IGX

our economic system is indefensible. rise up

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive ... insrc=hpma

Before World War I the one percent received around a fifth of total income in both Britain and the United States. By 1950 that share had been cut by more than half. But since 1980 the one percent has seen its income share surge again—and in the United States it’s back to what it was a century ago.

The big idea of Capital in the Twenty-First Century is that we haven’t just gone back to nineteenth-century levels of income inequality, we’re also on a path back to “patrimonial capitalism,” in which the commanding heights of the economy are controlled not by talented individuals but by family dynasties.

Top 1% make slightly less than 20% of income and pay more than 30% of the taxes.

The next 49% pay the other 70% of taxes.

And the bottom 47 to 50% pay zip in income tax.

So what is the problem again?

Work4Welfare programs. Want to feed your babies? Then baby daddy got to go work for the CCC 2.0/ We got repairs to do, we got infrastructure to shore up. We got ditches to dig.

powerlifter54 wrote:Top 1% make slightly less than 20% of income and pay more than 30% of the taxes.

The next 49% pay the other 70% of taxes.

And the bottom 47 to 50% pay zip in income tax.

So what is the problem again?

Those in the bottom 47% don't use enough rubbers and birth control.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_wuFgbymME[/youtube]

And the bottom 47 to 50% pay zip in income tax.

Man, it's a good thing income tax is the sum of all taxes paid by individuals.

Despite not having a state income tax, there are fucktons of taxes in Texas. Including "hidden taxes" like paying for auto inspections.

milosz wrote:

And the bottom 47 to 50% pay zip in income tax.

Man, it's a good thing income tax is the sum of all taxes paid by individuals.

Neither side wants Social Security or Medicare taxes to be called income taxes, even though they are by definition income taxes.

And no matter how you sum up other taxes; sales, car registration, personal property, real estate, city, etc., the bottom half pay less taxes in every way, not even considering payments to the bottom half in the form of WIC, EIC, Food Stamps, Section 8 housing, etc.

So what is the problem again?

Hint: It is not revenue.

and there's this from a recent news report:

The American middle class, long the most affluent in the world, has lost that distinction.

While the wealthiest Americans are outpacing many of their global peers, a New York Times analysis shows that across the lower- and middle-income tiers, citizens of other advanced countries have received considerably larger raises over the last three decades.

After-tax middle-class incomes in Canada — substantially behind in 2000 — now appear to be higher than in the United States.

the issue is not welfare. (why am i not surprised that's where some of you went?)

or income tax.

this is about significantly increasing income inequality produced by recently restructured markets, which are creating economic royalty

Real wages for most US workers have increased little if at all since the early 1970s, but wages for the top one percent of earners have risen 165 percent, and wages for the top 0.1 percent have risen 362 percent.

go out and get Pickety's book. then make up your mind.

238 years ago Americans rejected the idea of being ruled by an aristocracy.

Today, they're okay with it.

dead man walking wrote:

The big idea of Capital in the Twenty-First Century is that we haven’t just gone back to nineteenth-century levels of income inequality, we’re also on a path back to “patrimonial capitalism,” in which the commanding heights of the economy are controlled not by talented individuals but by family dynasties.

By which you mean the Zuckerberg, Gates, and Jobs family dynasties?

powerlifter54 wrote:And no matter how you sum up other taxes; sales, car registration, personal property, real estate, city, etc., the bottom half pay less taxes in every way, not even considering payments to the bottom half in the form of WIC, EIC, Food Stamps, Section 8 housing, etc.

So what is the problem again?

Hint: It is not revenue.

Be careful with that assertion-- the SSI cutoff, variance in tax deferred/free benefits, and ability to take deductions have a big impact.

Turdacious wrote:

dead man walking wrote:

The big idea of Capital in the Twenty-First Century is that we haven’t just gone back to nineteenth-century levels of income inequality, we’re also on a path back to “patrimonial capitalism,” in which the commanding heights of the economy are controlled not by talented individuals but by family dynasties.

By which you mean the Zuckerberg, Gates, and Jobs family dynasties?

Gates yes, but more like the Koches and Waltons too.

If we were serious about reducing inequality we would start by:
1. Reducing medical bankruptcy (no evidence that Obamacare is doing this yet)
2. Reduce the cost of health care (both to individuals and especially to businesses)
3. Return to teaching vo-ced in college and high school
4. Reduce the cost of college
5. Prioritize students over teachers unions
6. Reduce the cost of regulatory compliance (in terms of time and money)

WildGorillaMan wrote:238 years ago Americans rejected the idea of being ruled by an aristocracy.

Today, they're okay with it.

no, we are not ok with it.

but we'll get bogged down arguing about the changes to market structure that are necessary to ensure greater equality, and disagreeing endlessly, we will cede power to the grinning oligarchs

powerlifter54 wrote:And no matter how you sum up other taxes; sales, car registration, personal property, real estate, city, etc., the bottom half pay less taxes

By what percentage? Let's not see it simply as a percentage of total revenue but as a statement of burden for each, say... quintile.

in every way, not even considering payments to the bottom half in the form of WIC, EIC, Food Stamps, Section 8 housing, etc.

What's the total outlay on those four programs?

milosz wrote:

powerlifter54 wrote:And no matter how you sum up other taxes; sales, car registration, personal property, real estate, city, etc., the bottom half pay less taxes

By what percentage? Let's not see it simply as a percentage of total revenue but as a statement of burden for each, say... quintile.

in every way, not even considering payments to the bottom half in the form of WIC, EIC, Food Stamps, Section 8 housing, etc.

What's the total outlay on those four programs?

A mix of data that is from both sides of the debate

https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr12-02.pdf

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3505

http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/15/8-i ... n-tax-day/

But comparing the bottom and top quintile, the bottom total tax burden is 16%. (second lowest is 21%). Top quintile is over 40%. Top 1% is 49%.

So where again is the problem?

We have very high revenues to the treasury, but still running huge deficits. Hmmmmm......

WildGorillaMan wrote:238 years ago Americans rejected the idea of being ruled by an aristocracy.

Today, they're okay with it.

Today we have Internet porn and Facebook.

powerlifter54 wrote:

milosz wrote: A mix of data that is from both sides of the debate

https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr12-02.pdf

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3505

http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/15/8-i ... n-tax-day/

But comparing the bottom and top quintile, the bottom total tax burden is 16%. (second lowest is 21%). Top quintile is over 40%. Top 1% is 49%.

You use tax burden correctly with the bottom two quintiles (courtesy of the CBPP), but the latter two numbers you toss out don't appear anywhere there that I can see

You seem to have not noticed this part:
"In fact, when all taxes are considered, the share of taxes that each fifth of households pays is similar to its share of the nation’s total income.[22] ITEP data show that in 2011, the bottom fifth of households received 3.4 percent of the total income in the nation and paid 2.1 percent of the total taxes. The middle fifth of households received 11.4 percent of income and paid 10.3 percent of taxes. The top 1 percent of households received 21.0 percent of income and paid 21.6 percent of taxes."

We have very high revenues to the treasury, but still running huge deficits. Hmmmmm......

You didn't say how much the four programs you point to actually cost?

Has the performance of the last two or three administrations convinced you saps that we need to give more money & power to the federal government?

Given the options of ceding money and power to a (theoretically) representative body vs. a small group of billionaires and multinationals that owe no allegiance to any nation-state (much less ours), I'll generally choose to get fucked by the (theoretically) representative body. At least it (theoretically) can be changed.

milosz wrote:Given the options of ceding money and power to a (theoretically) representative body vs. a small group of billionaires and multinationals that owe no allegiance to any nation-state (much less ours), I'll generally choose to get fucked by the (theoretically) representative body. At least it (theoretically) can be changed.

How are Mark Zuckerberg one Sergey Brinn fucking anybody? I can think of some ways but they mostly involve collusion with the (supposedly) representative body.

I wonder who is fucking the middle and lower classes more, our new oligarchs or the NEA and AFSCME?

milosz wrote: You didn't say how much the four programs you point to actually cost?

WIC/CNP/SNAP 100+ Billion
HUD 40+B
EIC 56B

Arguably much more than the taxes they pay. Again, if they are poor don't increase their taxes. Help them get a job that is not minimum wage. Even $15 an hour is not a gamechanger and only puts more Obamites on the street.

But we still come back to what exactly is the problem. I know as a Lefty you love to say "Science" like Rain Man but let us try math.

Have done quite a lot but it didn't take long. Because you can't just read a part of the references and actually have to add numbers from various places, you know a word problem. A good place to start to look is the top 2 quintiles and what makes up their tax burden. So look it up, put it together, and then answer the question,

What is the problem again?

DrDonkeyLove wrote: How are Mark Zuckerberg one Sergey Brinn fucking anybody?

^This.

If certain people grow the economic pie and get insanely wealthy as a result, how does that impoverish me?

Instead, worry about the Too Big to Fail institutions that our Gov't has grown.