, 2004; Page E01


For Jeffrey J. Steiner, chairman and chief executive of Fairchild Corp., nearly $2.5 million in salary last year was just the beginning.

The company's notice for its annual meeting lists various dealings between Fairchild and Steiner family interests. There were payments by Fairchild for a chartered helicopter and a chartered aircraft and an apartment in Paris. There were family members on the payroll, interest-free loans outstanding to family members, and $258,000 for Steiner's personal expenses, later reimbursed. There were $1.7 million in advances on his retirement pay, according to the proxy statement, on top of almost $3 million the year before, though Steiner did not retire.

And there was a triple dip of sorts related to the sale of a subsidiary to Alcoa Corp. at the end of 2002. Steiner received $3.1 million, part of a golden parachute from Fairchild, without bailing out. He also received a $5.2 million bonus from Fairchild for his work on the deal. And he and his son Eric, president and chief operating officer, got a noncompete and consulting contract with Alcoa worth $5 million over four years.

In addition, the company reported that it had spent $5 million on Steiner's legal expenses as of October and had posted a bond of more than $1.5 million with a French court before Steiner was convicted of a criminal offense last year in France. Fairchild reported that he was given a suspended sentence of one year and was ordered to pay a fine of about $597,000. The judgment related to "unjustified use" of a French oil company's funds in 1990, Fairchild reported.

Meanwhile, Fairchild, once the maker of the tank-killing A-10 jet, reported a loss of $53.2 million in the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2003, and had lost money in three of the four previous years.


Its tough at the top.

Q

eg8r
08-16-2004, 07:19 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Then the person who makes 200k worked hard to get that,often taking out loans they have to pay back, lived like a pauper while they were going after that advanced degree, waited to have kids so they they could afford to save for their college and so forth, and the govt taxes them 50%(about 42% under bushes plan) and we call that fair?

This, imo, is not fair at all. It is penalizing a person for working hard, going without, so that one day, this would pay off.
<hr /></blockquote> Well, then you can thank Bush for at least giving back 8%. Kerry sure will not do this.

As far as it being fair, I believe Ross is the big guy on being fair, and yes he certainly believes it is fair to steal from the rich.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
08-16-2004, 07:44 AM
Ross,

IMO you can't make the poor man successful by taking from the rich man.

I would rather see that rich guy spend the money on a $250,000 wedding for his daughter. Think of all the jobs created. Then go read the thread about how the gov't beauracracies rush to spend their budget before the end of the fiscal year.

bluewolf
08-16-2004, 07:52 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>
<hr /></blockquote> Well, then you can thank Bush for at least giving back 8%. Kerry sure will not do this.

As far as it being fair, I believe Ross is the big guy on being fair, and yes he certainly believes it is fair to steal from the rich.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Robin Hood? 20% of what the very wealthy make would still be a lot of money for the poor and if they revamped the whole system, cut out the waste, i still think it is doable. The 'big tent' again is the structure of the entire economy including 'programs' and the 'little side show' is the price cuts they are arguing about. Bush tax cuts to the rich is pittance compared to the waste in the entire system.

I am not against bush tax cut. The cut to the very rich vs the middle class is proportional but they are both still paying too much, imo.

There are other issues about bush, I still have yet to resolve in my mind. The tax cuts is not one of those. But more indescriminate programs for the poor, without a revamping, would be like putting a bandaid on an amputation.So that is a concern I have with kerry, if he is planning something like that, it would make an already messed up system worse.

As far as aid to disasters and foreign relations, kerry is an unknown. In fact, bush, at least went to fl after the hurricaine, showing, at least, he cared about those people who lost their homes.

So I have a decision to make but sometimes 'a devil that you know is better than a devil that you dont know'.

Another point, and this I read from a liberal economist. Clinton is credited for how well the country did economically while bush is blamed for the current state of economics. According to the economist, we had an economic bubble during the clinton years, and economically this is followed by a downturn. So you cannot blame or credit either totally for what has to do with normal economic trends, at least to a large degree. So that is not something I blame on Bush, either.

There are other issues besides the tax cuts and the abortion/gay rights etc,what happened in Iraq (the good, the bad and the ugly) that the media fills our minds with, that noone is even looking at,I think that bush will win, though, personally.

BTW What I think is funny about the two candidates. Bush tried in the first election to appear moderate when he is a 'neoconservative'. Likewise kerry attempts to appear moderate when he is very left. Amusing.

Laura

Ross
08-16-2004, 06:26 PM
Coincidentally, from today: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5726153/

Gap between haves, have-nots gets wider
Growing disparity more pronounced in recovering economy

The Associated Press
Updated: 4:01 p.m. ET Aug. 16, 2004WASHINGTON - Over two decades, the income gap has steadily increased between the richest Americans, who own homes and stocks and got big tax breaks, and those at the middle and bottom of the pay scale, whose paychecks buy less.

The growing disparity is even more pronounced in this recovering economy. Wages are stagnant and the middle class is shouldering a larger tax burden. Prices for health care, housing, tuition, gas and food have soared.

The wealthiest 20 percent of households in 1973 accounted for 44 percent of total U.S. income, according to the Census Bureau. Their share jumped to 50 percent in 2002, while everyone else’s fell. For the bottom fifth, the share dropped from 4.2 percent to 3.5 percent.

Jobs and the economy top the list of voter concerns this election year. President Bush touts a strong economy that is growing, but polls find that Americans have doubts and think jobs are scarce. John Kerry is trusted more on the economy, with Democrats talking regularly of “two Americas,” divided between the rich and everyone else.

That argument has merit, some private economists say.

“For those working in the bottom half of the pay scale, they’re under an enormous amount of pressure,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com.

New government data also shows that President Bush’s tax cuts have shifted the overall tax burden to the middle class from the wealthiest Americans.
....

The U.S. jobs market is soft, sending wages down. Hiring came to a near standstill last month, with companies adding just 32,000 new jobs overall, stunning economists who had expected seven times as many.

More than a million jobs have been added back to the 2.6 million lost since Bush took office, but they pay less and offer fewer benefits, such as health insurance. The new jobs are concentrated in health care, food services, and temporary employment firms, all lower-paying industries. Temp agencies alone account for about a fifth of all new jobs.

Three in five pay below the national median hourly wage — $13.53, said Sung Won Sohn, chief economist for Wells Fargo.

On a weekly basis, the average wage of $525.84 is at the lowest level since October 2001.

The income gap is showing up in booming sales of luxury items. Porsche Cars North America Inc. says sales are up 17 percent for the year. Strong sales at Neiman Marcus, Nordstrom and Saks Fifth Avenue overshadow lackluster sales at stores such as Wal-Mart, Sears and Payless Shoes.

Real estate agent Lance Anderson, 38, of Overland Park, Kan., expects a record sales year, as homeowners upgrade to more expensive homes and commercial clients expand. He recently took his family to Disney World for a two-week Florida vacation.

“My clientele, it seems as a whole, has seen positive growth,” he said. So his family, including three children, now eat out more often and spend more on clothes. They recently bought two new cars and anticipate buying a larger house in the next few years.

Economists say wages should rise as companies boost hiring. But the growing gap between the haves and have-nots will remain.

Technology has eliminated many U.S. jobs, as has global competition, particularly from low-wage countries such as China. Highly skilled, educated workers in America will thrive as demand rises, Sohn said, while low-skilled jobs remain vulnerable to outsourcing.

“This really has nothing to do with Bush or Kerry, but more to do with the longer-term shift in the structure of the economy,” Sohn said.

Qtec
08-16-2004, 08:38 PM
Funnily enough......


The Region's Highest-Paid Executives
Salaries, Bonuses Increased in 2003 After 2 Down Years

By David S. Hilzenrath
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, August 16, 2004; Page E01


Pay for the Washington area's top executives rose significantly last year, reversing the downward trend that set in with the recession in 2001.

The median salary and bonus for the 100 highest-paid executives rose 15 percent to almost $1.5 million in 2003 after declining by half in 2002 and 19 percent in 2001, according to a Washington Post survey.

The estimated value of the typical stock option grant rose by a third to $2.8 million after declining by 41 percent in 2002 and 20 percent in 2001, the survey found.

Nationally, some indicators of pay for top executives rose too. A study by Mercer Human Resource Consulting of 350 of the largest U.S. firms found that the median salary and bonus for chief executives rose 7.2 percent to $2.1 million. But the median salary, bonus and long-term compensation for chief executives, including options, fell 4 percent to $6.2 million.

The local increases came as company earnings increased significantly. The median profit for public companies in the Washington area nearly tripled in 2003 and increased by more than six times in 2002.

But both cash and stock option compensation remained far short of their levels in 2000, when the stock market peaked and the dot-com bubble burst. The median cash compensation -- salary plus bonus -- last year was less than half the $3.2 million median in 2000 for the 100 highest-paid executives. The median option grant, valued by assuming 5 percent growth in the exercise price compounded over the life of the option, was down almost $1.7 million from the $4.5 million median at the market's height.

Still, compared to the average wage earner, Washington's top executives did very well. Wages for U.S. workers in private industry rose only 2.9 percent last year, to a full-time national average of $40,745, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

mred477
08-16-2004, 08:58 PM
So executives make a lot of money...this is new? They have larger swings because of increased risk. An executive deserves his salary (in most cases) because he is in charge of the entire company. If he screws up, he could make the entire company go under (and consequently, all those jobs that go with it). This executive isn't sitting in his office, drinking scotch, and playing poker. He's worked his tail off to get there and put in countless 100 hour work weeks to get where he is. The CEO of a mom and pop store is considered a hero and nobody complains about his salary if his business succeeds. Why the double standard to the CEO of a larger business (which, by the way, pays all those salaries of the "little people")?

Will~not ever going to be convinced that there's something wrong with being a millionaire if you've earned it.

Qtec
08-16-2004, 09:30 PM
They have larger swings because of increased risk.


What risk? Did you notice that the company in question made a loss 4 years running.
Did the CEO lose money?
Does he need a tax break?

Read the article again. This CEO does not own the Company, he is just a hired-hand. He works for the Comp the same as the guy on the shop floor.If it goes well he gets a huge bonus. if itgoes bad, he gets a golden handshake and a pension for life.
When it goes bad,its the the guys at the bottom who get laid off and find themselves in difficulty, not the execs.

Ever heard of a guy called Grasso? The stock exchange? $ 193 million?
Check it out.
Q [ BTW, I started work today at 3.30pm. I got home at 4.30 AM. I had one 15 minute break! I also have an appoinment today at 9.30 AM .Dont tell me that CEOs are the only ones who work..]

Ross
08-16-2004, 10:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mred477:</font><hr> I'm going to live below the specified U.S. poverty line while I'm in school, working my butt off for 5 years for a Ph.D., and when I'm done, I'll have to pay 50% of every dollar I earn (counting SS and medicare) to the government to take care of those people who weren't as "lucky" as I am. <hr /></blockquote>

Will, you can relax a bit. No one in the US pays anywhere near 50 cents per dollar of earning. In 2003 the median effective Federal tax rate (AFTER adding in SS and medicare) for the top quintile of wage earners in the country was 26.8%. If you live in a state with average income taxes, you probably would end up paying maybe 30% total (effective Federal + State rate).

highsea
08-16-2004, 11:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>No one in the US pays anywhere near 50 cents per dollar of earning. In 2003 the median effective Federal tax rate (AFTER adding in SS and medicare) for the top quintile of wage earners in the country was 26.8%. If you live in a state with average income taxes, you probably would end up paying maybe 30% total (effective Federal + State rate). <hr /></blockquote>Don't know about medians, Ross, but I look at the total tax burden, Federal and State.

When I was running a machine shop, I was making about 60K per year. A good portion of my wages (like everything over 33K) were in a 33% federal bracket. (single, no dependents)

Add to that the 8.2% sales tax in Washington, property tax, vehicle tax, gas tax, excise taxes, various "sin" taxes like alcohol and tobacco, communications taxes on my phone and cable, L&amp;I taxes on my wages, unemployent insurance. I'm sure I can think of a few more if I try.

I can say I was pretty darn close if not over 50% of my income going to one taxman or another. And that was for a guy making 60K/year in 1993.

I fight taxes every election. I always vote, because while there may not be anything I want to vote for, there are sure to be things I want to vote against.

-CM

bluewolf
08-17-2004, 04:51 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>

Will, you can relax a bit. No one in the US pays anywhere near 50 cents per dollar of earning. In 2003 the median effective Federal tax rate (AFTER adding in SS and medicare) for the top quintile of wage earners in the country was 26.8%. If you live in a state with average income taxes, you probably would end up paying maybe 30% total (effective Federal + State rate).

<hr /></blockquote>

The tax laws have consistently taken away tax breaks. For instance, it used to be that multiple house owners could deduct interest paid on all property. I believe that that deduction was taken away. Deductions were also reduced for donations to charity and medical expenses among other things. In the last ten years, there has been a trend to take away more and more tax breaks.

After deducting a tax shelter of 3% and adding back in 3000 in tax return due to AGI, I am still coming up with about 30-33% which includes federal, soc security, medicare and maryland state taxes on a gross income of 70000, which in DC is not a real high salary, but pretty much middle class.

Did i do something wrong?

Ray helped me with the 5% state and the 7.6 for soc security and medicare. Federal after the shelter results in 25% federal, so you get 37.6, but have to deduct 3% tax shelter which gets you 34.6. Then with a 3000 tax return, that gets you about 4% so I figure 30% at the lowest for a middle income family so how did you get the same % for those who make a bunch more buckaroos.

Laura

bluewolf
08-17-2004, 05:24 AM
Interesting doc on federal income tax. There are lots more article but here is one excerp found.

_The 16th Amendment_
,
According to Alderman and Kennedy (1991), the 16th Amendment, which
was allegedly ratified in 1913 states: "The Congress shall have the power
to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever sources derived without
apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census
or enumeration" (p. 352).
This was passed in order to prevent any challenges to a future income
tax, such as what happened in the _Pollack v. Farmer's Loan &amp; Trust Company_,
157 US 429, on the basis of the Constitutional provisions of apportionment.
In response to thism the following case made its way to the Supreme
Court, and was decided on the 24th of January, 1916; that of _Brushaber v.
Union Pacific Railroad Company_, 240 US 1. In his interpretation of the case,
Schiff (1992) said: "Essentially, what the Supreme Court said was that an
'income; tax was an excise tax that could be levied on 'income' seperated
from its 'source'" (p. 41). Upon my own further study into the case, I
discovered the following, from the majority opinion given by Chief Justice
White: "Moreover, the tax autorized by the amendment, being direct, would
not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to
other direct taxes. . .This result, instead of simplifying the situation and
making clear the limitations on taxing power, which obviously the Amendment
must have been intended to accomplish, would create a radical and destructive
changes to our constitutional system and multiply confusion" (240 US 1, 12).
Here the Supreme Court says that the 16th Amendment, although meant to accomplish
one thing, does not accomplish that at all. Further down in the case, Chief jus
Justice White says: "from another point of view, the Amendment demonstrates
that no such purpose was intended and on the contrary shows that it was
drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and
harmonizing their operation. . .the Amendment contains nothing repudiating
or challenging the ruling in the Pollock case" (240 US 1, 19). From this I
am able to interpret that the _Pollack_ case is still applicable, and that
the 16th Amendment really didn/t change anything!

_Was the 16th legally ratified?_

Another question that has been raised in the wake of the 16th Amendment
is whether the Amendment itself was even properly ratified. In their well
researched book, _The Law That Never Was_, Beckman and Benson (1985) examine
this subject in detail. Some of the problems that they expose cast significant
doubt on whether the Amendment was properly ratified (in some cases, the
They document cases (in every state that passed the Amendment) where the
wording was changed from the original document that was ratified (in some
cases, the wording between the respective state House and Senate did not
even match each other in their own states!) They found several cases where
there was not a significant percentage of votes in favor (two thirds majority
needed to ratify), and at least one case, in Kentucky, where the state Senate
voted 9 - 22 against ratification, but the record was forged at one point,
and they were listed as supporting ratification! In another instance, they
claim that the state of Ohio has never been legally admitted to the Union
(a rumor I have heard occasionally, but have never been able to verify). The
book takes a serious and in depth look at the problem, and after reading it,
I came to the conclusion that it is entirely possible that the 16th Amendment
was never legally ratified.
_The Bill of Rights -- Void Where Prohibited?_

Another serious item that must be taken into consideration is
that the way our current Income Tax is structured, a number of
fundamental rights are tossed aside.'

Laura

Wally_in_Cincy
08-17-2004, 06:43 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>No one in the US pays anywhere near 50 cents per dollar of earning. <hr /></blockquote>

LOL. Sorry Ross, you usually make sense but you stepped in it this time. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>

A good portion of my wages (like everything over 33K) were in a 33% federal bracket. (single, no dependents)

the 8.2% sales tax <font color="blue">7% here </font color>

property tax, <font color="blue">probably about 2.5% of your income </font color>

vehicle tax, <font color="blue">not so bad here but in IN and KY you pay based on the value of your car. Up to about $750 per year I think. </font color>

gas tax, <font color="blue">between state and fed probably more than 30 cents </font color>

"sin" taxes like alcohol and tobacco, <font color="blue">let's not go there /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif </font color>

communications taxes on my phone and cable, <font color="blue">including a 2% (IIRC) levy that was originally instituted to pay for the Spanish-American War /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif </font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

plus SS and Medicare- 7.5% from you and 7.5% from your employer(which might as well come from you, same differece)

Ohio income tax is 3.5%

Hamiltucky city tax is 2%

eg8r
08-17-2004, 06:48 AM
Hey Ross,

Maybe I am mis-reading you, but you really just sound greedy. You are not coming across as the type of person that would just be happy with what you earned. Are you really so shallow to care if your neighbor made more money and increasingly every year continued to make more? If your neighbor was making $1 million this year and jumped to $2 mil next year while your salary increased 5%, would you somehow feel he owes you some money? This is what it sounds like coming from your posts. I doubt this is true but I sort of felt the need to ask.

How is the fact that people are getting richer (not you or I) every year, keeping you from living a full happy life? You have never mentioned how the few rich are hampering you or depriving you of something you earned. Also, are there any good examples of what great things can happen when you throw money at a bad problem, or more importantly at a bad problem because of misuse of money. Poor people, education, is there one?

eg8r

eg8r
08-17-2004, 06:50 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Funnily enough......
<hr /></blockquote> Funnily enough this is another shining example of Q offering zero to the discussion outside of being merely just a cut/paste queen.

eg8r

eg8r
08-17-2004, 06:56 AM
There really is no sense in replying to a post from Q in which he has only cut and paste someone else's work. Just send an email to the author of the article and see if you get a better reply.

The guys on this board posting about taxing the rich more than the rest, or are unhappy with the rich making more money, must not be happy with what they earned and feel they are entitled to what someone else has earned. There has been nothing offered that says any more. Ross even had the audacity to say the rich will be fine. Like he is someone who determines if another will do "fine" without their own hard earned money.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
08-17-2004, 06:56 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> Gap between haves, have-nots gets wider <hr /></blockquote>

My God Ross, they have been saying this since the times of the freakin' Romans /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[ QUOTE ]

Over two decades, the income gap has steadily increased between the richest Americans, who own homes and stocks and got big tax breaks, <hr /></blockquote>


You can tell this "news" is not going to be biased LMAO /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
The growing disparity is even more pronounced in this recovering economy.<hr /></blockquote>

LMAO. Does this make any sense at all? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Wages are stagnant and the middle class is shouldering a larger tax burden.<hr /></blockquote>

THEY GOT A TAX CUT DAMMIT LOL
<hr /></blockquote>

Yikes. I give up /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

highsea
08-17-2004, 08:04 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> Ahh, taxes, taxes, ... everybody throwing part of their money into a pot to pay for services for the common good (at least in theory). What's a fair way for a society to structure it's taxes? What's a smart way ? How do you decide? There are a number of possible taxing schemes to choose from:

1. Everyone pays the exact same dollar amount.

2. Everyone pays the same percentage of their income (so called "flat tax").

3. Progressive tax. Rich people pay the highest percentage of their income, the poor pay the lowest percentage. Our current system.

4. Consumption tax on everything. Everyone pays the same percentage on everything they buy or consume.
<hr /></blockquote>I will take 2 or 4 over our current systen any day. Applied to companies and individuals equally. The current tax code is some 800 pages of conflicting and complicated legalese that is completely out of the reach of the ordinary person.

It is so full of loopholes and schemes that if you can afford a really good tax lawyer, the wealthiest individuals and companies get off the hook far to easy. Raising taxes on people making even $200,000/yr. will not correct this, and Kerry and Edwards are fully aware of this.

The problem is not the tax rates being too low, it's the complexity of the system and the various dodges available if you can afford them.

I will use the "reformers" Kerry and Edwards for an example. From the Wall Street Journal:

[ QUOTE ]
Senator Edwards talks about the need to provide health care for all, but that didn't stop him from using a clever tax dodge to avoid paying $591,000 into the Medicare system. While making his fortune as a trial lawyer in 1995, he formed what is known as a "subchapter S" corporation, with himself as the sole shareholder.

Instead of taking his $26.9 million in earnings directly in the following four years, he paid himself a salary of $360,000 a year and took the rest as corporate dividends. Since salary is subject to 2.9% Medicare tax but dividends aren't, that meant he shielded more than 90% of his income. That's not necessarily illegal, but dodging such a large chunk of employment tax skates perilously close to the line.

The Internal Revenue Service takes a dim view of such operations and "may collapse the structure entirely and argue the S corporation is not truly a separate entity," in the words of Tax Adviser magazine. Attorney CPA magazine lists it as No. 11 of its "15 best underutilized tax loopholes," but warns that the IRS "has successfully litigated cases against individuals, particularly sole shareholders of personal service S corporations, reclassifying such deemed distributions as wages subject to social security taxes."<hr /></blockquote>
From the same article: [ QUOTE ]
Senator Kerry's personal finances are not so complicated, since most of his income comes from his government salary and a modest inheritance. But he owes his jet-setting lifestyle and indeed some of his political success to the wealth of his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry. Her personal assets have been estimated at up to $3.2 billion, and the couple travel among their five houses scattered around the U.S. on a $35 million Gulfstream V jet. During a tough election for the Senate in 1996, Mr. Kerry sidestepped a gentleman's agreement with opponent William Weld to limit the spending of personal wealth on either side to $500,000 by having his campaign borrow $1.7 million from his wife.

Mrs. Heinz Kerry's finances remain largely a closed book, since she has so far refused to release her tax returns. What we do know so far is that she has prepaid $750,000 in federal taxes on $5.1 million in income for 2003--an effective tax rate of 15%. That is because a significant portion of the income came from tax-free municipal bonds, which is perfectly legal.

Even so, her net income must be much higher. We know that since the death of her husband John Heinz in 1991, Mrs. Heinz Kerry has invested shrewdly and possibly even doubled her inheritance. Even if one takes a conservative estimate of her net worth, say $1 billion, an income of $5.1 million means a paltry return of just 0.5%. More likely, the majority of her investment income is sheltered within trusts so that tax is deferred until she or her family actually wants to spend it. Again, perfectly legal, but this is a luxury that the average middle-class professional working for a wage does not have. These are the non-rich who will pay the bulk of any Kerry tax increase.<hr /></blockquote>
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005346

Does Kerry's tax increase close any of the loopholes that they (Kerry/Edwards) personally enjoy? Does it simplify the system? Or is it political rhetoric to increase taxes on the "upper" middle class? $200,000/yr. isn't exactly major wealth these days. Will they really stop at the 200K number, or will it drift down to 150, then 125, then 100...

-CM

Ross
08-17-2004, 10:20 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bluewolf:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>

Will, you can relax a bit. No one in the US pays anywhere near 50 cents per dollar of earning. In 2003 the median effective Federal tax rate (AFTER adding in SS and medicare) for the top quintile of wage earners in the country was 26.8%. If you live in a state with average income taxes, you probably would end up paying maybe 30% total (effective Federal + State rate).

<hr /></blockquote>

The tax laws have consistently taken away tax breaks. For instance, it used to be that multiple house owners could deduct interest paid on all property. I believe that that deduction was taken away. Deductions were also reduced for donations to charity and medical expenses among other things. In the last ten years, there has been a trend to take away more and more tax breaks.

After deducting a tax shelter of 3% and adding back in 3000 in tax return due to AGI, I am still coming up with about 30-33% which includes federal, soc security, medicare and maryland state taxes on a gross income of 70000, which in DC is not a real high salary, but pretty much middle class.

Did i do something wrong?

Ray helped me with the 5% state and the 7.6 for soc security and medicare. Federal after the shelter results in 25% federal, so you get 37.6, but have to deduct 3% tax shelter which gets you 34.6. Then with a 3000 tax return, that gets you about 4% so I figure 30% at the lowest for a middle income family so how did you get the same % for those who make a bunch more buckaroos.

Laura <hr /></blockquote>

My figures are from the Congressional Budget Office ( http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5324&amp;sequence=0 ). They are averages for each income group. At 70k per year, you would be a little above the middle of the 4th quartile of US incomes. The average effective federal rate for households in that bracket was 19.3%, but you calculated you paid 25% in fed taxes. So maybe you have fewer tax breaks than average (married with children in the home get the most breaks). Or possibly you are calculating it a bit different than the CBO.

bluewolf
08-17-2004, 10:48 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>
My figures are from the Congressional Budget Office ( http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5324&amp;sequence=0 ). They are averages for each income group. At 70k per year, you would be a little above the middle of the 4th quartile of US incomes. The average effective federal rate for households in that bracket was 19.3%, but you calculated you paid 25% in fed taxes. So maybe you have fewer tax breaks than average (married with children in the home get the most breaks). Or possibly you are calculating it a bit different than the CBO. <hr /></blockquote>

Looked it up under tax rates for 2003 with married filing joint with no kids. Actually Ray is a CPA and already figured that his next raise might put him in the 28% but when we looked it up, it was 25%. Maryland also charges 5%, so looks like 25 plus 5=30.

We also have a pretty heavy tax on gasoline, which went down 20 cents a gallon when we moved north over the next county line.. .Maryland metro is very high in property taxes.When We moved 10 miles north just across the next county's line and the tax on the same cost property went down $1000 per year.We have people here living just across the PA or WV line and commuting 1.25 or so hours to work because they could not get a house nor pay the additional property taxes etc in metro md. of course, all that xtra driving means more wear and tear on the car too so guess they get you one way or another.

You cannot imagine my shock when I moved from roanoke where you could get a decent meal out for 1/3 what it costs here. Where it was nothing for me to grab a bite out at an inexpensive sit down place there once a week (on a 19,000 a yr income), we do not eat out here except for maybe 3-4 times a year.Although cigarettes are an option, fyi, cigs in metro md cost 1 dollar more per pack than in the county we live in or on the va side of metrodc. MD makes out on excise taxes too. It is 5% when you get a car, based on the value of the car. It is not a bad deal if you stay in MD and keep the same car for a long time, but for more mobile folks, who get relocated, they often end up paying property taxes again depending on the laws there.

And oh yeah, each class at the community college is about 33% higher than in roanoke, where I had the luxury of taking a class now and then in something I was interested in. When I moved here and was interested in photography, and looked at the price for taking a simple class and saw the price, it was 'no way'. Table time went from 2.50 an hour to 6-8. Lots of other things too. I cannot remember all of it, it is truly abysmal.

You are just looking at the incomes with no regard to how expensive it is to live in certain places.

For instance, at 25,000 in non metro in fl, which also has no state taxes, my son does okay and can afford a decent apt, car and pay bills. Someone in dc on that income, and yes, there are plenty here on that income, have to live with several in the same apt to make ends meet.

I do not know where you live, but when I lived in Roanoke va, I could make it on 19,000, with a $500 per month rent.

When I left roanoke, for instance, counselors with ms degrees made about 23-28 and were comfortable. When I moved to metro dc, I looked into the same type of job and the pay was pretty much the same even though the cost of living was much higher. Some types of jobs earn more here but many dont such as blue collar jobs, managers of pizza places, sales people at places like radio shack etc, or the difference is neglible while the cost of living is much higher.In roanoke,many of those people were considered middle class, here they are poor. 50thou in roanoke or where my son lives or even 40thou exceeds 70,000 in dc metro in comfort and ability to just pay bills.You can take that to the bank. That is what your stats are not telling you!!!

Laura

Ross
08-17-2004, 10:59 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>No one in the US pays anywhere near 50 cents per dollar of earning. In 2003 the median effective Federal tax rate (AFTER adding in SS and medicare) for the top quintile of wage earners in the country was 26.8%. If you live in a state with average income taxes, you probably would end up paying maybe 30% total (effective Federal + State rate). <hr /></blockquote>Don't know about medians, Ross, but I look at the total tax burden, Federal and State.

When I was running a machine shop, I was making about 60K per year. A good portion of my wages (like everything over 33K) were in a 33% federal bracket. (single, no dependents)

<font color="blue">But you weren't paying 33% of your total income in taxes. To get your actual rate, you have to allow for deductions and also for the fact that you paid at a 10% rate for the first several k, then at 15% for earnings up to 25k or so, and so on. The bottom line is that to find out your true effective rate, you take your gross earnings and divide by the total tax dollars you pay. That would have been way below 33%. </font color>

Add to that the 8.2% sales tax in Washington, property tax, vehicle tax, gas tax, excise taxes, various "sin" taxes like alcohol and tobacco, communications taxes on my phone and cable, L&amp;I taxes on my wages, unemployent insurance. I'm sure I can think of a few more if I try.
<font color="blue">mred477 said that he would be paying 50 cents on each dollar he earned, so I took that to mean income taxes. Property and other consumption taxes are the same for everyone and are not tied to income. If you get a 20k raise, neither your gas taxes, nor your phone and cable taxes, nor your property taxes increase.

The distinction between income and consumption taxes is not just a trivial, picky point. It goes right to the incentive to make more money. If mred477 is typical of those in the top quartile, he will be able to keep about 70 cents of every additional dollar he makes, after federal and state taxes. The myth that the gov will take 50 cents out of every additional dollar earned fuels a lot of anger about something that is not reality.
</font color>
I can say I was pretty darn close if not over 50% of my income going to one taxman or another. And that was for a guy making 60K/year in 1993.

<font color="blue">Go back and look at your 1993 return. See how many k you paid out, then estimate property taxes, gas taxes, and sales taxes, and see if you come near 30k. If so, then obviously you are right. </font color>

I fight taxes every election. I always vote, because while there may not be anything I want to vote for, there are sure to be things I want to vote against.

-CM <hr /></blockquote>

Ross
08-17-2004, 11:05 AM
Wally, see my reply to Highsea. It addresses all of the issues you bring up, I think. Also SS and medicare are included in the CBO effective tax rate figures.

Ross
08-17-2004, 11:14 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Hey Ross,

Maybe I am mis-reading you, but you really just sound greedy. You are not coming across as the type of person that would just be happy with what you earned. Are you really so shallow to care if your neighbor made more money and increasingly every year continued to make more? If your neighbor was making $1 million this year and jumped to $2 mil next year while your salary increased 5%, would you somehow feel he owes you some money? This is what it sounds like coming from your posts. I doubt this is true but I sort of felt the need to ask.

How is the fact that people are getting richer (not you or I) every year, keeping you from living a full happy life? You have never mentioned how the few rich are hampering you or depriving you of something you earned. Also, are there any good examples of what great things can happen when you throw money at a bad problem, or more importantly at a bad problem because of misuse of money. Poor people, education, is there one?

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Ed, I will not respond to any more of your posts that include snide remarks about my character and intelligence. If you want to leave them out then I would be glad to debate the political issues with you.

Ross
08-17-2004, 11:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bluewolf:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>
My figures are from the Congressional Budget Office ( http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5324&amp;sequence=0 ). They are averages for each income group. At 70k per year, you would be a little above the middle of the 4th quartile of US incomes. The average effective federal rate for households in that bracket was 19.3%, but you calculated you paid 25% in fed taxes. So maybe you have fewer tax breaks than average (married with children in the home get the most breaks). Or possibly you are calculating it a bit different than the CBO. <hr /></blockquote>

Looked it up under tax rates for 2003 with married filing joint with no kids. Actually Ray is a CPA and already figured that his next raise might put him in the 28% but when we looked it up, it was 25%. Maryland also charges 5%, so looks like 25 plus 5=30.

<font color="blue"> Laura, you pay that 25% only on income over 57k. All income below that is taxed at a lower rate (10% for the 1st 14k, then 15% for the rest up to 57k.) These rates also are only figured on "taxable income" which is your true income - deductions. If you really want to know what % of your income you paid, just look at the final tax bill and divide by gross income. It will be well below 25% federal and well below 5% state. </font color>

We also have a pretty heavy tax on gasoline. Wont mention cigarettes because that is voluntary but tax on eating out food, like mcdonalds is pretty high too, not just here either, and dont guess anyone thinks about that. Maryland metro is very high in property taxes. We moved 10 miles north just across the next county's line and the tax on the same cost property went down $1000 per year. MD makes out on excise taxes too. It is 5% when you get a car, based on the value of the car. It is not a bad deal if you stay in MD and keep the same car for a long time, but for more mobile folks, who get relocated, they often end up paying property taxes again depending on the laws there.

<font color="blue">These taxes are the same no matter your income. I'm not saying they are low - I was just trying to correct the misconception that if your income increases that the gov is taking 50% of those additional dollars. </font color>

You are just looking at the incomes with no regard to how expensive it is to live in certain places.

For instance, at 25,000 in non metro in fl, which also has no state taxes, my son does okay and can afford a decent apt, car and pay bills. Someone in dc on that income, and yes, there are plenty here on that income, have to live with several in the same apt to make ends meet.

I do not know where you live, but when I lived in Roanoke va, I could make it on 19,000, with a $500 per month rent.

When I left roanoke, for instance, counselors with ms degrees made about 23-28 and were comfortable. When I moved to metro dc, I looked into the same type of job and the pay was pretty much the same even though the cost of living was much higher. Some types of jobs earn more here but many dont such as blue collar jobs, managers of pizza places, sales people at places like radio shack etc, or the difference is neglible while the cost of living is much higher.In roanoke,many of those people were considered middle class, here they are poor. 50thou in roanoke or where my son lives or even 40thou exceeds 70,000 in dc metro in comfort and ability to just pay bills.You can take that to the bank. That is what your stats are not telling you!!!

Laura <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">Laura, where do you get that I'm saying anything about the cost of living? Nowhere have I suggested that you should pay 1 dollar of additional taxes.

I was saying that cutting taxes on those making over 200k is not a good idea. Those lost tax dollars will have to be made up eventually by you and me. Right now the gov is just going into the red so it looks like we are getting something for nothing. But funds are being used from SS, and when that bill comes due, who do you think will be paying ? </font color>

Wally_in_Cincy
08-17-2004, 11:56 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>

.....I was saying that cutting taxes on those making over 200k is not a good idea. Those lost tax dollars will have to be made up eventually by you and me. Right now the gov is just going into the red so it looks like we are getting something for nothing......<hr /></blockquote>

It's not that we are not paying enough, it's the fact that the gov't (read:Bush and the RINO "Republican-in-name-only" Congress) is spending too much.

IMO

I have the solution but it will never happen. Everybody should pay 17% of everything they make over $20,000. And repeal witholding. Everybody writes a check to Uncle Sam every month for their tax payment. The uproar would force the gov't to quit wasting so much money.

I can dream can't I? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r
08-17-2004, 02:23 PM
Fair enough.... [ QUOTE ]
...are there any good examples of what great things can happen when you throw money at a bad problem, or more importantly at a bad problem because of misuse of money. Poor people, education, is there one?
<hr /></blockquote>

Here is a pretty interesting quote from Boortz on the disparity between rich and poor... [ QUOTE ]
Remember... Poverty is a behavioral disorder. The rich keep getting richer because they keep doing the things that make them rich. Ditto for the poor. <hr /></blockquote>

eg8r

eg8r
08-17-2004, 02:31 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I was saying that cutting taxes on those making over 200k is not a good idea. Those lost tax dollars will have to be made up eventually by you and me. <hr /></blockquote> Why should you or I have to help share the burden when Mr. Millionaire can handle it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

crawdaddio
08-17-2004, 03:29 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>
Here is a pretty interesting quote from Boortz on the disparity between rich and poor...
Quote:
Remember... Poverty is a behavioral disorder. The rich keep getting richer because they keep doing the things that make them rich. Ditto for the poor. <hr /></blockquote>

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

This is absurd. It sounds like something an elitest would say.

nAz
08-17-2004, 03:33 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>
Here is a pretty interesting quote from Boortz on the disparity between rich and poor...
Quote:
Remember... Poverty is a behavioral disorder. The rich keep getting richer because they keep doing the things that make them rich. Ditto for the poor. <hr /></blockquote>

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

This is absurd. It sounds like something an elitest would say. <hr /></blockquote>

Its a real quote, the amazing thing about it is that he was not drunk when he wrote it, and even more amazing is that some people actually believe it's true!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

Ross
08-17-2004, 04:28 PM
Crawdaddio, some people seem completely stuck on focusing on those people that abused or became dependent on the welfare system. As I said before, the Republicans, with Clinton's support, quite correctly pushed for the welfare reform act of '96, which has reduced welfare rolls by 60% or so, and the numbers continue to drop as the new tighter time limits expire for many participants.

But it seems it is easier to think the problems are just due to laziness or lack of ambition than to address the real changes that are going on in the US economy. The fact that many seem to be minimizing is that the income disparity (and wealth disparity) is a problem for the middle class and even upper middle class. The income/wealth gap is growing even after you exclude the lowest performing group.

Three big causes for the growing disparity are:

1. more and more international competition for jobs due to fewer trade restrictions
2. advances in technology that make many formerly valued skills no longer needed
3. the natural effects of time on a system where wealth itself attracts more wealth (I'll call it the Monopoly syndrome)

And rapidly rising health care and college tuition costs is making this flow of income and wealth from the middle class to the wealthy more and more of a problem for literally 10's of millions of hard working American families. Tax cuts for the wealthiest 5% is not going to solve any of the above three problems. In fact, in the long run, these cuts will make the middle and upper middle class financial problems worse.

nAz
08-17-2004, 09:41 PM
Hey Ross check out this chart...
uhh did you post this before???

(stupid poor people) /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif



http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20040817/incomegap0817.gif

good article too...

Fewer new jobs. On Aug. 6, the Labor Department's monthly report on payroll employment showed 78,000 jobs were created in June and 32,000 jobs in July, compared with an average of 225,000 a month through the first five months of the year. The numbers shocked economists and fueled talk that the economy remains sick.

Bush is about 1.2 million jobs short of the total number of U.S. jobs when he took office. If job creation recovers its earlier pace, the economy could erase that deficit by year-end. But for that to happen before Election Day, the economy would have to generate an average 600,000 jobs a month ? something that has happened only twice in records going back to 1955.. If job creation stays sluggish, Bush could be stuck with the stigma of being the first president since Herbert Hoover to lose jobs on his watch.

Not his fault /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif nothing ever is. Can't wait to see the Oct. numbers. for the sake of the country i hope they do improve.

read (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-17-econwoes-usat_x.htm)

highsea
08-18-2004, 07:01 AM
Geebuz Krist, not another graph! Can we put this thread to bed? I'll promise to keep getting poorer if you promise to keep getting richer. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

-CM

eg8r
08-18-2004, 10:23 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Three big causes for the growing disparity are:

2. advances in technology that make many formerly valued skills no longer needed <font color="blue"> Thank goodness. <hr /></blockquote>

[ QUOTE ]
And rapidly rising health care <font color="blue">You can start by thanking Edwards. He seems to be in the spotlight right now, so take a look at what his past has done. </font color> and college tuition costs <font color="blue"> These are incredibly too low as it is especially in Florida. The government was paying 50%, state 25%, student 25%. The state has smartened up and said if you screw around too long then they will not pay the 25% and the student will pick it up. I wish the government would do the same. </font color> is making this flow of income and wealth from the middle class to the wealthy <font color="blue">I am a bit confused, how does rising tuition flow money from the middle to the rich? Healthcare? </font color> more and more of a problem for literally 10's of millions of hard working American families <font color="blue"> Hard working families is bunk. This type of talk leads one to believe rich people are not hard working. You don't like it when I generalize yet here you are guilty of the same exact thing. </font color> . Tax cuts for the wealthiest 5% is not going to solve any of the above three problems <font color="blue"> And in absolutely no way does it amplify them either. What happnened to the days in which you report both sides? </font color> . In fact, in the long run, these cuts will make the middle and upper middle class financial problems worse <font color="blue"> Is there any concrete proof of this or is it mere speculation? When in our history did you see a tax cut hurt the American people. Just because the rich are making more money does not in any way hamper the non-rich. If your neighbor is making millions does that make it tougher on you to pay your rent, car payment, food, insurance, etc? I doubt it. </font color> . <hr /></blockquote> Lately, all you have done is just show that the rich are doing well, and you have yet to show how this negatively impacts the middle to low income people.

You state that rising healthcare and tuition are transfering wealth from the poor to the rich, but you have yet to take a second and think about cost increases to offer those services (would you be so bold as to expect business to take a cut in profit so that costs to the consumer do not increase fairly with the cost to do business). All the tax increases on business get passed right on down to the consumer and you call this transferring wealth from poor to rich. I call it business.

eg8r

eg8r
08-18-2004, 10:25 AM
[ QUOTE ]
This is absurd. <hr /></blockquote> What is it that you disagree with?

eg8r