Mine is from this year too, but it says the opposite than yours. Do you realize that your article is wrong and biased?Kmarion wrote:
Do realize you quoted an article that used the same exact source for the stats (The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, )? Yours was just older.sergeriver wrote:
I don't know why but I don't trust the Treasury Department.
Last edited by sergeriver (2007-12-19 09:25:32)
If you don't include the entire picture you are just spinning the numbers.PureFodder wrote:
The moderately rich can become the very rich, let's all break out the champagne. Unfotunately the rest of society are getting poorer.Kmarion wrote:
Do realize you quoted an article that used the same exact source for the stats (The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, )? Yours was just older.sergeriver wrote:
I don't know why but I don't trust the Treasury Department.Did you skip half the article? It addressed this theory. The systems show that we have "upward mobility" in our society. If it only favored the rich, and the poor and middle class were getting hammered with the tax burden there wouldn't be so many people leaving the lower classes joining the higher ranks.san4 wrote:
This is correct. Give the wealthiest people a greater share of all the income that is earned and the wealthiest people will pay a greater share of the overall income taxes paid.
Over the Bush years there has been a 2.8% drop in the median wage. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer on the back of a growing economy.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv … 009459.php
Is this supposed to be a counter? Of course I realized it's biased. Hence the bold underlining in the OP. But trying to counter with the same source (using older numbers) while saying my source is inaccurate is nothing but silly. Throw the commentary out and just look at the numbers.sergeriver wrote:
Mine is from this year too, but it says the opposite than yours. Do you realize that your article is wrong and biased?Kmarion wrote:
Do realize you quoted an article that used the same exact source for the stats (The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, )? Yours was just older.sergeriver wrote:
I don't know why but I don't trust the Treasury Department.
Why older numbers? The NY Times article is from 2007 too. And it explains why the rich people are paying more taxes, because they are making much more money, and the poor are making much less. Read it. Your title makes look Bush like Robin Hood.Kmarion wrote:
Is this supposed to be a counter. Of course I realized it's biased. Hence the bold underlining in the OP. But trying to counter with the same source (using older number) while saying my source is inaccurate is nothing but silly.sergeriver wrote:
Mine is from this year too, but it says the opposite than yours. Do you realize that your article is wrong and biased?Kmarion wrote:
Do realize you quoted an article that used the same exact source for the stats (The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, )? Yours was just older.
Last edited by sergeriver (2007-12-19 09:56:08)
I fuckin hate Bush for more reasons than one. But your hate for him has made you incapable of seeing anything positive. Even when the numbers are staring you in the eye. My report is from last week. Yes the rich are doing better.... and more and more people are elevating their status, unemployment is extremely low, inflation is in check, and the stock market is soaring.sergeriver wrote:
Why older numbers? The NY Times article is from 2007 too. And it explains why the rich people are paying more taxes, because they are making much more money, and the poor are making much less. Read it. Your title makes look Bush like Robin Hood.Kmarion wrote:
Is this supposed to be a counter. Of course I realized it's biased. Hence the bold underlining in the OP. But trying to counter with the same source (using older number) while saying my source is inaccurate is nothing but silly.sergeriver wrote:
Mine is from this year too, but it says the opposite than yours. Do you realize that your article is wrong and biased?
I think he is a bad president, that's all. If you think that the fact that rich people is richer now, and poor people is poorer is a good thing, then you are right, this is a possitive thing.Kmarion wrote:
I fuckin hate Bush for more reasons than one. But your hate for him has made you incapable of seeing anything positive. Even when the numbers are staring you in the eye. My report is from last week. Yes the rich are doing better.... and more and more people are elevating their status, unemployment is extremely low, inflation is in check, and the stock market is soaring.sergeriver wrote:
Why older numbers? The NY Times article is from 2007 too. And it explains why the rich people are paying more taxes, because they are making much more money, and the poor are making much less. Read it. Your title makes look Bush like Robin Hood.Kmarion wrote:
Is this supposed to be a counter. Of course I realized it's biased. Hence the bold underlining in the OP. But trying to counter with the same source (using older number) while saying my source is inaccurate is nothing but silly.
Revenue is at the highest it has ever been also. If Bush was an actual conservative he wouldn't be spending it like a mad man though .
That's not the case. If you look at the numbers yourself and not the NYT ( a day to day Bush Basher) you can judge for yourself.sergeriver wrote:
I think he is a bad president, that's all. If you think that the fact that rich people is richer now, and poor people is poorer is a good thing, then you are right, this is a possitive thing.Kmarion wrote:
I fuckin hate Bush for more reasons than one. But your hate for him has made you incapable of seeing anything positive. Even when the numbers are staring you in the eye. My report is from last week. Yes the rich are doing better.... and more and more people are elevating their status, unemployment is extremely low, inflation is in check, and the stock market is soaring.sergeriver wrote:
Why older numbers? The NY Times article is from 2007 too. And it explains why the rich people are paying more taxes, because they are making much more money, and the poor are making much less. Read it. Your title makes look Bush like Robin Hood.
Revenue is at the highest it has ever been also. If Bush was an actual conservative he wouldn't be spending it like a mad man though .
That is the biggest point. I am in the lower half of th middle class <$75000 per year. I have 3 kids. My taxes were cut in half when Bush made his changes. So the arguement that the Rich are paying has a lot to do with the fact that I and many others - especially parents - are paying much less.Kmarion wrote:
An editorial from the WSJ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html
Per the IRS
http://i9.tinypic.com/819lggj.gif
Every Democrat running for President wants to raise taxes on "the rich," but they will have to do something miraculous to outtax President Bush. Based on the latest available tax data, no Administration in modern history has done more to pry tax revenue from the wealthy.One explanation is that the Bush tax cuts reduced the income tax liability of middle and lower income households by more proportionately than the rich. The average family of four with an income of $40,000 saw its income tax liability fall by about $2,052 a year from the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.
Here you go the numbers.Kmarion wrote:
That's not the case. If you look at the numbers yourself and not the NYT ( a day to day Bush Basher) you can judge for yourself.sergeriver wrote:
I think he is a bad president, that's all. If you think that the fact that rich people is richer now, and poor people is poorer is a good thing, then you are right, this is a possitive thing.Kmarion wrote:
I fuckin hate Bush for more reasons than one. But your hate for him has made you incapable of seeing anything positive. Even when the numbers are staring you in the eye. My report is from last week. Yes the rich are doing better.... and more and more people are elevating their status, unemployment is extremely low, inflation is in check, and the stock market is soaring.
Revenue is at the highest it has ever been also. If Bush was an actual conservative he wouldn't be spending it like a mad man though .
This is from the Congressional Budget Office, although it's posetd in the NY Times. Oh, and it's 4 days old too.NY Times wrote:
The increase in incomes of the top 1 percent of Americans from 2003 to 2005 exceeded the total income of the poorest 20 percent of Americans, data in a new report by the Congressional Budget Office shows.
The poorest fifth of households had total income of $383.4 billion in 2005, while just the increase in income for the top 1 percent came to $524.8 billion, a figure 37 percent higher.
The total income of the top 1.1 million households was $1.8 trillion, or 18.1 percent of the total income of all Americans, up from 14.3 percent of all income in 2003. The total 2005 income of the three million individual Americans at the top was roughly equal to that of the bottom 166 million Americans, analysis of the report showed.
The report is the latest to document the growing concentration of income at the top, a trend that President Bush said last January had been under way for more than 25 years.
Earlier reports, based on tax returns, showed that in 2005 the top 10 percent, top 1 percent and fractions of the top 1 percent enjoyed their greatest share of income since 1928 and 1929.
NY Times wrote:
At every income level Americans had more income, after adjusting for inflation in 2005 than in 2003, but the increases ranged from almost imperceptible for the poor to modest for the middle class and largest for those at the top.
It says everyone is getting richer, just the top earners are getting richer more quickly. Which makes perfect sense, when you look at ability to invest sufficiently in positive-rate-of-return investments. The more excess income you have, the more you have to invest, the more money you make on your investments, the more you increase your net worth.NY Times also wrote:
Much of the increase at the top reflected the rebound of the stock market after its sharp drop in 2000, economists from across the political spectrum said. About half of the income going to the top 1 percent comes from investments and business.
Last edited by FEOS (2007-12-19 10:23:37)
While the income has not increased, the taxation did decrease as I mentioned earlier. The tax cut bush made helped th lowest of the low, especially those with kids.sergeriver wrote:
Here you go the numbers.Kmarion wrote:
That's not the case. If you look at the numbers yourself and not the NYT ( a day to day Bush Basher) you can judge for yourself.sergeriver wrote:
I think he is a bad president, that's all. If you think that the fact that rich people is richer now, and poor people is poorer is a good thing, then you are right, this is a possitive thing.This is from the Congressional Budget Office, although it's posetd in the NY Times. Oh, and it's 4 days old too.NY Times wrote:
The increase in incomes of the top 1 percent of Americans from 2003 to 2005 exceeded the total income of the poorest 20 percent of Americans, data in a new report by the Congressional Budget Office shows.
The poorest fifth of households had total income of $383.4 billion in 2005, while just the increase in income for the top 1 percent came to $524.8 billion, a figure 37 percent higher.
The total income of the top 1.1 million households was $1.8 trillion, or 18.1 percent of the total income of all Americans, up from 14.3 percent of all income in 2003. The total 2005 income of the three million individual Americans at the top was roughly equal to that of the bottom 166 million Americans, analysis of the report showed.
The report is the latest to document the growing concentration of income at the top, a trend that President Bush said last January had been under way for more than 25 years.
Earlier reports, based on tax returns, showed that in 2005 the top 10 percent, top 1 percent and fractions of the top 1 percent enjoyed their greatest share of income since 1928 and 1929.
Beat me to it..lolFEOS wrote:
Please explain how this article says the poor are getting poorer. It doesn't.It says everyone is getting richer, just the top earners are getting richer more quickly. Which makes perfect sense, when you look at ability to invest sufficiently in positive-rate-of-return investments. The more excess income you have, the more you have to invest, the more money you make on your investments, the more you increase your net worth.NY Times wrote:
At every income level Americans had more income, after adjusting for inflation in 2005 than in 2003, but the increases ranged from almost imperceptible for the poor to modest for the middle class and largest for those at the top.
Negative, look at the numbers yourself. The economy has grown on nearly every possible level. That doesn't happen when the majority of the population is spiraling into economic peril.sergeriver wrote:
Read both articles and if you fail to acknowledge that the gap is getting wider, then it's not my problem.
Socialism, a doctrine born in Europe, struck very deep roots. The collective takes priority over the individual. The European social contract amounts to this: We will not let the talented rise too high, and we will not let the lazy fall too low. "Equality" doesn't mean equal opportunities, but equal limitations.
For Americans, freedom means the freedom to do: To make our own way, to struggle, achieve, to rise (to climb social, educational or economic ladders), to move beyond our parents' lot in life and give our children better chances still.
We are products of the immigrant spirit and the pioneer mentality. Our ancestors (as well as today's new immigrants) dared to take a chance, instead of remaining in the "old country," with its degrading social and economic systems.
The Europeans with whom we must deal today are those whose ancestors lacked the courage to pack their bags and board the ships in Hamburg or Antwerp or Danzig. They chose a miserable security over hope that carried risks.
The American Revolution was entrepreneurial and constructive. The French Revolution was vengeful and destructive. Even during the Great Depression, when extremist ideologies achieved their greatest popularity in the United States, nothing approaching a majority of Americans signed up for any totalitarian creed of either the right or left. In the words of Huey Long, who for all his faults spoke for the average Joe, we never stopped believing in the possibility of "every man a king."
Europeans are content with "every man a servant," as long as the terms of service are not too severe and the position comes with job security. Hitler did not cement his hold on power with anti-Semitism - that was an add-on - but with works projects, with jobs for Germans, with a promise of economic security, however low the level.
The Bolsheviks never preached liberty. Their credo was the nanny state, a "fair share" for the workers and the promise that decisions would be made "for the good of all."
We elevate the individual; Europeans worship the group. We dream. Europeans fear. Indeed, the only belief that has been pronounced dead more often than religion is the American dream. Professors write its obituary almost daily. The rest of us live it.
Life isn't fair, of course. But too much enforced "fairness" robs life of its vitality. We Americans live in the one country where each of us, regardless of race or religion, has the chance to realize our potential. Reaching that potential is up to us. But our laws and our culture don't stand in our way.
There are, of course, many further differences between us and the Europeans, but the greatest other distinction relates to the first: American is the land of second chances. And of third, fourth and fifth chances, if only we have the gumption to seize them.
In Europe, there's little provision for late bloomers. The placement tests the student takes as a teenager determine his or her academic, economic and social fate to an extent that would spark another revolution in America.
Here, attending Harvard is no guarantee that you'll succeed in life - it just gives you a head start out of the gate. On the other hand, beginning your academic career at a community college doesn't mean you can't climb to the highest income levels.
Europeans accept their fates. Americans make their own.
The argument has been for years that the tax cuts only benefit the rich.Spearhead wrote:
I don't really see the point of this thread... of course the rich will pay more taxes if they get richer.
Both articles show the gap is greater. And as for the economy, do you know that all this growth you're talking about has a huge deficit behind? Nothing is free.Kmarion wrote:
Negative, look at the numbers yourself. The economy has grown on nearly every possible level. That doesn't happen when the majority of the population is spiraling into economic peril.
Yeah... IDK. I was under the impression that if you make more money, you pay more taxes. So its possible that even though the rich have been getting tax cuts, they've been getting so much more wealthy that they end up paying more taxes anyway. I could be wrong though.Kmarion wrote:
The argument has been for years that the tax cuts only benefit the rich.Spearhead wrote:
I don't really see the point of this thread... of course the rich will pay more taxes if they get richer.
You are right dude.Spearhead wrote:
Yeah... IDK. I was under the impression that if you make more money, you pay more taxes. So its possible that even though the rich have been getting tax cuts, they've been getting so much more wealthy that they end up paying more taxes anyway. I could be wrong though.Kmarion wrote:
The argument has been for years that the tax cuts only benefit the rich.Spearhead wrote:
I don't really see the point of this thread... of course the rich will pay more taxes if they get richer.
The trade deficit and the federal deficit are two different things. As I said before, since we are talking about taxes here, revenues are the highest they have ever been. Despite tax cuts. Why? Because the tax cuts have given people more disposable income and they have in turn reinvested the money into the economy. It's really basic stuff.sergeriver wrote:
Both articles show the gap is greater. And as for the economy, do you know that all this growth you're talking about has a huge deficit behind? Nothing is free.Kmarion wrote:
Negative, look at the numbers yourself. The economy has grown on nearly every possible level. That doesn't happen when the majority of the population is spiraling into economic peril.
They have been getting tax cuts.. and more and more people below them have had the impact reflect upon them. These things take time to filter through. The evidence of positive impacts are now starting to show. If the non rich have been screwed over by taxes (which they haven't) how could it be they are moving up in economic status?sergeriver wrote:
You are right dude.Spearhead wrote:
Yeah... IDK. I was under the impression that if you make more money, you pay more taxes. So its possible that even though the rich have been getting tax cuts, they've been getting so much more wealthy that they end up paying more taxes anyway. I could be wrong though.Kmarion wrote:
The argument has been for years that the tax cuts only benefit the rich.
An increasing gap between poor and rich (with both increasing to varying degrees) does not equate to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. It equates to the rich getting richer and the poor getting richer...just at different rates.sergeriver wrote:
Both articles show the gap is greater. And as for the economy, do you know that all this growth you're talking about has a huge deficit behind? Nothing is free.Kmarion wrote:
Negative, look at the numbers yourself. The economy has grown on nearly every possible level. That doesn't happen when the majority of the population is spiraling into economic peril.
And that is precisely where we are now. Some people lack the foresight to be able to see the long term effects.FEOS wrote:
An increasing gap between poor and rich (with both increasing to varying degrees) does not equate to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. It equates to the rich getting richer and the poor getting richer...just at different rates.sergeriver wrote:
Both articles show the gap is greater. And as for the economy, do you know that all this growth you're talking about has a huge deficit behind? Nothing is free.Kmarion wrote:
Negative, look at the numbers yourself. The economy has grown on nearly every possible level. That doesn't happen when the majority of the population is spiraling into economic peril.
The Economist thinks there's no growth.Kmarion wrote:
The trade deficit and the federal deficit are two different things. As I said before, since we are talking about taxes here, revenues are the highest they have ever been. Despite tax cuts. Why? Because the tax cuts have given people more disposable income and they have in turn reinvested the money into the economy. It's really basic stuff.sergeriver wrote:
Both articles show the gap is greater. And as for the economy, do you know that all this growth you're talking about has a huge deficit behind? Nothing is free.Kmarion wrote:
Negative, look at the numbers yourself. The economy has grown on nearly every possible level. That doesn't happen when the majority of the population is spiraling into economic peril.
Rightsergeriver wrote:
The Economist thinks there's no growth.Kmarion wrote:
The trade deficit and the federal deficit are two different things. As I said before, since we are talking about taxes here, revenues are the highest they have ever been. Despite tax cuts. Why? Because the tax cuts have given people more disposable income and they have in turn reinvested the money into the economy. It's really basic stuff.sergeriver wrote:
Both articles show the gap is greater. And as for the economy, do you know that all this growth you're talking about has a huge deficit behind? Nothing is free.
http://www.economist.com/countries/USA/ … mic%20Data
