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.
Oh, saga, and here I was posting about how you're a big girl who doesn't resort to passive-aggression! Come on, sugarpie, be nice... Go take a nap and come back with an argument that doesn't expose an acrimonious streak coupled with a lack of knowledge that drives you to such passive-aggression. Bueno?
Does this post relate in any way to the topic at hand, or is it merely another example of your persistent trash-talk tendencies. Got a point? Make it. Otherwise...
I said personal income, not household. You're right, household median income is 45-50k. The factoid I mentioned talked about personal income. For a little math here: 45k + 45K = 90K in a two-income household. Oops!
Try reading before you flame.
You're right, I used household.
According to the CIA Factbook, the current labor force in the world is 3.13 billion. One percent of that would be 31-million, worldwide, making $47K. The EU labor force is 222-million, the USA 151-million. I got tired of searching for the number, but the median US personal income is about 75% of the median household income.. Carrying that out, a 47K worker would likely have a household income of about 64K, which is very close to the 5th quintile line. So 20% of the US labor force, 30 million, would be above 47K. That would fill the 1% bracket only if the number of workers in the EU over 47K is virtually zero, and if there are no rich people at all in the third world. But if only one out of 200 in the developing world had 47K income, (they probably do) that would add another ten million. Another 10% (half the US distribution) in the EU wold add another 20-million. So, worldwide, it is very unlikely that the number of people with incomes of 47K is as low as 30-million, since the US probably has that by itself. It is probably more like 60=million, which would be 2%. While it may be true that US workers making 48K are 1% of the working world, there us surely another 1% in the rest of the world above that level. Who do you think Mercedes is selling all those cars to worldwide?
Are you assuming that all US households have two incomes, and the incomes are equal? Almost half of all US households have only one adult.
Furthermore, none of this has anything at all to do with US tax rates an brackets, unless you are suddenly granting the rest of the world the benefits of US revenues, and the responsiblity for paying our taxes.
In a word the rich should be taxed fairly. By this I mean that they already pay the vast majority of taxes. I myself would opt for the flat tax no loophole system. Everyone pays the same % no escape loopholes. I might end up paying more but it is fair.
According to the CIA Factbook, the current labor force in the world is 3.13 billion. One percent of that would be 31-million, worldwide, making $47K. The EU labor force is 222-million, the USA 151-million. I got tired of searching for the number, but the median US personal income is about 75% of the median household income.. Carrying that out, a 47K worker would likely have a household income of about 64K, which is very close to the 5th quintile line. So 20% of the US labor force, 30 million, would be above 47K. That would fill the 1% bracket only if the number of workers in the EU over 47K is virtually zero, and if there are no rich people at all in the third world. But if only one out of 200 in the developing world had 47K income, (they probably do) that would add another ten million. Another 10% (half the US distribution) in the EU wold add another 20-million. So, worldwide, it is very unlikely that the number of people with incomes of 47K is as low as 30-million, since the US probably has that by itself. It is probably more like 60=million, which would be 2%. While it may be true that US workers making 48K are 1% of the working world, there us surely another 1% in the rest of the world above that level. Who do you think Mercedes is selling all those cars to worldwide?
Are you assuming that all US households have two incomes, and the incomes are equal? Almost half of all US households have only one adult.
Furthermore, none of this has anything at all to do with US tax rates an brackets, unless you are suddenly granting the rest of the world the benefits of US revenues, and the responsiblity for paying our taxes.
1-2% doesn't matter. What matters is the message, which is while we talk about how we should "soak the rich", there is billions of people who consider you and me "rich". How do know this logic wouldn't be used against you and me? I'm all for people paying their "fair share", but I am simply trying to put a temper on some serious class-warfare sentiments being tossed around. A better alternative would be punitive taxes on off-shoring, as well as rewards for job creation. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. As much as we wish it wasn't so, the world has changed now. Even if we had striaght socialist administrations between WWII and now, our industrial base would have eroded anyway. Europe on the surface may be better in this regard, but their goods are dependant on high-end buyers. Take them away, and the EU is an industrial wasteland. US policy isn't 100% responsible for our economic mess. Alot of it has to do with the fact that the rest of the world has opened up and recovered from WWII and communist folly. Areas of the world once too backward/devestated to be suitable for economic development are now competetors. Unless you suggest bombing them back into the stone age, there is simply nothing we can do about that.....
In a word the rich should be taxed fairly. By this I mean that they already pay the vast majority of taxes. I myself would opt for the flat tax no loophole system. Everyone pays the same % no escape loopholes. I might end up paying more but it is fair.
The taxes that poor people pay come out of their rent and grocery money. It would come out of their health care budgets too, but those have already been zeroed out. The taxes that the middle class pays come out of the cars they drive, the appliances they use, the clothes they buy for their kids, and their ability to save for college and retirement. The taxes that rich people pay don't come out of anywhere. The rich have everything they need and everything they want, and they still have piles of money lying around. The average Top 1% income earner currently has more after-tax income than 21 average middle class workers. They could probably get by with only more than 18 or 19 average middle class workers...
Does this post relate in any way to the topic at hand, or is it merely another example of your persistent trash-talk tendencies. Got a point? Make it. Otherwise...
No more than "If 1% of those who claim to have read The Wealth of Nations actually had, we would be a much better read nation than what we actually are."
Don't want to go into left field, don't start. Have a relevant point? Make it. Want to go off into left field, as you so frequently seem to do, don't cry when you're handed a little back.
Stop crying and make a point that's relevant next time.
I personally think that they should not be the vast majority of the Tax base. In the end what it really does is give them great power.Its not healthy that more and more people in this country provide no financial support to the federal government. In fact many people are becoming dependents of the governament whichmeans basically they are bought and paid for.
No more than "If 1% of those who claim to have read The Wealth of Nations actually had, we would be a much better read nation than what we actually are."
Don't want to go into left field, don't start. Have a relevant point? Make it. Want to go off into left field, as you so frequently seem to do, don't cry when you're handed a little back.
Stop crying and make a point that's relevant next time.
That sentence led directly to reference to the work of Alfred Marshall and several others involved in the development of marginal utility theory, a topic which is centrally related to the topic of this thread. Left field? I don't think so.
Your post...like virtually all of your recent authorship...made no contribution to anything at all.
I personally think that they should not be the vast majority of the Tax base. In the end what it really does is give them great power.Its not healthy that more and more people in this country provide no financial support to the federal government. In fact many people are becoming dependents of the governament whichmeans basically they are bought and paid for.
The rich are so significant a portion of the tax base because they have so significant a portion of the income. As a policymaker, you can only tax the money. Whoever has the money will pay the taxes.
Meanwhile workers ar every income level provide financial support to the federal government and to their state and local governments as well.
That sentence led directly to reference to the work of Alfred Marshall ...
And discussing Marshall's childhood might follow from that. However, both the lead and a discussion of his childhood would be irrelevant.
Sounds non sequitur to me.
Stop posting about it. I'm embarrassed for you.
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.
