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.
Typically speaking the median is near the average. In most cases the average is not SO far off the median. Esp. with large sample populations, like that of the US.
Quote:
Overall, the mean household income in the United States, according to the US census Bureau 2004 Economic Survey, was $60,528, or $17,210 (39.73%) higher than the median household income.
That was from 2004, when the median household income would have been around 43k. If the same seperation between median and mean incomes in this country exists today, then if the Median income is approximately $50,000 then the mean income would be close to $70,000.
So how can the median and mean be so far from each other? The median is the middle-point. If you cut the current 300+ million population in half, then the median would be the person at the 150 million mark. Whereas the mean(or average) is to combine all incomes and divide by the number of people. But why is there such a huge difference?
Look at these numbers, this is pretty close to the current distribution of wealth in this country.. 1-2-3-5-6-7-25
The middle number would be the 4th number in the row "5". But if you add all the numbers together you get 49. So the mean number would be "7".
The rich have all the money, so it heavily skues the actual wealth of the majority, which is why almost all estimates on wealth are based on median rather than mean. If you read any article talking about "per capita gdp" or "average/mean income" of the United States. Remember to mark off 40% to give a clearer picture of what things are really like.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 11-14-2009 at 12:42 AM..
screw the capitol gains tax. when bam bam got elected i put my rental houses up for sale.paid my tax and screw bam bam.plus all my profit and money has disapeared.i'm gonna live off the gov for the rest of my life.if your gonna play the game ya beter learn the rules
screw the capitol gains tax. when bam bam got elected i put my rental houses up for sale.paid my tax and screw bam bam.plus all my profit and money has disapeared.i'm gonna live off the gov for the rest of my life.if your gonna play the game ya beter learn the rules
If living of the government is such a great thing, why didn't you do it all along? Do you even know why its impossible to have the equivalent of more money living off welfare than not living off welfare(if you don't qualify). People try to say that living on welfare is some great and wonderful thing, like they are all rich and have nice houses?
The truth is, the welfare system was setup intentionally so that even as you lose benefits by making more money. For every $1 more per hour you make, around $.70 of it is pure benefit to you over not making that dollar.
The problem with the welfare system these days is that, wages pretty much are factored against government assistance benefits.
In the more expensive areas of the country, the financial limit to receiving government assistance can actually be above the national median income level. I know many of you won't like it but, if you qualify for assistance you should go get it. It is basically already factored into your paycheck.
The only real complaint about the welfare system would probably be about the costs of children. Poor families have to pay very little in the end to raise their kids. Between food stamps, free school lunches, and charities, you should never need to pay a dime to feed your kids. But of course that doesn't include going out to eat.
Poor families will be eliglble for clothing vouchers, and charities will help clothe them also. And then theres daycare assistance and after-school programs that are usually free to them. Plus at the end of the year you'll usually get an "earned income tax credit, which can tack on another $1500 to your return for "free".
I would complain about these programs, but we need to encourage Americans to have as many kids as possible, or we will get overtaken by immigrants(who are baby factories). If anything, we should be giving the wealthy more tax breaks for having children.
That was from 2004, when the median household income would have been around 43k. If the same seperation between median and mean incomes in this country exists today, then if the Median income is approximately $50,000 then the mean income would be close to $70,000.
2007.
So how can the median and mean be so far from each other? The median is the middle-point. If you cut the current 300+ million population in half, then the median would be the person at the 150 million mark. Whereas the mean(or average) is to combine all incomes and divide by the number of people. But why is there such a huge difference?
The larger the sample size, the more likely the median and mean are closer...stats 101.
Look at these numbers, this is pretty close to the current distribution of wealth in this country.. 1-2-3-5-6-7-25
The middle number would be the 4th number in the row "5". But if you add all the numbers together you get 49. So the mean number would be "7".
The rich have all the money, so it heavily skues the actual wealth of the majority, which is why almost all estimates on wealth are based on median rather than mean. If you read any article talking about "per capita gdp" or "average/mean income" of the United States. Remember to mark off 40% to give a clearer picture of what things are really like.
Again, the larger the sample size, the closer median and mean are.
That was from 2004, when the median household income would have been around 43k. If the same seperation between median and mean incomes in this country exists today, then if the Median income is approximately $50,000 then the mean income would be close to $70,000.
2007.
So how can the median and mean be so far from each other? The median is the middle-point. If you cut the current 300+ million population in half, then the median would be the person at the 150 million mark. Whereas the mean(or average) is to combine all incomes and divide by the number of people. But why is there such a huge difference?
The larger the sample size, the more likely the median and mean are closer...stats 101.
Look at these numbers, this is pretty close to the current distribution of wealth in this country.. 1-2-3-5-6-7-25
The middle number would be the 4th number in the row "5". But if you add all the numbers together you get 49. So the mean number would be "7".
The rich have all the money, so it heavily skues the actual wealth of the majority, which is why almost all estimates on wealth are based on median rather than mean. If you read any article talking about "per capita gdp" or "average/mean income" of the United States. Remember to mark off 40% to give a clearer picture of what things are really like.
Again, the larger the sample size, the closer median and mean are.
You are basing your logic on the idea that our income brackets have an exactly equal chance to be between a certain field of numbers. Like flipping a coin, or randomly choosing a number between 1 and 100. In that case with a large enough sample size the mean and the medium numbers would be practically identical. That isn't the case in these figures.
We are not flipping a coin 300 million times, we are looking at income patterns. If the top 1% of income earners make something like 40% of all wages, then you will have an imbalance that will skew the median and mean. Here is a simple example of three numbers. 1-1-100
In this case "1" would be the median and "34" will be the mean. We could continue that same three number order indefinitely and the median would always be 1 and mean will always be 34. Because we are not dealing with probabilities, we are dealing with actual numbers.
You are basing your logic on the idea that our income brackets have an exactly equal chance to be between a certain field of numbers. Like flipping a coin, or randomly choosing a number between 1 and 100. In that case with a large enough sample size the mean and the medium numbers would be practically identical. That isn't the case in these figures.
Not stating that there is an equal chance...
We are not flipping a coin 300 million times, we are looking at income patterns. If the top 1% of income earners make something like 40% of all wages, then you will have an imbalance that will skew the median and mean. Here is a simple example of three numbers. 1-1-100
You are taking a sample of 3, but not the over 150 million... In larger sample populations, the results are more skewed towards the center.
In this case "1" would be the median and "34" will be the mean. We could continue that same three number order indefinitely and the median would always be 1 and mean will always be 34. Because we are not dealing with probabilities, we are dealing with actual numbers.
No since a larger bulk of the population falls near the mean than that who make less. I understand what you are saying. However, just pointing out the fault in that. In 2004 the mean income was roughly 43k, the median was only 17k more. That's a narrow difference. Again since the sample is larger, there is a tendency for the two to be closer. Thus, the results are more likely to be centered.
Between this great idea, and I might add, a totally unexpected one, and letting the Bush tax cuts expire, they aught to really invigorate the economy. Because we all know, nothing grows the economy and creates private sector jobs like more money taken out of the private sector and put into the hands of politicians.
And how was the banking industry failure working for you?
The housing debacle?
Let's get back to the Savings and Loans debacle, oh yeah, Neil Bush was involved in Silverado S&L.
You think that the economy went into the toilet on 20 Jan 2009?
The Bush Wars must be paid for: COSTOFWAR.COM - The Cost of War
Long-term management, yes. There are other cases to consider - some retirees have other plans for the appreciation that necessitates liquidating a lot of their stock within a single tax year. And, no, Obama isn't sneaking up on anyone - he's telling seniors point blank that he's going to tax them out of evenmore of their retirement investments. There are any number of ventures which require sizeable amounts of funding. I don't doubt what you're saying. The problem is you're looking at this from a very narrow perspective. You simply only consider possibilities that match your political ideology and ignore the rest. Intellectually dishonest, at best.
Trying to hack a path through the persistent vagueness and generality, it may be that one would not be eligible for an NUA until perhaps five years from now and worries that the strategy will be far less effective then if capital gains rates in the interim should go from 15% to say 25%. That worry may be well founded. What is not well founded or even marginally realistic is any belief that the government somehow owes it to you to freeze capital gains tax rates at levels that happen to be favorable to your personal long-term planning. Perhaps, though, you could simply root for more substantial increases in ordinary income tax rates to occur. That would help preserve the advantage inherent in any planned NUA. And of course, if your basis were small enough, you could always take an early withdrawal, and pay the ordinary income tax and the 10% penalty on it. By beating expected increases in both ordinary income and capital gains tax rates, you might be better of even with the penalty than you would be in waiting.
Read on to see just how much revenues plummet when government starts fiddling with those CGT.
Really, do the democrats/liberals ever learn from the past? Why do they think such a tax vehicle would work now, when it never worked in the past? It's been tried, it failed, a sure sign the democrats will try it again.
I am so glad I sold my CA house when Bush was still President. Not a Bush supporter but in this case, thank you!
And $70 left which gets spent generates another 30%, which is $21.00, which leaves $49 left,
and $75 left which gets spent generates another 25%, which generates $18.75, which leaves $56.25, which then gets spent again, at 25%, which generates another $14.06, leaving $42.19, before you get to half of what you begain with.
Lets do the total..
30% = $30 + 21 = $51 in taxes, and money cycling twice
25% = $25 + 18.75 + $14.06 = $57.81 in taxes and money cycling three times.
What one is a better stimulus? money moving twice, or three times before half of the original money is gone..
Try to follow along. The point challenged by your faithful companion was that the primary effect of a tax cut is to reduce revenues. That is a silly argument. As I and all of the Bush administration witnesses called upon to testify in this matter have indicated, the national income effects of a tax cut act to offset the primary effect in some degree. No serious analyst believes that these secondary effects can be greater than the primary effect. This means that a tax cut will reduce revenues to levels below what they would have been in the absence of the tax cut. Revenues may still increase for other reasons in the real world, but if they do, they will increase by less than what they would have had the tax cut not been passed. There simply isn't any debate of this point among people who actually know what they are talking about.
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.
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.
