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 08-23-2012, 08:07 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,715 posts, read 11,523,903 times
Reputation: 5606

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Since taxing the rich more will likely yield no additional revenue because the rich are losing income share, what's your backup plan?
As I've shown in post#38, the rich are NOT losing income share. You are making a false assertion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-23-2012, 08:07 AM
 
66,239 posts, read 30,153,135 times
Reputation: 8606
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
I haven't been corrected at all.
Yes, you have been corrected. And you will be corrected again, now...
Quote:
According to the Tax Foundation, this is the top 1%'s income share for the subject years:

2001 16.06%
2002 15.43%
2003 15.68%
2004 17.44%
2005 19.26%
2006 19.56%
2007 20.19%
2008 18.47%
2009 17.11%
No. You posted the Income Tax share percentages of the top 0.1%. Good grief. Learn how to read charts and graphs, man.

The actual data on the income share of the top 1%:

2006 22.06%
2007 22.85%
2008 20.00%
2009 16.93%
Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data | Tax Foundation

You've been wrong on so many things in these posts that it's a pretty safe bet to disregard anything you have to say to avoid any more of your errors.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2012, 08:07 AM
 
Location: None of your business
5,467 posts, read 3,763,834 times
Reputation: 1170
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
-- and not because all of a sudden the top 1% are smarter or more talented, just that the rules over the last 30 years are tilted in their favor.
What makes me laugh is people want to increase taxes on people who make more than 200K single / 250K married. Then the same people go off on a rant on multi-millionaires and billionaires.

Do people know the difference between 200K and multi-millionaires? Also keep in mind that wall street isn't a doctors or business owners fault but yet these people are being targeted right along with the multi-millionaires and billionaires.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2012, 08:09 AM
 
66,239 posts, read 30,153,135 times
Reputation: 8606
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
As I've shown in post#38, the rich are NOT losing income share. You are making a false assertion.
No. As I've shown in post #42, you don't know how to read charts and graphs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2012, 08:11 AM
 
66,239 posts, read 30,153,135 times
Reputation: 8606
Quote:
Originally Posted by eRayP View Post
What makes me laugh is people want to increase taxes on people who make more than 200K single / 250K married. Then the same people go off on a rant on multi-millionaires and billionaires.

Do people know the difference between 200K and multi-millionaires?
No, they do not. They have a hard time reading charts and graphs, too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2012, 08:16 AM
 
6,620 posts, read 4,565,370 times
Reputation: 13253
Quote:
Originally Posted by eRayP View Post
What makes me laugh is people want to increase taxes on people who make more than 200K single / 250K married. Then the same people go off on a rant on multi-millionaires and billionaires.

Do people know the difference between 200K and multi-millionaires? Also keep in mind that wall street isn't a doctors or business owners fault but yet these people are being targeted right along with the multi-millionaires and billionaires.
They know. They just don't care. Anyone who makes more than they do is "rich" and therefore fair game.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2012, 08:25 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,715 posts, read 11,523,903 times
Reputation: 5606
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Yes, you have been corrected. And you will be corrected again, now...No. You posted the Income Tax share percentages of the top 0.1%. Good grief. Learn how to read charts and graphs, man.

The actual data on the income share of the top 1%:

2006 22.06%
2007 22.85%
2008 20.00%
2009 16.93%
Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data | Tax Foundation

You've been wrong on so many things in these posts that it's a pretty safe bet to disregard anything you have to say to avoid any more of your errors.
Try to be civil, even if it not your nature.

Perhaps it is you who do not know how to read tables and charts?

Table 5 is clearly labeled:
Adjusted Gross Income Shares, 1980-2009 (Percent of total AGI earned by each group)

2001 17.53%
2002 16.12%
2003 16.77%
2004 19.00%
2005 21.20%
2006 22.06%
2007 22.83%
2008 20.00%
2009 16.93%

As anyone can see, their share is not diminishing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2012, 08:32 AM
 
66,239 posts, read 30,153,135 times
Reputation: 8606
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Perhaps it is you who do not know how to read tables and charts?

Table 5 is clearly labeled:
Adjusted Gross Income Shares, 1980-2009 (Percent of total AGI earned by each group)
You didn't post Table 5 in post #38. You posted AND linked the percentages from Table 6, which is Income TAX share. Furthermore, you posted the percentages from the wrong income group. You posted the top 0.1%, not the top 1%. So... much... FAIL.

Quote:
As anyone can see, their share is not diminishing.
Which is greater, 22.83% or 16.93%? There's nearly a 6 percentage point difference between the two. The top 1%'s share of the income has DECLINED by nearly 6 percentage points.

So... since taxing the rich more will likely yield no additional revenue because the rich are losing income share, what's your backup plan?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2012, 08:35 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,715 posts, read 11,523,903 times
Reputation: 5606
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
You didn't post Table 5 in post #38. You posted AND linked the percentages from Table 6, which is Income TAX share. Furthermore, you posted the percentages from the wrong income group. You posted the top 0.1%, not the top 1%. So... much... FAIL.

Which is greater, 22.83% or 16.93%? There's nearly a 6 percentage point difference between the two. The top 1%'s share of the income has DECLINED by nearly 6 percentage points.

So... since taxing the rich more will likely yield no additional revenue because the rich are losing income share, what's your backup plan?
Yeah, in my haste I copies and pasted the wrong table area. Dock my pay.

The point is, income share of the top 1% is not declining. You can't point to one year -- a year that the stock market was having trouble, and conclude, ah-ha, the income of the top 1% is in a decline. One data point does not make a trend. These numbers move up and down within a few p%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2012, 08:38 AM
Status: ""a mind that understands science"" (set 8 days ago)
 
18,803 posts, read 12,121,836 times
Reputation: 10236
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
We have been here before. You said the same exact thing in this post. So, I will give you my same exact response:

Taxing the rich modestly more brings in $50 billion -- $120 billion per year more. Not significant? Considering that the GOP proposed raising the Medicare eligibility age to save $50 billion a year, it's obviously significant.

Moreover, the GOP has endorsed and passed the Ryan Budget which increases deficits far more than Obama's budget. How can that be you say? Because Obama's budget is based upon realistic assumptions. The Ryan budget is based upon mystery cuts in deductions, which he will not name and fantastic assumptions, like unemployment will drop to 2% -- a level not seen since the Korean War.

So what you are saying, given that we have a $1.3 trillion annual deficit, is that "taxing the rich" would result in a less than 10% cut in the deficit? I agree. Taxing "the rich" is pointless with our wild spending. We have a spending problem, not a tax problem. The "tax the rich" plan is simply class warfare that does nothing for the nation.

"Obama's budget" is based on nothing, as he has not had a budget for three years. The "Obama budget" is to continue spending wildly without restraint.

Now that we have established that "taxing the rich" does little, if anything, to address the deficit, we must understand that we need to cut SPENDING. We do understand, it appears, that slavery is illegal and even enslaving "the rich" does not even address our annual deficits, let alone the debt.

You have proven my point that "taxing the rich" is pointless.
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
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:29 AM.

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

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