U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-22-2012, 01:52 PM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,218 posts, read 6,756,873 times
Reputation: 2033

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
No. 1944? No. The links cite statistics.
I can't see them on my work computer if they are in fact there. Perhaps you can link me to where the statistics are because I don't see any.

Quote:
No. I said demonizing the wealthy does not uplift the poor. The recent shift in income and wealth away from the wealthy proves it. Is the U.S. economy better off now that the wealthy have a lower share of income and wealth? You yourself admitted that no, it is not.
What are you talking about? The wealthy are wealthier.... Inequality has been steadily rising.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-22-2012, 02:04 PM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,218 posts, read 6,756,873 times
Reputation: 2033
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
I already did here:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/25737257-post19.html

I know the point. The poster did not provide proof of the point. The poster provided a biased opinion and an unsubstantiated "chart."
It seems to me your charts are looking at two different things. His chart is looking at taxes as a % of income while yours is taxes paid minus transfers received. But that's awesome how you conclude his opinion is bias and his chart is unsubstantiated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2012, 02:11 PM
 
36,258 posts, read 15,881,693 times
Reputation: 8232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Think4Yourself View Post
Then put some links out there, big boy, rather then calling people names. The facts are the facts, they are not open to interpretation and who pays what taxes is a simple mathematical operation. One which is completely detailed in links at the OP. Because it is a math problem there is a simple right or wrong answer and it isn't up for debate or opinion.

Honestly, I'm not surprised you're a conservative and that you're unable to read a simple chart.



Also so you can learn a bit more about the facts (instead of what you think you know) please read this link from The Economist: Taxes and the rich: Looking at all the taxes | The Economist
It is better be thought of as a fool, then open ones mouth and remove all doubt.

Your premise and your chart you keep hanging your hat on has been debunked and YOU can't even understand it.

Your lack of intelligences shows because you CLAIM I called you names and did NOT.

If you are going to make claims and then get then debunked and keep tacking about the same thing, what do you think others are going to think of you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2012, 02:13 PM
 
66,175 posts, read 30,022,521 times
Reputation: 8577
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
I can't see them on my work computer if they are in fact there. Perhaps you can link me to where the statistics are because I don't see any.
Why are you opining if you don't know of which you speak? Blind partisanship?

The info is there. Read and learn.

Quote:
What are you talking about? The wealthy are wealthier.... Inequality has been steadily rising.
No. The wealthy have been losing both wealth and income share. That's why tax revenue is DOWN. When the government relies too heavily on a particular segment of society for income tax revenue, the results are disastrous when their share of the income declines.

Look at what has happened to the income share of the top 0.1% and top 1% since 2005:
Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

Is the U.S. economy better off now than it was in 2005?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2012, 02:32 PM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,218 posts, read 6,756,873 times
Reputation: 2033
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Why are you opining if you don't know of which you speak? Blind partisanship?

The info is there. Read and learn.
No I asked you to quantify the lazy and irresponsible. I can't see anywhere in your links where it shows the number of lazy folks or irresponsible. Where does it say that? Or are you just throwing out vague rhetoric out there that puts down the less fortunate.

Quote:
No. The wealthy have been losing both wealth and income share. That's why tax revenue is DOWN. When the government relies too heavily on a particular segment of society for income tax revenue, the results are disastrous when their share of the income declines.

Look at what has happened to the income share of the top 0.1% and top 1% since 2005:
Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data
Well yes. But the wealth and income equality is increasingly being tilted in favor of the wealthy. Even though they have lost both wealth and income, just like most folks, they are still much better off than any other group. To the bolded: it hasn't been disastrous, it is expected for tax revenue to go down amidst one of the worst economic downturns in modern history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2012, 02:39 PM
 
66,175 posts, read 30,022,521 times
Reputation: 8577
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
No I asked you to quantify the lazy and irresponsible. I can't see anywhere in your links where it shows the number of lazy folks or irresponsible.
You don't see the stats cited for fraud? Interesting...

Quote:
Well yes. But the wealth and income equality is increasingly being tilted in favor of the wealthy.
False. The wealthy's share of both income and wealth has been declining. I posted IRS data that proves so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2012, 03:09 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 21,881,456 times
Reputation: 8958
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Yes, in fact it is. Look at who PAYS for those state and local services and who TAKES those services without paying their fair share:



The top 40% are overpaying for those services, and the bottom 60% are UNDERpaying.

State and local spending are the white bars in the chart for those of who who've had difficulty reading the charts.

Those are blended rates, I want to see "childless adults" and "families with children" broken out separately. Exactly what tax dollars am I soaking up if I'm not a parent, don't have a history of drug or alcohol abuse, don't have a criminal record. It's not my fault parents and druggies and criminals are eating all those tax dollars and I don't like being lumped in with them.

20% of the people are probably consuming 80% of the resources, doncha think?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2012, 03:21 PM
 
66,175 posts, read 30,022,521 times
Reputation: 8577
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Those are blended rates, I want to see "childless adults" and "families with children" broken out separately. Exactly what tax dollars am I soaking up if I'm not a parent
The same as other low-income earners without kids. Same is true of the wealthy without kids. They're paying FAR more than you are, so why are you complaining.

Quote:
20% of the people are probably consuming 80% of the resources, doncha think?
It sure looks that way in this local, state, and federal government spending chart...

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2012, 03:48 PM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,218 posts, read 6,756,873 times
Reputation: 2033
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
You don't see the stats cited for fraud? Interesting...
Yes I can't find anything about any lazy people like I've been asking. Again are you just generalizing people with your rhetoric? In your mind does fraud= lazy people? Because I don't automatically assume they correlate.

Quote:
False.
Quote:
The wealthy's share of both income and wealth has been declining. I posted IRS data that proves so.
Doesn't really matter. Income equality is still increasing pretty alarmingly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2012, 03:58 PM
 
66,175 posts, read 30,022,521 times
Reputation: 8577
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
Yes I can't find anything about any lazy people like I've been asking.
You don't see the fraud statistics in the links I posted?
Quote:
In your mind does fraud= lazy people? Because I don't automatically assume they correlate.
What... are you saying you think fraud is committed by hard-working self-supporting people?
Quote:
Doesn't really matter. Income equality is still increasing pretty alarmingly.
No. It isn't. The wealthy's share of income is DECLINING. I've posted proof of that.

The wealthy's share of income declines and the economy tanks. Interesting correlation...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top