If Top 5% Paid 40% of Taxes, What is Their 'Fair' Share? (drugs, Missouri)
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.
Which is always a challenge when dealing with people suffering with Romnesia. We were talking taxation and leeches, you figured it was about food stamps.
How is collecting food stamps NOT taking from the government? Both the CBO and the Harvard Economist have shown that food stamps, etc. negatively impact the effective federal income tax rate.
"I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire,... The man that controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire. And I control the money supply"
Baron Nathan Mayer Rothschild, of the Rothschild international banking cartel
"From reading the posts, perhaps, the first thing to do, in order to come up with a solution, is identify exactly what "income inequity" is.
In 1960, the average income for semi-professional and non-professional jobs was $7060 a year. In 2010, the average income for those same jobs was $45,406. (source of information is athttp://msn.careerbuilder.com/Article...=JS_2146_home1) And, from another source,. the 2010 figure is about 25% too high. Unfortunately, I do not have the link to the other source.
According to another source, http://msn.careerbuilder.com/Article...=JS_2146_home1 executive income has gone up six times in just the last twenty years. Another words, an exec that is making $360,000 today, was only making $60,000 twenty years ago.
It says that executive pay went up an average of 30% each year for the last twenty years while middle-class America has only gotten an average of 12% each year for the last fifty years. And, we're not including bonuses or "Golden Parachutes".
One more area to look at, and this is from my own experience. In 1965 and 1966, I was making $8,000 a year. I was also paying 17 cents a gallon for gasoline. Just today, the current price of gasoline at the corner gas station at the corner is $3.599. To maintain the ratio between income and the cost of gasoline, today's average income should be about $170,000 a year.
In 1973, I was making $14,000 a year, and paying $51 every six months for car insurance. (And, supporting a wife and two kids, while buying a house for $10,000) The last premium I paid on car insurance came out to $147 a month. Back in 1973, the monthly cost was just $8.50. To maintain the ratio of income to car insurance premiums, today's average income should be about$240,000 a year. Want to check with IRS and see just how many "Average Americans" are actually making that much? And, the story is the same no matter what area of expense you look at, groceries, utilities, housing, etc.
That is what is "INCOME INEQUITY". What to do about it is the "$64,000 question". Solutions are sure to be as varied as the people that offer them, but now, you should be able to come up with a better informed opinion.
Now, with regard to the quote, by all means, give your kids every advantage you can. Stress education. Any kind of court record will hurt their chances for a successful career. But, keep in mind...
Let's say that 99% of the next generation gets a master's degree. (No, I don't think that's realistic) It's also not realistic to think that every one of them will get jobs where they will use that degree. There will be a number of them serving at Pizza Hut. A good education and a clean record does not give them a guarantee, but it does improve their chances at a comfortable life." (end quote)
Congratulations the_windwalker, you've earned a spot on my anecdotes collection that's meant to show in a very concrete way the wage stagflation or really deflation experienced for the bottom 80-90 percent of workers the last 30-40 years. I submit only the top 1- 20% percent of wage earners has kept up with cost inflation. That's 2 in 10 workers, certainly NOT middle class, and I think 20% is pushing it. More like the top 10%.
Keep in mind when you read these anecdotes and watch Dr. Warren's lecture think RATIOS. That's exactly my point. For example: "In 1973, I was making $14,000 a year, and paying $51 every six months for car insurance. (And, supporting a wife and two kids, while buying a house for $10,000). How many people now make 40% more IN ONE YEAR than the value of their HOME!!!!: cool::thi nk: GuyNTexas' anecdote illustrates this point very well also.
just because SALARIES havent kept up with INFLATION doesnt mean we should still CLASSIFY based on 1955/1965 numbers.......average salary in 1966..6900...median house price 14k....about 50% right...use those numbers compared to the meadin house....the median salary SHOULD be 130k...not 50k
sorry but this is not 1955 , when 250k was rich...please get with the times...its 2010"(end quote)
"The "inequity" comes in where the expenses have out-paced the income for the average American. While EVERYTHING ELSE has gone up, income for the "middle-class" has stagnated over the last fifty years. That is the problem with the economy today. The "middle-class", the MAJORITY of Americans do not have enough money to keep the economy flowing. Inequity = DIS-PROPORTIONATE".
Show me just one exec whose decisions are actually worth a million dollars a day. Even just a thousand dollars a day. Think about it. As great as he was, even Steve Jobs is now replaced. And, as great as he was for the company, he was not that great for America. Look where your Apple product is made. American jobs?
Ever hear of "The Law of Diminishing Returns"? Keep raising your prices, and eventually, you'll price yourself out of business. That is what Corporate America has done. They have priced the economy out of business.
Take a look at the cost of a kit to put a motor on a bicycle. A 50 CC kit has gone up nearly $100 because of the demand. They're replacing cars with motorized bicycles and scooters. And, the auto industry isn't doing as well as they were ten years ago.
If a cashier is being paid exactly what they are worth, then we're paying far more for everything than it's worth. Gasoline isn't worth $3.599 a gallon. Why are we paying that much? Car insurance is not worth what we're paying. Why are we paying it?"(end quote)
Withou further ado here's the rest of the collection. In my opinion no one who is honest, can think critically and do math can deny what's contained herein:
Pay close attention to the years in the following posts of people who lived in the mid 70's-early 80's:
"Sad. I made $9 an hour during the Summer break in the mid 1980s running telephone lines in office buildings. It was a horrible low paying job then. You know what $9 is worth today adjusted for inflation since 1985. $4.42 cents. That same job today would be need to pay $18.50 per hour. If you have no perspective on how things suck..you'll settle for anything. The USA will look like these ghettos in Brazil before people wake up to this right wing propaganda they've been spoon fed for 30 years."(end quote)
"You know what $9 is worth today adjusted for inflation since 1985. $4.42 cents."
"Just because things were better, doesn't mean they were great. I don't deny that there were folks like yourself. Nevertheless, more opportunity (on average) did exist back then.
During college I worked part time at a warehouse. One of my co workers was a Guyanese who came into the US illegally in '77 or '78 (he later received amnesty under Reagan). He used to tell me how his first job, as an illegal, paid $10.50/hour. In 2006, after he was laid off from a warehouse making 33/hour, we were working for $12/hr. $10.50 in '78 or 12 in 2006. Inflation much?"(end quote)
"Also the wages aren't there and if you compare that with inflation it just doesn't work.
In 1980, I had an entry level job as a sound engineer with a local independent TV station earning $5.00 per hour.One paycheck paid my rent and utilities and auto insurance and the other 3 paycheckseach month were disposable income.
An entry level job today pays $8.50 to $10 per hour and even at $10 per hour it takes 2 paychecks to cover the cost of rent, utilities and auto insurance (and don't forget in 1980 $10 -- or two hours of work -- paid for 2 tickets to the cinema show, a tank full of gasoline and something to eat after the movie -- the cost of two movie tickets now is over $20)."
(end quote)
"The guy is a typical, narrow minded moron who probably has a picture of Reagan on his wall and NOBAMA stickers on his car. He really thinks in this world, with gas being $3.50 per gallon and food twice what it was 5 years ago that $8.50 per hour is "competitive" How friggin stupid can anyone be? I was making more than that in 1981 in a part time job. I started out at $14.00 per hour in 1984 when I bought my first house for $42,000!
He has NO RESPECT for his employees. None.(end quote)
"No. I'm really disagreeing with .. not missing your point. And those numbers don't tell a very accurate story, and the proof is demonstrated by the drop in net worth of middle income earners as their debt has increased significantly, while earnings have declined relative to inflation.
By most measurable data points, the middle income class has been dying a very slow, incremental death for 4 decades because the costs on high ticket items have increased more rapidly than the either the inflation rate or rates of increases in income. To further compound the problem, average income levels have failed to keep pace with the inflation rate itself. Much of this goes unnoticed because of it's slow incremental nature (like growing old). But if you are old enough, and still maintain your mental faculties, you can't be bull $hted into believing what you are trying to say here.
As just one example, in 1977, I bought a brand new Pontiac Trans Am for $5200. And since it was my first car purchase, I suspect I was clubbed like a baby seal (paid full MSRP), as I simply asked how much, and said OK (later I learned the error of this way to purchase automobiles )
Now today, that car is no longer available, but a comparable car "Chevy Camero SS" is. And a similarly configured model is around $35,000 MSRP. Which is almost double the adjusted for inflation number of $18,700 that Camero should cost relative to the $5200 Trans Am of 1977.
My income back then was 14,000 or just shy of 3 times what the car cost ... if you apply that same formula to the $35,000 Camero today, I'd have to earn roughly $100,000 per year to maintain the same standard (drive the same car) as my $14,000 income provided then. I was not wealthy then .. I was a 20 year oldworking in a warehouse driving a forklift. And I don't think there are many 6 figure forklift drivers around today ...I would say, the 40-50K range would be the upper limit ... or roughly the same as my $14,000 would be, adjusted for inflation.
This is one example, and almost any big item ... car, house, etc. works out to be the same. Some other items like Healthcare have dramatically exceeded those rates exponentially compared to 1977 where mine was absolutely free and first rate, including dental.
Now, add to this the higher taxes, social security withholding, and medicare ... all of which have exceeded the inflation rate (and don't let anyone BS you into believing it hasn't), means that the net spending power of your income has declined dramatically over the past 30+ years. (See video below she documents ALL this IN DETAIL)
Now around about that same time frame, my step father worked for one of the US Government agencies earning roughly in the 50-60K range, and at the time, that was very good money, but not even close to RICH & Wealthy .... but adjusted for inflation, that comes out to around $200+K now. The house he purchased then at $50,000 appraised for $480,000 in 2004-5 even though the adjusted for inflation value would have only dictated a $155,000 figure ... 3 times the inflation rate!! By the time he retired in the late 90's, his income may have doubled, yet his house increased by 6-8 fold. What does that tell you?
Now if you are following me here ... this is where it gets real hairy ... if you take a Quarter ... 25 cents ... from say 1964 (the last 90% silver Quarter) that 25 cents equates to $1.76 in 2010 value. But guess what? Today's melt value of that sliver quarter is about $3.70 which is again more than double the published inflation rate ....
So what does that all mean? It means very simply, that the value of your money is worth about half of what it's claimed to be worth, even after being adjusted for inflation .... and all it takes is to actually look at the historical costs of items like cars, and houses and health care costs from the late 60's to today, and also the median incomes. You see that the purchasing power has indeed declined. And this is a result of the devaluation of the currency (a hidden tax).
So when it comes to buying power, there has been a continuous decline that doubles the the inflation rates admitted .. which is why the middle class really doesn't exist for all practical purposes today.
There are the ultra wealthy, and the rest. The $250kers are just at the higher end of that rest of us, and they are the last of the upper middle class, and the next in line to fall ... apparently, much to delight of many who think that they are members of the Wealthy Club, and must fall for the sake of everyone.
I suppose this proves that indeed, misery loves company."(end quote)
I'm on board with a fat tax. Their inability to maintain their own health will cost this country TRILLIONS in health care costs... diabetes, heart disease, not to mention disability benefits on top of all that.
If you are a modern conservative, no you don't. Private property (land) is a government granted monopoly essentially privatizing taxing rights. It allows people to collect income, read goods and services, for use of something they did not create but is granted as a privilege by the government . I know what you mean, but you fail to reach that goal because of this blind spot that did not exist in the early 19th century since they had a very recent memory of the landed gentry. The classical economists recognized that small land owners were productive, but also regarded land values as a creation of the state and thus the suitable tax base. Land values rise because of general prosperity and infrastructure, not hard work. You can't read an economics book in the 19th century of any note without this concept.
I agree only I add modern conservatives to that lot. That is why I am a geo libertarian, I think value should come from labor and capital, not government granted privileges like modern conservatives like to enjoy. They even muzzled one of my favorite conservatives growing up.
[URL="http://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/Buckley_HG.html"]Bill Buckley: Henry George and the Single-Tax[/URL][INDENT]CALLER: I've heard you describe yourself as a Georgist, a follower of Henry George, but I haven't heard much in having you promote land value taxation and his theories, and I'm wondering why that is the case.
W.F.B.: It's mostly because I'm beaten down by my right-wing theorists and intellectual friends. They always find something wrong with the Single-Tax idea. What I'm talking about Mr. Lamb is Henry George who said there is infinite capacity to increase capital and to increase labor, but none to increase land, and since wealth is a function of how they play against each other, land should be thought of as common property. The effect of this would be that if you have a parking lot and the Empire State Building next to it, the tax on the parking lot should be the same as the tax on the Empire State Building, because you shouldn't encourage land speculation.
[/INDENT]So called modern conservatives maul and butcher any debate exposing their rampant hypocrisy while creating the very welfare state they claim to oppose. Modern conservatives love big daddy government privilege and bailout money.
I prefer market economies, not the centrally planned system of modern conservatives who appropriate the national surplus with land speculation and phony monopolistic credit, tax favoritism and monopoly pricing.
Your statements re: land are unrecognizable as having anything in common with current situation in USA. Where it might be germain, I don't know, but not here. It sounds like gibberish to me.
You are incorrect about how modern conservatives feel about welfare etc., Perhaps you are confusing Republican with Conservative. It is a common error.
You can call it market economics if you wish, seems to be a distinction without a difference. The rest about national surplus, land speculation is from some nether reaches of bad dream.
In any case, I described myself to you. If that description does fit your idea of what a conservative is, well, there is nothing I can do about that. I can't and won't alter who I am and what I think to fit some guy's idea of what a word means or entail, to wit "conservative".
If you like Bill Still he is a reporter that somewhat stumbled upon chartalism on his own as did Helen Brown who is a lawyer. The economic school behind much of chartalism theory is MMT ( Randle Wray, Stephenie Kelton and Warren Mosler.) They don't really focus on the Fed much because from a legal stand point the Fed rebates its profit to the treasury. They are also well aware of the bank ponzi problem especially exposed by Bill Black.
What an irony and tragic outcome that the only country that used MMT principles in the 30s was Nazi Germany. That is why they rapidly built a war machine. That has many implications behind it, even one for Lew Rockwell. There is never money for the public infrastructure and civilian welfare. Yet strangely none of these economic constraints exists for war.
here are, however, even more direct indications that a first-class political issue is at stake here. In the great depression in the 1930s, big business consistently opposed experiments for increasing employment by government spending in all countries, except Nazi Germany. This was to be clearly seen in the USA (opposition to the New Deal), in France (the Blum experiment), and in Germany before Hitler. The attitude is not easy to explain. Clearly, higher output and employment benefit not only workers but entrepreneurs as well, because the latter's profits rise. And the policy of full employment outlined above does not encroach upon profits because it does not involve any additional taxation. The entrepreneurs in the slump are longing for a boom; why do they not gladly accept the synthetic boom which the government is able to offer them? It is this difficult and fascinating question with which we intend to deal in this article.
"We were not foolish enough to try to make a currency [backed by] gold of which we had none, but for every mark that was issued we required the equivalent of a mark's worth of work done or goods produced. . . .we laugh at the time our national financiers held the view that the value of a currency is regulated by the gold and securities lying in the vaults of a state bank."
Your statements re: land are unrecognizable as having anything in common with current situation in USA. Where it might be germain, I don't know, but not here. It sounds like gibberish to me.
Yeah I don't think it was gibberish or inapplicable, sport.
You are incorrect about how modern conservatives feel about welfare etc., Perhaps you are confusing Republican with Conservative. It is a common error.
Nope. I know exactly what modern conservatives are about. After all I was raised one and realized my error when I started doing a little research . I realize how horrifying it is to suddenly have your mythologies attacked without the usual social justice and weep for the poor arguments of liberals only to be dismantled by revealing that conservatives rely on big dadda, da guberment even more.
I see you decided to ignore Buckley and Milton Friedman, the couple of *******s that they are.
Quote:
You can call it market economics if you wish, seems to be a distinction without a difference. The rest about national surplus, land speculation is from some nether reaches of bad dream.
Its a completely distinct like night and day.
Quote:
In any case, I described myself to you. If that description does fit your idea of what a conservative is, well, there is nothing I can do about that. I can't and won't alter who I am and what I think to fit some guy's idea of what a word means or entail, to wit "conservative".
Are you for property and luxury taxes while being against income taxes on basic labor and sales taxes on basic commodities ? That is what Adam Smith suggested.
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.
: cool:
$10.50 in '78 or 12 in 2006. Inflation much?"(end quote)
) 
