How very presidential. Awe inspiring preformance.

[BigBallinStalin]

... Taxing the evil rich to pay down the debt is nothing but smoke & mirrors meant to maintain / increase class envy and redistribute earned wealth. It is socialist idealogy, plain and simple.

... Taxing everyone in the US who makes over 500K a year, at 100%, would take something like a thousand years plus to pay off the last 2 years of federal spending. ... so why are we targetting the "millionaires and billionaires"? ...

... See paragraph 1.

...

We need to BOTH cut taxes and spending, but the point is that for the last 30 years, the wealthiest have been getting huge benefits and not paying much at all, compared to everyone else.

The Tea Party pretends to be about cutting taxes for the average people, but in truth is nothing more than another bash at keeping the wealthiest in charge and in power. Its little difference from Reagan's "trickle down" rhetoric. At least then, politicians knew they were being dupes. Now, it seems many lack even that sense.

What's sad is that you can actually say that with a straight face. The top 51% of income earners pay 100% of the income taxes. Yes, every single tax dollar comes from rich people! That means they ARE paying their fair share. Furthermore, every single dollar paid for working a job also comes from rich people. You don't get jobs from poor people. If we're going to keep this income tax system, every person needs to pay a minimum of 1% of their income in taxes. Even if that income comes from welfare or other government bribes.

Every time you cite that statistic I am going to post this graph. Also, yet again, every time you cite that statistic I will remind you that it is only the FEDERAL INCOME TAX. As you love to complain, there are plenty more other taxes.


The United States is in a state of a ridiculous wealth and income disparity. You however relent on trying to sink the middle and working class while giving more and more to the wealthy. And the weaker the middle class gets the more you insist on giving the rich in tax cuts, the more the deficit grows, the more the cries for spending cuts and the worse the situation is for the middle class.

1) Those are only statistical categories, which fail to describe individuals and their movement along the categories

2) Of course, people who have less would love to have more, so the bottom one is not surprising and pointless.

3) Even if the disparity rate is "high," it doesn't mean much if it's not compared to anything. At what point should there be a serious cause for concern? You'd have to compare the disparity rate of income across many nations and compare that to each nation's well-being. Without that comparison, your graphs don't mean much.

4) Certain groups may have a higher proportion, but if the middle and lower classes can live suitable lives with a lesser proportion (yet substantial amount for what it buys), does it matter? No, because it's not that bad in the US as the graph portrays. Your data only looks at proportions while ignoring real income and purchasing power.

5) Solutions that aim to achieve that bottom depiction will most likely be problematic since that process would involve massive wealth redistribution via state intervention. When one interrupts the incentives to earn money by merely shoveling wealth towards the bottom, will the US' economy fare as well in the long-term? No, especially when such policies would encourage businesses to leave; decrease employment opportunities; and decrease the incentive to earn more (as a more significant portion is stolen via taxation as one earns more).

Surely, there's more involved, so it becomes a complicated issue; however, my main point is that people shouldn't look at that graph and immediately start pulling their hair out until they understand the meaning of those statistics and understand the consequences of implementing wealth redistribution (which the graph implies with the last one).


EDIT: If one really wants to help poor people, then the two most effective and important factors are increasing people's real income and purchasing power. The proportions don't matter if one can still purchase basic necessities while living comfortably. The US economy is exceptional, and its State's comparatively contain the least "poor" people in the world.

[Woodruff]

Umm, no, I don't consider the top 51% to be rich. I'm saying the top 51% are paying ALL of the taxes, so the other 49% need to stop trying to tax everybody else. How can a country survive when only half (and soon to be less than half) of its citizens are paying taxes? It can't. Once the bottom 49% are paying a minimum of 1% of their income in federal income taxes, then we can start discussing taxes on the "rich".

You might want to update your statistics: http://www.politicususa.com/en/jp-morgan-middle-class?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politicus+USA+%29

[PLAYER57832]

Thanks Woodruff, I am posting an excerpt because I know most people won't go to the link:

Each and every time the federal government reduces taxes on the wealthiest in this country, that translates to lower state aid from the federal government. The states increase sales tax then push the burden onto the local towns and cities by cutting local aid from the state capitols that help fund schools, build roads etc. This then translates to reduced police, firemen, teachers, parks and senior centers, and/or higher property taxes on the small business owners and middle class homeowners.

In a recent report in a JP Morgan memo to their investors from Michael Cembalest, the chief investment officer he says, “US labor compensation is now at a 50-year low relative to both company sales and US GDP.” Cembalest continues to explain why corporate profits are so strong while the rest of the working class are feeling the pinch, “reductions in wages and benefits explain the majority of the net improvement in margins.” 75% of the increase in profit margins directly correlate with the reduction in workers’ wages.

Why are your Republican friends aggravated? They aren’t getting paid their fair share of the national GDP and economic growth and they are paying an increased burden of the taxation in this country. Think about this, as you work harder for a company and productivity increases, you’re not seeing your share of the profits you helped the company earn.

If you remember the report earlier this year that 50% of American do not pay taxes?

Well that turns out to be first and foremost a cherry picked piece of data. That is directly from 2009, when more people were unemployed, President Obama’s tax cuts for working families etc. In any other year that number hovers around 35%.

So the next time you have a discussion with a working class Republican, ask them when is the last time they heard their candidate(s) ever mentioned American wages being on the decline.

Then you tell them that it is the GOP that fights against raising the minimum wage and organized labor and ultimately fights against your economic interests. The Republican tell us that raising the minimum wage will cause an increase in prices. Sure this could happen, unless you don’t believe in competition in the free market

[Phatscotty]

each and every time taxes are cut, government revenues are increased

[WILLIAMS5232]

the voters have spoken.....

[GreecePwns]

Phatscotty, what is the Laffer Curve? Furthermore, how would you interpret this quote?

"You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one."
-Andrew Samwick, who was Chief Economist on Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003-2004

[Phatscotty]

Phatscotty, what is the Laffer Curve? Furthermore, how would you interpret this quote?

"You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one."
-Andrew Samwick, who was Chief Economist on Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003-2004

Why are you asking me easy questions.

Reagan cut taxes from 70% to 28%, (I thinkz Lafferz wuz in therez somewherez) and revenues soared.

as for your quote, get that political rubbish outta my face while I go take a shower to wash the smell off. Wow, is he telling people how to think or what. I think it's BS because gov't revenues went up almost every single year. They used the military spending as GDP growth and created separate sets of books. Everything the Neo-Con Republicans did back then was hogwash oil painting and snake oil salesmen.

[GreecePwns]

If you knew anything about what the Laffer curve was, you would not say "each and every time taxes are cut, government revenues are increased."

[Phatscotty]

If you knew anything about what the Laffer curve was, you would not say "each and every time taxes are cut, government revenues are increased."

well yes at a certain point they don't, outside the googled image of a Laffer Curve. When was the last time that happened though? Why would we consider that?

I will restate, each and every time taxes have been cut in the last 40 years, revenues have increased.

And just drop you gig of fantasizing like I don't know what the LAffer curve is. I find that insulting

You tax something more, you get less of it. You cut taxes on something, you will get more of it. (up to a certain point!!!!!)

[GreecePwns]

http://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/2010/ ... xeECpG.png

As you can see at the tail end of the graph, the Bush tax cuts resulted in decreased tax revenue as a percent of GDP. Must you make it this easy?

Also, can we agree this is a Laffer curve?



Can we agree that moving from the tax rate that corresponds with the equlibrium point to that which corresponds with Point A results in less tax revenue? Can we also agree that both points are in the image, as well as any other laffer curve you'll find in a google image search?

[Phatscotty]

Can we agree 9-11 changed things? All the reactions to 9-11? Financial? Fed policy? Interest rates? Liquidity?

I will give you "Go out shopping and buy stuff" did not work that year.

[PLAYER57832]

I see, and according to you all the increases in revenue in the 80's and early 90's was due to tax decreases, not the dot com boom, Alaskan oil or any thing else?

[GreecePwns]

"each and every time taxes are cut, government revenues are increased"

Can we agree this statement is incorrect?

[patches70]

http://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/2010/08/xtotal-tax-revenue.png.pagespeed.ic.PJEixeECpG.png

As you can see at the tail end of the graph, the Bush tax cuts resulted in decreased tax revenue as a percent of GDP. Must you make it this easy?

Also, can we agree this is a Laffer curve?



Can we agree that moving from the tax rate that corresponds with the equlibrium point to that which corresponds with Point A results in less tax revenue? Can we also agree that both points are in the image, as well as any other laffer curve you'll find in a google image search?

The thing you have to remember about the Laffer curve is that "equilibrium point" does not necessarily =50%.

There is an ideal tax rate that gets the maximum revenue without burdening the tax payers into hardship.

That rate is around 20%.

If one taxes too little there is not enough money to fund what needs to be. If it is too high then the people suffer hardships and they begin to hide wealth or have no more to be taken, thus reducing revenue.

This ideal point works well during times of plenty and times of famine.

It was the Pharaoh of Egypt a very long time ago who learned this lesson. Joseph advised the Pharaoh to take 1/5 in tax during the 7 fat years, and that was enough to provide and make Egypt rich and wealthy during the 7 lean years. The Pharaoh took 1/5 during both the fat and lean years.

By not taking too much during the good years the people did not mind paying the taxes and paid them honestly for they were left with plenty for themselves and their families.
During the lean years, the people were not burdened with extra taxes and they still were able to keep enough to get them through. Though Pharaoh still took 1/5 the nominal amount taken was not as much as during the fat years.

But during the fat years Pharaoh made so much and had to pay out so little because he left the people with all they needed so as to not require the help of the God-King. His stores of grain grew overflowing.

During the lean years, he did not take as much overall, as the crop yields were lower, but Pharaoh had so much in reserve that not only could he help those who did not have enough, but all the nations of the world were suffering during the lean years and came to Egypt to buy grain.

Thus Egypt grew to be mighty and wealthy and did not harm her people with excessive taxes.


Same principle still applies today.

You can see how the curve goes down after a certain point. What the curve doesn't tell you is why that is. If you get X amount of revenue from a 20% rate then you should get X+10% if you raised it to 30%. But at some point that does not work.

When you explore why it doesn't work then you start ti figure out the equilibrium point. And that point is far below 50%.....

Could you imagine giving away half of all your money in taxes? Imagine that. How many could get by without hardship if half of all they made is taken?

[GreecePwns]

Well patches that had very little to do with what I wrote, and I agree with most of it being that its just basic fact. I'm just pointing out the obvious lack of knowledge Scotty has when it comes to basic economics and logic.

I just want to know where you got that 20 percent from. Also, Many nations have take-home pay at around 50 percent. I can think of France, Germany and Belgium off the top of my head.

[patches70]

I just want to know where you got that 20 percent from.

Well, economists rarely ever agree on anything, but the 20% comes from The Adam Smith Institute as probably the most recent, but the idea of 20% being about the best has been around for a long time.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (an agency of the Department of Commerce) puts the optimal tax rate at around 28%.

Hayek would probably say in the 20% ranges would be optimal. I'll have to look around at some of my stuff to find the real example I'm thinking of.

It is also something to note that your laffer curve pictured is a symmetrical curve, there are non-symmetrical laffer curves as well. Seems there are always economists who disagree.

Also, Many nations have take-home pay at around 50 percent. I can think of France, Germany and Belgium off the top of my head.

Yeah, and how is the economy of the EU doing right now......

Heh heh.

It's good that the Germans and French are giving up half their pay (if that is indeed true), countries like Greece, Italy, Ireland and Spain are going to need that money soon! Greece needs that money now actually.....

[Woodruff]

How many could get by without hardship if half of all they made is taken?

Also, Many nations have take-home pay at around 50 percent. I can think of France, Germany and Belgium off the top of my head.

Yeah, and how is the economy of the EU doing right now......

He was simply pointing out that the answer to your question regarding hardship wasn't really what you seemed to believe it was.

[PLAYER57832]

Also, Many nations have take-home pay at around 50 percent. I can think of France, Germany and Belgium off the top of my head.

Yeah, and how is the economy of the EU doing right now......

Heh heh.

It's good that the Germans and French are giving up half their pay (if that is indeed true), countries like Greece, Italy, Ireland and Spain are going to need that money soon! Greece needs that money now actually.....

If you take into account health insurance, then a LOT of folks in the US are paying more than 50%. , particularly if you take the amount that the employers are paying toward employee health insurance, co-payments, other stuff covered overseas, but not here.

[GreecePwns]

Player is correct. You don't account for what they get for paying 50 percent rather than 33 percent. With that 17 percent comes, in France comes healthcare, education including college tuition and even in some cases graduate level, a retirement age of 62 with social security benefits far surpassing ours, umemployment benefits far surpassing ours, etc. etc. We could have a similar system without having to pay 50 percent of our taxes, but instead we throw our money at corporate welfare and three wars in a decade.

[Phatscotty]

Well patches that had very little to do with what I wrote, and I agree with most of it being that its just basic fact. I'm just pointing out the obvious lack of knowledge Scotty has when it comes to basic economics and logic.

I just want to know where you got that 20 percent from. Also, Many nations have take-home pay at around 50 percent. I can think of France, Germany and Belgium off the top of my head.

HAHAHA! Dont ask loaded questions.

I know where he got that 20% from. (18%-20% to be exact? patches) I guess now is it time for me to state Greece has little actual knowledge in basic economics?

Like your Laffer curve graphic is the only one or only kind. Laffer is the fucking man! Now if I could only get a clue about Ayn Rand.

[GreecePwns]

"each and every time taxes are cut, government revenues are increased"

Can we agree this statement is incorrect?

This is the point I was trying to make. That statement is incorrect. Your statement that the point at which tax decreases result in decreased revenue outside of a traditional (symmetrical or not) Laffer curve is incorrect.

Also, the Adam Smith report was on capital gains taxes, not income taxes. So your 20 percent figure is incorrect.

[Phatscotty]

"each and every time taxes are cut, government revenues are increased"

Can we agree this statement is incorrect?

This is the point I was trying to make. Also, the Adam Smith report was on capital gains taxes, not income taxes. So your 20 percent figure is incorrect.

why don't you point out where it is incorrect?

[GreecePwns]

I did, but you decided that you'd throw in some other conditions that that statement does not entail. Not only that, but you claimed 9/11 changed everything, but the data I pointed to was from 2005-2010.

http://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/2010/ ... xeECpG.png

Your statment goes against basic, second-day-of-an-Econ-101-course knowledge.

Also, if you want to look at a more recent study, this conservative group pegs the optimal corporate tax rate to be closer to 30 percent than 20. Granted that is not for the US, but for OECD nations as a whole.

[Timminz]

each and every time taxes are cut, government revenues are increased

Oh snap! You almost got me to take your quote about homosexuality rates out of my sig. This is damn-near as stupid, but not quite.

[PLAYER57832]

[

EDIT: If one really wants to help poor people, then the two most effective and important factors are increasing people's real income and purchasing power. The proportions don't matter if one can still purchase basic necessities while living comfortably. The US economy is exceptional, and its State's comparatively contain the least "poor" people in the world.

This is true, except that the only reason many working people are able to afford what they need is government subsidies. That means you and I, are paying for those low company wages. That, on top of the direct gifts corporations get and its no wonder that the wealthy keep getting wealthier, while we get poorer.. and their taxes drop.

Increasing people's real income means ensuring that companies, not individuals have to pay real costs like those for pollution, damage to people's property, etc. When you add in the absolute minimal value we place on land for food and food production, and the fact that food production is projected to be limited... and if you take the water situation on top of that (which is even worse), then you see why our economy is in trouble. its not taxes, its greed and the idea that as long as someone plops down some money, it balances out whatever harm they do.