That's rich

[selkirk]

Please. As if liberals don't presume to be "know-it-alls" and tell people "what they need to be told". Liberals always talk about "educating" people to be "tolerant", "informed", etc. So this should be right up your alley.

 

I don't claim to know it all... just more than you

 

So is there some process you would rather follow than "educating" people to "tolerant", "informed", "self-motivated"? Oh, that's right we should just cut them off from welfare, feel sorry for the ones who go hungry, donate all of our excess income to soup kitchens, lock up anyone who would dare become break the law, and then pat those few on the back who manage to become productive citizens. Sink or Swim baby

 

[JayB]

Are those income inequality figures comparing pre or post-tax income?

 

It's interesting to note that the percent of all Federal taxes paid by the top 1% has gone from 19 to 33% in the period from 1980 to 02, despite decreases in the top marginal rate, and on capital gains. Google "Laffer Curve."

 

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/250.html

[cj001f]

It's interesting to note that the percent of all Federal taxes paid by the top 1% has gone from 19 to 33% in the period from 1980 to 02, despite decreases in the top marginal rate, and on capital gains. Google "Laffer Curve."

Why is that at all interesting or surprising, except to right wing ideologues, and why does it fucking matter? The rich get a majority of the benefits from our system (as evidenced by their being rich!) why shouldn't they pay proportionately more?

 

Should the poor pay more to protect the property of the wealthy?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I don't claim to know it all... just more than you

 

I wasn't calling YOU a know it all.

 

So is there some process you would rather follow than "educating" people to "tolerant", "informed", "self-motivated"? Oh, that's right we should just cut them off from welfare, feel sorry for the ones who go hungry, donate all of our excess income to soup kitchens, lock up anyone who would dare become break the law, and then pat those few on the back who manage to become productive citizens. Sink or Swim baby

 

 

Give it a rest. There are plenty of people who can do better, but they don't either because they are given enough goodies for free, and/or are encouraged not to try. I'm saying we should start by replacing those messages with more productive ones.

[selkirk]

You may very well be right. I'm actually of the opinion that just a blank welfare check is a horrendous thing. I'd much rather see some sort of required communal work system developed where those on welfare are either in training to develop the skills or working to societally needed services. If they aren't willing to do one of those, and don't have some compelling reason not to, they'd be pretty much on their own, possibly having any kids they have taken from them. Of course i'm also a big fan of offering free vasectomy's and birth control (even some of the more long terms ones like depo-provera) to anyone below a certain income threshold.

 

I'd love to see program where those on welfare are put to work doing clerical work for understaffed government offices, or doing road clean up, or working in soup kitchens, cutting trails and doing maintenance for the Forest Service, or the National Parks, something. Something akin to what was done during the great depression. At the same time tapping into part of the group to provide child-care, for those out working, or training to make it feasible. However I think things liked fixed end dates aren't any good, but allowing the opportunity to advance within the program itself would be great. Then you could also have CPS ready to step in if they are displaying signs of endangering their children, which could be monitored by whomever is supervising the work crews.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

You may very well be right. I'm actually of the opinion that just a blank welfare check is a horrendous thing. I'd much rather see some sort of required communal work system developed where those on welfare are either in training to develop the skills or working to societally needed services. If they aren't willing to do one of those, and don't have some compelling reason not to, they'd be pretty much on their own, possibly having any kids they have taken from them. Of course i'm also a big fan of offering free vasectomy's and birth control (even some of the more long terms ones like depo-provera) to anyone below a certain income threshold.

 

I'd love to see program where those on welfare are put to work doing clerical work for understaffed government offices, or doing road clean up, or working in soup kitchens, cutting trails and doing maintenance for the Forest Service, or the National Parks, something. Something akin to what was done during the great depression. At the same time tapping into part of the group to provide child-care, for those out working, or training to make it feasible. However I think things liked fixed end dates aren't any good, but allowing the opportunity to advance within the program itself would be great. Then you could also have CPS ready to step in if they are displaying signs of endangering their children, which could be monitored by whomever is supervising the work crews.

 

I actually don't mind being taxed for these things if the money is spent well. I think the taxes are high enough - it's the other side of the equation that isn't coming through.

[selkirk]

Yeah, governmental efficiency is a whole different ball of wax.

[slothrop]

Of course, crime has nothing to do with the breakdown of the family unit, destructive socio-cultural attitudes, and a dependency/entitlement mentality fostered by left-wing social engineers. And laziness never ever has anything to do with it either, I suppose. It's easier to demand a check from someone else than to work, study, and aspire to do better.

 

You are making absolutely no sense. The "decline of Western Civilization" you're talking about here (what a tired piece of demagoguery that is!) would seem to indicate that crime should be on the rise... but as the DOJ graphs a while back showed, it's down.

 

You can't just rely on raw numbers to indicate economic well-being. You could spend your whole life coming up with a formula for Happiness, but you'd be wrong. So the easiest approximation is H = "How are you doing?". You know, asking someone about their feelings.

 

KK, you seem to think that people are incapable of reporting accurately on their own reality, that feelings != reality. This may work for you, tough guy, but for my girlfriend, for example, feelings == reality. You can't just tell someone to STFU and be happy with their Wal-Mart and their expensive health insurance. Well, you can, but you'd be an asshole. I prefer not to have assholes deciding economic policy.

 

Oh, and "left-wing social engineers"? How is engineering your values ("tell them what they need to hear") any different than engineering anyone else's values? Give up the high horse.

[slothrop]

Of course i'm also a big fan of offering free vasectomy's and birth control (even some of the more long terms ones like depo-provera) to anyone below a certain income threshold.

 

Now there's some social engineering that's right-wing approved!

 

I'd love to see program where those on welfare are put to work doing clerical work for understaffed government offices, or doing road clean up, or working in soup kitchens, cutting trails and doing maintenance for the Forest Service, or the National Parks, something. Something akin to what was done during the great depression.

 

Word. Bring back BIG GOVERNMENT PUBLIC WORKS. Might help repair the laughable infrastructure around here.

[JayB]

It's interesting to note that the percent of all Federal taxes paid by the top 1% has gone from 19 to 33% in the period from 1980 to 02, despite decreases in the top marginal rate, and on capital gains. Google "Laffer Curve."

Why is that at all interesting or surprising, except to right wing ideologues, and why does it fucking matter? The rich get a majority of the benefits from our system (as evidenced by their being rich!) why shouldn't they pay proportionately more?

 

Should the poor pay more to protect the property of the wealthy?

 

 

I have no problem with the figures or the distribution of the Federal tax burden at present, but it is interesting to see that a decline in the top marginal rates resulted in the wealthiest 1% paying proportionately more taxes, because these facts seem to contradict populist rhetoric about the rich not paying their fair share of the taxes, etc.

[Jim]

You may very well be right. I'm actually of the opinion that just a blank welfare check is a horrendous thing. I'd much rather see some sort of required communal work system developed where those on welfare are either in training to develop the skills or working to societally needed services. If they aren't willing to do one of those, and don't have some compelling reason not to, they'd be pretty much on their own, possibly having any kids they have taken from them. Of course i'm also a big fan of offering free vasectomy's and birth control (even some of the more long terms ones like depo-provera) to anyone below a certain income threshold.

 

I'd love to see program where those on welfare are put to work doing clerical work for understaffed government offices, or doing road clean up, or working in soup kitchens, cutting trails and doing maintenance for the Forest Service, or the National Parks, something. Something akin to what was done during the great depression. At the same time tapping into part of the group to provide child-care, for those out working, or training to make it feasible. However I think things liked fixed end dates aren't any good, but allowing the opportunity to advance within the program itself would be great. Then you could also have CPS ready to step in if they are displaying signs of endangering their children, which could be monitored by whomever is supervising the work crews.

 

I actually don't mind being taxed for these things if the money is spent well. I think the taxes are high enough - it's the other side of the equation that isn't coming through.

 

Like how much we're spending on homeland security, our military, and corporate welfare? Ya know, we've been spending billions each year on the military and there's still bad guys out there. They're obviously not doing thier job and we should have merit pay for generals or disband the Department of Defense.

 

Gimme a break. The money spent on welfare is but a drop in the swimming pool. Take a look at all the pork in the recent transportation bill if you really what to make a dent. Welfare roles have been cut by more than half since Clinton signed (and the Rep congress passed) the welfare reform bill. There are 5 yr time limits for receiving aid. The problem of course is with the low end of the spectrum who have no skills and/or mental health issues. There will always be a portion of the population that is chronically underemployed. Many of these folks used to be in state mental facilities run with federal and state funds. Under Reagan this program ended and these folks are now on the street.

 

It always cracks me up when folks born with the privelage of a middle class background start harping on the poor as if their all shiftless. Sure some of them are, but likely are a similar proportion from other social strata that can skate along based on where they started. I don't know who said it (Barry Switzer OK coach?) but it fits "George Bush is the type of guy who was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple"

[selkirk]

So if the wealthiest 1% are paying at a lower rate, but holding a higher tax burden, it follows that their level of wealth in absolute terms has increased, while the amount of absolute wealth held by the other 99% has decreased. If they're making more they should damn well be paying more. Their certainly paying their "fair" share if your thinking in terms of relatively flat tax rates, they're paying more than their fair share. However that doesn't mean they should be paying less than they are now. The level of burden that taxes place on lower income people is still much higher than the level of burden it places on more wealthy individuals. I'd be all for a more progressive tax structure. (and granted I make peanuts now, but hopefully won't be in a few more months).

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Gimme a break. The money spent on welfare is but a drop in the swimming pool. Take a look at all the pork in the recent transportation bill if you really what to make a dent. Welfare roles have been cut by more than half since Clinton signed (and the Rep congress passed) the welfare reform bill. There are 5 yr time limits for receiving aid. The problem of course is with the low end of the spectrum who have no skills and/or mental health issues. There will always be a portion of the population that is chronically underemployed. Many of these folks used to be in state mental facilities run with federal and state funds. Under Reagan this program ended and these folks are now on the street.

 

It always cracks me up when folks born with the privelage of a middle class background start harping on the poor as if their all shiftless. Sure some of them are, but likely are a similar proportion from other social strata that can skate along based on where they started. I don't know who said it (Barry Switzer OK coach?) but it fits "George Bush is the type of guy who was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple"

 

Cut the pork and use the recovered funds to pay down the debt.

[cj001f]

but it is interesting to see that a decline in the top marginal rates resulted in the wealthiest 1% paying proportionately more taxes

JayB-

How nicely you ignore the cuts in other marginal rates and other tax reforms that reduce the burden on the lower and middle classes.

[Jim]

 

Cut the pork and use the recovered funds to pay down the debt.

 

We did it under Clinton. Look where we are now.

[Jim]

but it is interesting to see that a decline in the top marginal rates resulted in the wealthiest 1% paying proportionately more taxes

JayB-

How nicely you ignore the cuts in other marginal rates and other tax reforms that reduce the burden on the lower and middle classes.

 

To assess trends in the overall level of taxes and to compare taxation across countries, economists usually look first at the ratio of taxes to gross domestic product, the total value of output produced in the country. In the United States, all taxes -- federal, state and local -- reached a peak of 29.6 percent of G.D.P. in 2000. That number was, however, swollen by taxes on capital gains during the stock-market bubble.

 

By 2002, the tax take was down to 26.3 percent of G.D.P., and all indications are that it will be lower still this year and next.

 

This is a low number compared with almost every other advanced country. In 1999, Canada collected 38.2 percent of G.D.P. in taxes, France collected 45.8 percent and Sweden, 52.2 percent.

 

Still, aren't taxes much higher than they used to be? Not if we're looking back over the past 30 years. As a share of G.D.P., federal taxes are currently at their lowest point since the Eisenhower administration. State and local taxes rose substantially between 1960 and the early 1970's, but have been roughly stable since then. Aside from the capital gains taxes paid during the bubble years, the share of income Americans pay in taxes has been flat since Richard Nixon was president.

 

Of course, overall levels of taxation don't necessarily tell you how heavily particular individuals and families are taxed. As it turns out, however, middle-income Americans, like the country as a whole, haven't seen much change in their overall taxes over the past 30 years. On average, families in the middle of the income distribution find themselves paying about 26 percent of their income in taxes today. This number hasn't changed significantly since 1989, and though hard data are lacking, it probably hasn't changed much since 1970.

 

Meanwhile, wealthy Americans have seen a sharp drop in their tax burden. The top tax rate -- the income-tax rate on the highest bracket -- is now 35 percent, half what it was in the 1970's. With the exception of a brief period between 1988 and 1993, that's the lowest rate since 1932. Other taxes that, directly or indirectly, bear mainly on the very affluent have also been cut sharply. The effective tax rate on corporate profits has been cut in half since the 1960's. The 2001 tax cut phases out the inheritance tax, which is overwhelmingly a tax on the very wealthy: in 1999, only 2 percent of estates paid any tax, and half the tax was paid by only 3,300 estates worth more than $5 million. The 2003 tax act sharply cuts taxes on dividend income, another boon to the very well off. By the time the Bush tax cuts have taken full effect, people with really high incomes will face their lowest average tax rate since the Hoover administration.

 

So here's the picture: Americans pay low taxes by international standards. Most people's taxes haven't gone up in the past generation; the wealthy have had their taxes cut to levels not seen since before the New Deal. Even before the latest round of tax cuts, when compared with citizens of other advanced nations or compared with Americans a generation ago, we had nothing to complain about -- and those with high incomes now have a lot to celebrate. Yet a significant number of Americans rage against taxes, and the party that controls all three branches of the federal government has made tax cuts its supreme priority. Que up the "starve the beast" theme song.

[slothrop]

Could it be that the wealthiest 1% paid proportionally more because their incomes also greatly increased at the same time that the taxes for them and for those slightly less wealthy went down?

 

Just speculating, but say:

 

Before:

- top 1% pays 40 billion on 400 billion of income (10% avg. rate, 40% of total paid)

- top 5% pays 60 billion on 700 billion of income (8.5% avg. rate)

- everyone pays 100 billion on 2,000 billion

 

After:

- top 1% pays 50 million on 600 billion (8.3% rate, 45% of total paid)

- top 5% pays 65 million on 850 billion (7.6% rate)

- everyone pays 110 million on 2,200 billion

 

In this scenario, the richest got third summer homes, while the merely rich merely got spinning rims for their Escalades. They paid less tax per dollar, but made so many more dollars than last year that their tax bill went up. The money they made didn't just materialize out of thin air, it was redistributed to them from the poorer people

[slothrop]

Jim, it doesn't matter that reality says Americans are undertaxed, it matters that they FEEL they're overtaxed.

[JayB]

You guys might want to take a look at the overall tax yield as well, and compare GDP growth in the referenced countries versus the US. Which structure produces the greatest real increase in government revenue?

[Jim]

Jim, it doesn't matter that reality says Americans are undertaxed, it matters that they FEEL they're overtaxed.

 

Ahh, THE paradox. While only moderately taxed (undertaxed by world standards) from where does the misconception arise? It's been a useful smokescreen for the rightwing agenda of cutting social spending while significantly rewarding corporations and those of the upper income brackets.

 

Why discuss the larger social (manufactured) inequatities in the society that have far more consequences to the middle and lower class that a $500 a year tax break? The tipping point may be on the horizon however. We (Bush) have dug ourselves such a big hole, with no spending limitations that the consequences will be, interesting, to say the least.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Ahh, THE paradox. While only moderately taxed (undertaxed by world standards)

 

We are moderately overtaxed.

 

Socialist Europe is excessively overtaxed.

 

If you prefer the latter to the former, move to Europe.

[knelson]

Look - I know the gap is getting bigger, but common sense says the gap has always been there and has always been growing. But that growth is not linear - it's most likely exponential, just like compounding interest. And we're just now probably starting to see that curve take off.

 

-kurt

 

If you'd bother to look up the data yourself you'd see those sources aren't that different.

 

If you'd bother to look up the data you'd see that "common sense" is once again wrong, as for a total of several decades America was heading to greater income equality (decreasing gini coefficent)

 

"Looking up the data" these days just means doing a google and posting the results, not necessarily trying to digest what the data is saying... so no - you're right - I haven't bothered to look up the data.

 

With that said tho...

 

Thanks for showing a graph that at least has a consistent data source. And I'm the first to admit when I'm wrong, so there... I was wrong - you were right. By this data, it does appear that income inequality wasn't always there.

 

But was it...?

 

This graph shows the PERCENT CHANGE for the Gini coefficient. This coefficient measures the gap between high and low income levels. The graph only tells us how much that coefficient is CHANGING... not what it is to start with. What it tells us is that yes... the rich are getting richer. It does NOT tell us that there was never a gap to start with.

 

Example:

 

In 1949, person X makes $10/year and person Y makes $1000/year. That ratio is 10/1000 or .01. In 1980, person X makes $50/year and person Y makes $5000/year. That ratio is also .01. The percent change of that ratio between 1949 and 1980? Yup... zero. No change in the coefficient. Was there income inequality present all along? You betcha.

 

I will ponder this more, but I still think something's fishy with that metric. Maybe it's the wrong metric, who knows. But it just seems like from the caveman days, there were some that had four sharp sticks, and some that only had one. I'm sure they did some "redistribution" of their own, but in the end, some still ended up with more.

 

I agree to disagree...

[Jim]

Ahh, THE paradox. While only moderately taxed (undertaxed by world standards)

 

We are moderately overtaxed.

 

Socialist Europe is excessively overtaxed.

 

If you prefer the latter to the former, move to Europe.

 

Reading comprehension is a good thing. Didn't mention Europe.

[cj001f]

Reading comprehension is a good thing. Didn't mention Europe.

It's absence is very illustrative of your point however!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Reading comprehension is a good thing. Didn't mention Europe.

 

It's called reading between the lines. Liberals always point to Socialist Europe and Canada as models to be emulated.

 

Citing higher taxes in Eastern Europe or a third world country will only make your tax-rate comparison an idiotic one.

 

It's been real guys, as usual...