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.
Of course it has failed. The GINI Index tells the hard truth about it. It has increased in the USA since GOP laissez faire policies were implemented. Just like in the 1920s and the Gilded Age.
What is amazing is that the right wingers will keep trying to sell that snake oil. Instead of civic-spirited and inclusive thinking, they seem intent on selling us a bill of goods year after year. With the purging of its moderates, the GOP has become a front for lobbyists, and evangelical zealots. They use fact free narratives and fearmongering to serve their base and to fawn for corporations, while throwing the rest of the country under the bus.
The GINI coefficient looks great (to a liberal) for three men with no food or water in a lifeboat. The GINI coefficient is nothing more than a measurement of the liberal goal of equality. I prefer John to make 100% more and me to make 10% more than neither of us have any gain. Only liberals think that equality in poverty is better than inequality in affluence.
From the link in the above post:
Quote:
Arnold describes one limitation of Gini coefficient to be income distribution
situations where it misleads. The income of poorest fifth of households can be
lower when Gini coefficient is lower, than when the poorest income bracket is
earning a larger percentage of all income. Table D illustrates this case, where
the lowest income bracket has an average household market income of $500 per
year at Gini index of 0.51, and zero income at Gini index of 0.48. This is
counter-intuitive and Gini coefficient cannot tell what is happening to each
income bracket or the absolute income, cautions Arnold.[SIZE=2][61][/SIZE][SIZE=2][62][/SIZE]
Feldstein similarly explains one limitation of Gini coefficient as its focus
on relative income distribution, rather than real levels of poverty and
prosperity in society.[SIZE=2][63][/SIZE] He claims
Gini coefficient analysis is limited because in many situations it intuitively
implies inequality that violate the so-called Pareto improvement principle.
The Pareto improvement principle, named after the Italian economist
Vilfredo Pareto, states that a social, economic or income change is good if it
makes one or more people better off without making anyone else worse off. Gini
coefficient can rise if some or all income brackets experience a rising income.
Feldstein’s explanation is summarized in Table D. The table shows that in a
growing economy, consistent with Pareto improvement principle, where income of
every segment of the population has increased, from one year to next, the income
inequality Gini coefficient can rise too.
From the same link:
Income Gini coefficient
World, 1820 .43
2005 .68
According to liberals the world was better off in 1820 than it is today.
Of course it has failed. The GINI Index tells the hard truth about it. It has increased in the USA since GOP laissez faire policies were implemented. Just like in the 1920s and the Gilded Age.
What is amazing is that the right wingers will keep trying to sell that snake oil. Instead of civic-spirited and inclusive thinking, they seem intent on selling us a bill of goods year after year. With the purging of its moderates, the GOP has become a front for lobbyists, and evangelical zealots. They use fact free narratives and fearmongering to serve their base and to fawn for corporations, while throwing the rest of the country under the bus.
And yet you cant list for me one town that prospers due to high welfare support..
Capitalism is still the best system out there. Look the U.S., it's the most prosperous nation in the history of mankind. No nation has generated this amount of revenue.
Of course it has failed. The GINI Index tells the hard truth about it. It has increased in the USA since GOP laissez faire policies were implemented. Just like in the 1920s and the Gilded Age.
What is amazing is that the right wingers will keep trying to sell that snake oil. Instead of civic-spirited and inclusive thinking, they seem intent on selling us a bill of goods year after year. With the purging of its moderates, the GOP has become a front for lobbyists, and evangelical zealots. They use fact free narratives and fearmongering to serve their base and to fawn for corporations, while throwing the rest of the country under the bus.
mean while the gini index (wealth inequality) is also rising in EVERY first world country...even the most socialistic countries
Nope they didn't...but guess what.. They used loopholes just as effectively as they do today. Their effective tax rate was DOUBLE what it is today for the richest.
Its like you ignore that fact completely. Most of us use the REAL numbers the rich pay today, not the 35% or 39%...its about 22-23 %. Thats their effective tax rate today, back then their effective was DOUBLE.
PS-BTW...notice I didnt bring this up-you did. but you should research what the top 5% paid in effective taxes then, and get back to me.
Okay...here you go....
Some of you might want to cut-n-paste this to stomp on idiots who keep screaming 91%.
Yes, there really was a 91% tax bracket, but aside from that, there's no truth in what Liberals say.
Here's your evidence......
I'm going to use 1960 tax data from the IRS. The numbers are nominal (not adjusted for inflation).
The first thing I'm going to show you is the total number of tax returns filed by tax bracket in 1960:
$600 under $1,000........1,355,011
$1,000 under $1,500.....2,134,195
$1,500 under $2,000.....2,036,015
$2,000 under $2,500.....2,368,114
$2,500 under $3,000.....2,665,817
$3,000 under $4,000.....5,793,668
$4,000 under $5,000.....6,400,547
$5,000 under $6,000.....6,236,474
$6,000 under $7,000.....5,236,061
$7,000 under $8,000.....3,874,647
$8,000 under $9,000.....2,749,349
$9,000 under $10,000 .....1,901,543
$10,000 under $15,000.....3,637,169
$15,000 under $20,000.....784,630
$20,000 under $25,000.....323,412
$25,000 under $50,000.....440,890
$50,000 under $100,000.....101,080
$100,000 under $150,000.....14,165
$150,000 under $200,000.....4,379
$200,000 under $500,000.....4,801
$500,000 under $1,000,000.....723
$1,000,000 or more..................295
If you want inflation adjusted data, you can use the BLS calculator here:
$600 in 1960 = $4,688 in 2012
$5,000 in 1960 = $39,073 in 2012
$15,000 in 1960 = $117,221 in 2012
$150,000 in = $1.7 Million in 2012
$1 Million in 1960 = $7.8 Million in 2012
For comparison, we're going to look at the tax brackets from $15,000 up.
This is the total Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) for each tax bracket......
$10,000 under $15,000.....$42,751,769,000
$15,000 under $20,000.....$13,776,477,000
$20,000 under $25,000.....$7,190,895,000
$25,000 under $50,000.....$14,710,384,000
$50,000 under $100,000.....$6,647,920,000
$100,000 under $150,000.....$1,688,173,000
$150,000 under $200,000.....$750,153,000
$200,000 under $500,000.....$1,370,038,000
$500,000 under $1,000,000.....$486,077,000
$1,000,000 or more............ .....$584,113,000
And now the taxable income for each bracket.....
$10,000 under $15,000.....$28,752,650,000
$15,000 under $20,000.....$9,786,674,000
$20,000 under $25,000.....$5,465,777,000
$25,000 under $50,000.....$11,665,201,000
$50,000 under $100,000.....$5,417,010,000
$100,000 under $150,000.....$1,349,335,000
$150,000 under $200,000.....$590,232,000
$200,000 under $500,000.....$1,055,617,000
$500,000 under $1,000,000 .....$382,520,000
$1,000,000 or more............. .....$455,501,000
Uh, "taxable income?"
What's that? That would be part of the deception Liberals engage in. Numerous knowledgeable people (including myself) have repeatedly mentioned the fact that you must look at the IRS Tax Codes in order to correctly assess taxes paid.
And as we have continually pointed out, the Tax Code in 1960 was vastly different than today.
"Taxable Income" would be one such [major] difference.
$455,501,000 / $584,113,000 = 77.98% or 78%
So I just busted the Liberal myth that "the rich" paid 91% of their income in taxes, because at most "the rich" would only pay 91% on 78% of the Adjusted Gross Income.
But, wait, there's more...
These are the amounts of taxes paid [after all tax credits had been deducted]....
$10,000 under $15,000....$6,158,538,000
$15,000 under $20,000....$2,289,835,000
$20,000 under $25,000....$1,395,203,000
$25,000 under $50,000....$3,597,608,000
$50,000 under $100,000....$2,273,336,000
$100,000 under $150,000....$681,157,000
$150,000 under $200,000....$319,630,000
$200,000 under $500,000 ....$606,604,000
$500,000 under $1,000,000....$225,573,000
$1,000,000 or more.................$280,525,000
So, on their "taxable income" (snicker) "the rich" paid.....
$280,525,000 / $455,501,000 = 61.% in taxes.
But, on their Adjusted Gross Income "the rich" paid....
$280,525,000 / $584,113,000 = 48% in taxes.
So, uh, where's this 91%?
And for comparison, people who made $15,000 which would be $117,000 today paid 21%, while those who made $5,000 --- $39,000 today --- paid 20%.
I mention that because, uh, you know, even though "the rich" were taxed at 91% (snicker) the little people still were taxed in 20%-22% range, because 91% for "the rich" still wasn't enough money for the government.
So think about that....for all of you who think taxing "the rich" will solve your problems, they didn't solve any problems in the 1950s or 1960s.
You can find this lovely data on page 100 of Statistics of Income....1960: Individual Income Tax Returns for 1960 published by the IRS. It includes years 1951 to 1960, and you can find an Acrobat file at the Boston Public Library's Website here:
LOL, you "worked for it" doesn't really reflect trickle down economics. Trickle down basically says- the more the wealthier have in cash, the better off everyone else is. That has very little relationship to the fact that you (like me) are doing better due to our individual efforts.
First, that's not really accurate, and two, that's not what has been in operation for the past 25+ years. The phrase was coined to define the economic policies under Ronald Reagan, and was only briefly in operation. During that short time, the overall economy and the livelihoods of rank and file Americans did experience benefits of increased economic growth. It was short lived.
Economics are not as mysterious and complex as politicians and economists would have you believe. Whether a lemonaide stand, or an entire country, the basics are, you have to make a product, and then sell that product at a profit for your stand or country to be successful. In the case of our country, you measure profit by the net gain or loss that can be found in trade balance between imports and exports ... because the only "real profit" is measured in new money being brought in through making stuff and exporting that stuff to other countries. This ADDS wealth (profit) to the country. If, as we have today, you buy more (import) than you sell (export), that represents a net loss, which SUBTRACTS rather than adding wealth (profit).
In order for "trickle down" to occur, you must first have something to trickle down. There is nothing there to trickle down, because we are operating at a net operating loss of 1.5 trillion annually, with a 500+ billion trade deficit .... meaning we are losing 2+ trillion per year, leaving not a penny to trickle down to anyone.
To furthet complicate (make worse) the matter, much of our so-called "exports" are being manufactured in foreign countries, so the jobs and wages that would otherwise benefit the local economy has been taken away also, which is the primary mechanism of trickle down ... jobs and wages!!! This leaves every penny of accounting profits in the hands of the owners of those corporations, and none of the benefits reaching the local economy.
There is a lot more to this than that, but that's the basic framework, and the explanation why there has been no "trickle down". .. there is nothing there to trickle ... just a big trick by the gangsters robbing the country of it's wealth.
First, that's not really accurate, and two, that's not what has been in operation for the past 25+ years. The phrase was coined to define the economic policies under Ronald Reagan, and was only briefly in operation. During that short time, the overall economy and the livelihoods of rank and file Americans did experience benefits of increased economic growth. It was short lived.
Economics are not as mysterious and complex as politicians and economists would have you believe. Whether a lemonaide stand, or an entire country, the basics are, you have to make a product, and then sell that product at a profit for your stand or country to be successful. In the case of our country, you measure profit by the net gain or loss that can be found in trade balance between imports and exports ... because the only "real profit" is measured in new money being brought in through making stuff and exporting that stuff to other countries. This ADDS wealth (profit) to the country. If, as we have today, you buy more (import) than you sell (export), that represents a net loss, which SUBTRACTS rather than adding wealth (profit).
In order for "trickle down" to occur, you must first have something to trickle down. There is nothing there to trickle down, because we are operating at a net operating loss of 1.5 trillion annually, with a 500+ billion trade deficit .... meaning we are losing 2+ trillion per year, leaving not a penny to trickle down to anyone.
To furthet complicate (make worse) the matter, much of our so-called "exports" are being manufactured in foreign countries, so the jobs and wages that would otherwise benefit the local economy has been taken away also, which is the primary mechanism of trickle down ... jobs and wages!!! This leaves every penny of accounting profits in the hands of the owners of those corporations, and none of the benefits reaching the local economy.
There is a lot more to this than that, but that's the basic framework, and the explanation why there has been no "trickle down". .. there is nothing there to trickle ... just a big trick by the gangsters robbing the country of it's wealth.
For what I hope is (but don't count on) being the last time:
Trickle down does not and never has meant that prosperity will magically rain down from above onto the poor and middle class.
What "trickles down" is opportunity.
It is and always has been the responsibility of every individual to make the best of that opportunity.
Those who accept that responsibility and take advantage of the opportunity will thrive in it.
But those who expect the trickle down to be served up to them on a silver platter will not.
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.
