Occupy Atlanta (ref: Wall Street protests here) (Snellville: foreclosed, sales tax)

[tigers84]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

Or the 1930s-1970s. Those were horrible times for America. No jobs, companies didn't even exist, no one at all was productive, civil unrest everywhere. Man, it must have been bad.

Hmmmm. The 30s were awful and the 40s were pretty tough, what with the war. The 50s were prosperous, and saw the stock market finally reclaim its highs from the late 20s crash. The 60s were the beginning of upheaval and an economic morass that lasted until Reagan came in. Relying on a conservative mandate, he finally got the US going again into what turned out to be a 20 year growth spurt.

Im not really sure your point. Sarcasm? Because taxes were higher at points in time, and we did OK? Specious.

Wwho is to say we couldnt have done MUCH better??? The country survived but it often did not thrive. THRIVING is the goal, Im sure most would agree. Free market capitalism is clearly better at creating new wealth and prosperity than the "bugger thy wealthier neighbor" philosophy of socialistic "OWS" and such.

[Cameron H]

Originally Posted by tigers84

Liberal bias of NYT aside, you dont have any idea about the data behind the chart or how the numbers were "crunched". You are regurgitating because you like what the chart says.

I'm quoting it because the data is relevant to our discussion. If you think the data is inaccurate, please post conflicting data from a different source and we'll compare.

That said, even using YOUR biased chart

Um...why is "MY chart" biased? Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

the top nine percent of earners paid double the tax rate of the lowest quintile, and a third more than the second lowest. Thus the system is progressive ACCORDING TO YOUR (unknown) DATA.

First, these tax burdens are actually regressive at the top of the income range -- the right side of the chart. That doesn't really matter, though, because I posted the chart in response to this claim:

Originally Posted by tigers84

Our system is highly progressive NOW.

And again, I think we'll have to let others decide for themselves whether the tax distribution illustrated in the chart (which is actually REGRESSIVE on the top end) is "highly progressive" or not. If you're unhappy leaving this question to the jury, perhaps we should compare to other developed economies?

Whats telling is that people like me, who are not "rich" per se, still support the current system even though we might, in the short run, benefit from a more "progressive" tax rate. Why? Simple, we recognize the inherent unfairness, thuggery and "wrongness" of the govt essentially being in charge of who makes what and what levels of wealth, or non-wealth are "acceptable". Putting the govt in charge of making the economy "more fair" is like putting a child in charge of handing out the Halloween candy. Disaster awaits.

Yeah, and people like me who benefit from the current historically low tax rates would prefer to see them return to the slightly higher Clinton-era rates because we'd also like to see a return to Clinton-era fiscal responsibility. We all have our crosses to bear.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by tigers84

By any chance do you work for a liberal think tank? (pardon the oxymoron ) Minnesota has some, I would think. (i once lived in Wayzetta/Hopkins.

Based on your postings here, I can see why you moved.

I'm quite familiar with the Hopkins area myself, being a product of Hopkins public schools and all that. It's a nice area. Wayzata, too.

[muxBuppie]

How many of you think your ideas are good long term? Truthfully, do you think your solutions will adress the long term issues that no one wants to address in this thread?

[tigers84]

Originally Posted by Cameron H

I'm quoting it because the data is relevant to our discussion. If you think the data is inaccurate, please post conflicting data from a different source and we'll compare.

The data is relevant... AND you like it.
But Ok, here you go. Not as pretty as your chart. But legitimately sourced from article by Steve Moore in WSJ (7/28/11). His neutral sources are identified

IRS data (for 2008)
- Top 10% of earners (above about $114,000) paid 19% of their income to the USG (federal only).
- Top 1% (above $380,000) paid 23.3%.
- Top 0.1%, with incomes of $2 million or more, pay a slightly lower tax of 22.7%, because more incomecomes from investments
- Median-income household ($35,000) pays 4% of its income in federal income tax.
Congressional Budget Office (2007)
- Middle-class families in 2007 (earning between $34,000 and $50,000) paid 14.3% of their income in all federal taxes.
- The top 5% of income earners paid 27.9% a
- Top 1% paid 29.5%.
- Above $2 million paid an average 32% of their income in federal taxes

Originally Posted by Cameron H

Um...why is "MY chart" biased? Do you have any evidence to support this claim?.

See above.

Originally Posted by Cameron H

First, these tax burdens are actually regressive at the top of the income range -- the right side of the chart. That doesn't really matter, though, because I posted the chart in response to this claim:

So your real beef is that the the next 4 percentile pays SLIGHTLY less than the top 1%..Ok...
We all know why that is. Capital Gains and Dividends are taxed at lower levels because that money has already been taxed multiple times. Plus it incentivizes capital investment and formation. You are for these things, right?

Originally Posted by Cameron H

And again, I think we'll have to let others decide for themselves whether the tax distribution illustrated in the chart (which is actually REGRESSIVE on the top end) is "highly progressive" or not. If you're unhappy leaving this question to the jury, perhaps we should compare to other developed economies?

Yeah, and people like me who benefit from the current historically low tax rates would prefer to see them return to the slightly higher Clinton-era rates because we'd also like to see a return to Clinton-era fiscal responsibility. We all have our crosses to bear.

Really, Sweden, again? For comparison sake, please only use countries of similar scale, very diverse populations with a consumer oriented economy and a history of innovation and entrepreneurship. Good luck!


Why is it liberals think the govt is a better allocator of funds than the person who earns? I mean, hasnt Solyndra and billions wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan taught us anything? Govt is perhaps the WORST allocator of capital there is. We would not have had a housing melt up or down without the govt's involvement.

Let people earn their money and spend it how THEY like. If a particular industry is being TOO successful, get govt out of the way so competitors can enter and push profits down. The market ALWAYS knows best. The Govt doenst know S****!

[tigers84]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

Based on your postings here, I can see why you moved.

I'm quite familiar with the Hopkins area myself, being a product of Hopkins public schools and all that. It's a nice area. Wayzata, too.

Minnie is great. Liberalism is not why I moved.

I lived just off Hwy 7. Worked in downtown. Loved the intown lakes and ubiquitors running trails. Awesome city, politics nothwithstanding.

[muxBuppie]

Originally Posted by tigers84

The data is relevant... AND you like it.
But Ok, here you go. Not as pretty as your chart. But legitimately sourced from article by Steve Moore in WSJ (7/28/11). His neutral sources are identified

IRS data (for 2008)
- Top 10% of earners (above about $114,000) paid 19% of their income to the USG (federal only).
- Top 1% (above $380,000) paid 23.3%.
- Top 0.1%, with incomes of $2 million or more, pay a slightly lower tax of 22.7%, because more incomecomes from investments
- Median-income household ($35,000) pays 4% of its income in federal income tax.
Congressional Budget Office (2007)
- Middle-class families in 2007 (earning between $34,000 and $50,000) paid 14.3% of their income in all federal taxes.
- The top 5% of income earners paid 27.9% a
- Top 1% paid 29.5%.
- Above $2 million paid an average 32% of their income in federal taxes



See above.




So your real beef is that the the next 4 percentile pays SLIGHTLY less than the top 1%..Ok...
We all know why that is. Capital Gains and Dividends are taxed at lower levels because that money has already been taxed multiple times. Plus it incentivizes capital investment and formation. You are for these things, right?




Really, Sweden, again? For comparison sake, please only use countries of similar scale, very diverse populations with a consumer oriented economy and a history of innovation and entrepreneurship. Good luck!


Why is it liberals think the govt is a better allocator of funds than the person who earns? I mean, hasnt Solyndra and billions wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan taught us anything? Govt is perhaps the WORST allocator of capital there is. We would not have had a housing melt up or down without the govt's involvement.

Let people earn their money and spend it how THEY like. If a particular industry is being TOO successful, get govt out of the way so competitors can enter and push profits down. The market ALWAYS knows best. The Govt doenst know S****!

I'm big enough to admit this was a good post.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by tigers84

Let people earn their money and spend it how THEY like. If a particular industry is being TOO successful, get govt out of the way so competitors can enter and push profits down. The market ALWAYS knows best. The Govt doenst know S****!

Wow... So you want to encourage companies to monopolize a market and push everyone else down the tubes like Standard Oil, Ma Bell, IBM in the 70's, Microsoft in the 90's and today, etc.?

Modern day robber barons working outside existing law are okay with you?

[muxBuppie]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

Wow... So you want to encourage companies to monopolize a market and push everyone else down the tubes like Standard Oil, Ma Bell, IBM in the 70's, Microsoft in the 90's and today, etc.?

Modern day robber barons working outside existing law are okay with you?

Bell was a government supported monopoly. Those other companies are giants in their industry but weren't 100% of the market.

[Cameron H]

Originally Posted by tigers84

IRS data (for 2008)
- Top 10% of earners (above about $114,000) paid 19% of their income to the USG (federal only).
- Top 1% (above $380,000) paid 23.3%.
- Top 0.1%, with incomes of $2 million or more, pay a slightly lower tax of 22.7%, because more incomecomes from investments
- Median-income household ($35,000) pays 4% of its income in federal income tax.

Yeah, given that this is for federal taxes, it would seem to match up pretty well with my pretty chart. I'm glad our sources agree. Of course, our tax system isn't limited to federal taxes, and it's the state and local taxes that are most regressive. That's precisely why I quarelled with your assertion that our tax system is highly progressive.

So your real beef is that the the next 4 percentile pays SLIGHTLY less than the top 1%..Ok...

I don't have a "beef." My claim is that the regressivity at the upper end of the income scale is a rather obvious counterpoint to your claim that our tax system is "highly progressive." That will still be my claim no matter how many times you try to change it into something else you'd rather argue against.

I've said before and I'll say it again: I'd like taxes to be as low as possible while still providing our government the revenue it needs to provide the public goods and services we want. That revenue was sufficient by the late 1990s. Then we passed a temporary tax cut that blew a hole in our balance sheet, so now we should let that temporary tax cut expire.

Of course, you're certainly free to try to convince the majority of Americans that they should desire far fewer public goods and services than they currently do in order to sustain historically low tax rates on corporations and billionaires. You have a lot of work to do, and I wish you ill luck and every misfortune.