Income inequality in America...I want your thoughts on this.

I see your problem. It's your comprehension. I never said specific date. I said date (the time or period to which any event or thing belongs; period in general). So we can add this to your list of shortcomings along with basic math.

What was said was, "there were 49 years of over 70% tax on the top bracket." Not total years, individual years, or different years. 49 years. Starting from one particular year and going to the next is defined as 1 year. You do that again, and you have 2 years. You keep doing that until you have reached 49 years.

Counting one particular time in history is not one year. That's only only individual year. You've gone from defending bad math to backtracking based on what you think someone else 'meant.' That is not going to fly.

She's just a random person. One of many respondent I got when I asked a basic question, and I got pretty basic answer. Guess what? They all have better common sense than you do.

​

Sorry, but I pretty much had to use a time and date calculator, as well as found random people from no where to outline how stupid you are. I don't understand why you bring up other topics you've utterly wrong about before. If not me outlining your inherent ignorance, it's someone else on this forum. It only enhances how big a joke you've become.

 

It is a simple moral failure to bear true witness, to even our own laws.

 

YOU mentioned it .

 

Noting that 1976 through 1980 is 5 years. It is an addition, not a subtraction. When you say 1980 minus 1976, you are saying 1980 TAKEAWAY 1976. But you are NOT taking away 1976. 1976 is one of the years that top tax was 70% or greater. 1976 is INCLUDED. MJ seems to have conveniently forgotten why we're doing this. It is NOT an arithmetic exercise. It is counting all the years where top tax was 70% or greater. Really, we shouldn't even be talking to her.

 

But that isn't what we're believing. YOU are the one who is turning this into a subtraction thing. It's not that, and it never was. It is merely counting all those years where taxes were at a certain level. And going by YOUR 100 year criteria, MOST of those years had taxes above 67%. So by YOUR criteria, 67%+ is normal, and you would approve of having US taxes at a normal rate ? For that matter, if you live in Hing Kong, what's it to ya ? Why don't you mind your own business ? We're not telling you what you should do in Hong Kong (figuring they're a lost cause anyway)

 

Funny. I thought you had already been deprogrammed from all that stuff. And some people need to have things repeated. Any suggestions from me about raising taxes on the rich (as the overwhelming majority of Americans support) is accompanied by a complete closure of all loopholes, escape hatches, Ughland House tax hideaways, etc, This is understood.
And it matters less what people paid in the past, compared to what they will pay in the present and future. Hope you got it this time.

- - - Updated - - -

Another case of where the quote refutes the post. "All that matters is that the gap between the rich and poor is way too wide, and getting wider. Way to stop it ? Higher taxes on the rich (with every loophole closed) as is supported by the overwhelming majority of the American people."

Amazing the panic attacks these guys go into when you smash their beloved talking points (that they thought were invincible),

 

I isn't 1966 "TO" 1975. It is ALL the years where tax was above 70%. That includes 1966 AND 1975 AND all the years inbetween If you have 10 fingers on you hands, try counting, starting with (and including) 1966 and ending with (and Including) 1975.

ANswer ? >>> 10 YEARS. Of course.

 

Here's what I've got. You will ignore all contradictory evidence and say whatever is convenient at the time in order to ignore it. And I don't really care. I have posted counterarguments against your silly arguments mostly for anyone reading this thread. I doubt your contradictory claims carry any weight with anyone but you. I think my job is done here. Happy ranting...

 

What subtraction? And no you didn't. You never mentioned, "All those years were taxes happened at a certain level." You clearly said, "there were 49 years of over 70% tax on the top bracket.." These are not individual years. These are full intervals of 365 days: 1 year. You were caught moving the goalpost because your math (as well as your rhetoric) doesn't add up. That's not going to work this time.

Notice how I used 100 years starting from 1913 -- the period in which your source begins -- but I kept the tax rate you used: 70%. Where exactly did you get 67% from? I never used 67%. Of course, you literary made up that figure from nothing. Just like you make up all your other facts, guidelines, and figures you fabricate.

Doesn't your arms get tired from moving the goalpost so much?

You're just some guy. Why do you care how much other people are making? Why don't you mind your business? We're not telling you how many taxes you should be paying.

 

Sorry, but if you wanted that guideline you should have mentioned it FAR in the beginning. Going by what you have said, we are using full years. Not individual years. Would have certainly saved the confusing, but you were too busy moving goalpost at every opportunity. Who was it that said this again?

What is your excuse now?

 

Whether you may like a celebrity or not, they have contributed to society. Whether it's to entertain, inform, or give you something to talk about.

I don't know how you think the stock market is suppose to work, but it exist to give businesses a marketplace for investors to invest in their company. Any idea needs money to grow and to become successful. This is how the it has always been for hundreds of years.

Being a CEO is only easy from the outside looking in. Almost no one can fill that role. And people are willing to pay for McDonald's food because it taste good and it fills people up. People are able to feed a family of 4 for just under $20 because of McDonald's and has probably done more to end hunger than any Government in history.

 

There isn't any "evidence" because there isn't any "argument" other than this >> The rich are receiving way too much money without paying a very high rate of tax. Country needs money. Overwhelming majority support tax raising on the rich.
Conclusion is obvious. Simple as that.

 

You are like someone who lost a duel, was killed, and now your pathetic ghost is railing around waving its sword, unware she's already dead. You lost babe. It was over 2 days ago when you tripped all over yourself, and you still are. And the more you talk, the more idiotic you make yourself look. YOU did the subtraction. You tried to subtract 1976 from 1980 and get 4 years. HA HA HA. Did you really think anybody was going to fall for that ?

EARTH TO MJ -- We're not doing subtraction. We're counting years. And they added up to 49. And the years of 1976 to 1980 added up to 5 years. You know it, and you're trying to avoid admitting being the fool you made out of yourself, and all you're doing is making an even bigger fool out of yourself every time you post.

Here's where I got the 67% from >> http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

And it from the chart of 100 years, it shows MOST of those years had a tax of 67% or higher. Don't believe it ? Pull up the chart and (carefully) count all the years with a 67% or higher tax. I recall it was 51. That qualifies as "MOST".

PS - the word you meant to use is >> Don't (not "Doesn't"). So you flunk elementary English grammar as well as arithmetic. And you claim Hong Kong schools are better than American ? Doesn't show from you, that's for sure.

I am "some guy" who resides in the USA, whose national security and numerous govt services are being lessened because of PSUEDO-Conservatives, who believe small govt, low taxes, and low spending is a good thing. I'm somebody who has a stake in the taxes of the USA. It is very much my business.

And you ? You live in Hong Kong. So what business is it of yours ? US tax rates are, MY business, the American people's business, and none of yours. So why don't YOU mind YOUR own business ?

 

I'm not the one in need of excuse here, and you know it. It would be nice if all you needed were those excuses, but in fact, it appears like you also need an elementary school education (preferably in the USA.)

 

1. So you're saying a celebrity who makes 4 million a year contributes more to society than say a biomedical scientist who makes around 60k if they're lucky? Makes sense.

2. Yes, that is exactly what the stock market is supposed to do. Right, now it sucks, because only the rich can invest due to over-pricing.

3. a.) Never said it wasn't easy to direct an entire company that feeds people extremely unhealthy food and is the number 1 contributor to the obesity epidemic in my country.
b.) Exactly. It tastes good, fills people up and is insanely cheaper than healthy food. That's the sad part; just read over "a" again.

 

It can't be real times of war if the wealthiest are not paying wartime tax rates.

 

Regardless how many times you repeat this mantra, won't change the fact only those 99%ers will pay tax, tax legislation is for you.... not your dictators.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/15096-once-upon-a-time-corporations-paid-taxes

And no its not wartime, its genocide time! But be glad your American, at least the depleted uranium dime bombs and white phosphorous isn't falling on you ...... yet!

Reap what you sow!

Regards
Highlander

 

Who are you accusing of genocide, and based on what ?

 

What ..... honestly ..... are you taking the proverbial?

Who is it that murdered 4 million Iraqis? Are you living under a thunder trap?

Based on ..... what the hell are you talking about, the facts are there for someone, anyone who has one iota of common sense!


Present company excluded of course!

Highlander

 

You may be missing the point about the wealthiest practicing better due diligence regarding the candidates they present to us for public office, if they know they have to pay wartime tax rates, even for a war on drugs.

 

Let's put this idea to bed once and for all that the rich own too much of the wealth in America and don't pay enough in taxes.

First we can see that using estate tax returns it can be seen that the top 1%'s share of wealth in America has trended down since the 1920s (link):

The Top 1% Wealth Share in the United States, 1916-2000​

Clearly, this idea that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer is a myth. The 99% have seen a significant and trending increase in their share of the wealth in America while the super wealthy have experienced a trending decrease.

But what about the last twenty years, you might ask. The Gini Coefficient for individuals which is a measured ratio of wealth distribution has been flat since 1994, so again, in proportion the rich are not getting richer and the poor are not getting poorer. If the rich had been getting richer and the poor poorer, the Gini chart would show a trending rise (link):



But then you might ask, what about comparing America to the rest of the developed world? The OECD did a study comparing of the top 24 countries in the world and found (link):

Simply put, America has the most progressive tax system in the world where the top 10% of income earners pay an astounding 23% more than second place, France! (1.35 minus 1.1 equals 0.25 divided by 1.1 equals 0.227 times 100 equals 22.7)

Since the high marginal income tax rates of the 1950s have become the benchmark to which liberals love to compare today's tax rates (Paul Krugman started this a couple of years ago), we'll do the same. Government revenue through individual income taxes as a percentage of GDP averaged 7.41% throughout the 1950s. Throughout the 2000s it averaged 8.05% – a significant 8.6% more per year that equals trillions of dollars in additional revenue (link):

1950 - 5.8
1951 - 6.8
1952 - 8.0
1953 - 8.0
1954 - 7.8
1955 - 7.3
1956 - 7.5
1957 - 7.9
1958 - 7.5
1959 - 7.5
Total = 74.1 divided by 10 equals 7.41% average per year

2000 - 10.2
2001 - 9.7
2002 - 8.1
2003 - 7.2
2004 - 6.9
2005 - 7.5
2006 - 7.9
2007 - 8.4
2008 - 8.0
2009 - 6.6
Total = 80.5 divided by 10 equals 8.05% average per year

8.05 minus 7.41 equals 0.64 divided by 7.41 equals 8.6

Therefore, throughout the 2000s a significant 8.6% more per year was collected by the federal government in income tax revenues than in the 1950s. I haven't calculated this, but I would guess this comes out to over 2 trillion dollars more in revenue over the ten years from 2000 to 2009 than with the revenue rate of the 1950s. In other words, with the 1950s revenue rate applied to 2000 to 2009, the debt today would be over 2 trillion dollars higher than it already is at over 16 trillion dollars.

(Here are a couple of other links about the 1950s for your reading pleasure: The Fantasy of a 91% Top Income Tax Rate and 1950s Tax Fantasy Is a Republican Nightmare)

What about this idea that high top marginal tax rates produce more government revenues from the rich than do lower marginal rates? This too is a fallacy. Since the top marginal rate was cut by Reagan from 70% down to the 25% to 39% range the top 1% are paying twice as much now as they did in 1979 (link):



But liberals insist that tax increases bring in more revenue to the federal government than do tax cuts. This too is a fallacy (link):



So it is obvious that cutting taxes increases revenue to the federal government at higher rates than does raising taxes. This means that deficits and the debt are not caused by cutting taxes, but by the only alternative - over spending.

In conclusion, liberal assertions about the top 1% in America are all fallacies. America is over taxed. Cut taxes and government revenues will grow just as the economy will grow. To reinforce this, please allow me to repeat something I posted earlier:

During the Reagan years, once Reagan got his tax cuts in 1983 the GDP growth rate didn't go negative again until 1991. After Bush's tax cuts were fully implemented in 2003 the GDP never showed negative growth until the housing bubble bust, which had nothing to do with tax rates. In contrast to Reagan and Bush, the fifties were a mixed bag of negative and positive growth rates.

After Reagan's tax cuts, up to 1990, 21 million net jobs were created. After Bush's tax cuts were fully implemented in 2003, over eight million net jobs were created in just four years until the housing bubble bust (again, which had nothing to do with tax rates). Over the entire decade of the 1950s only less than 11 million net jobs were created. Still pretty good, but certainly not better than the low tax years of Reagan and Bush.

All of the above analysis in this post is sourced from the Nuclear Counterarguments Essay Series at the Deprogramming Liberalism website. Literally hundreds of liberal arguments are nuked in this fashion throughout the essays.

 

Yeah let's put this to bed once and for all. The gap between America's rich and poor is so extreme, levels of inequality are worse in America than they are in many developing countries.

The U.S. ranks way behind the European Union and the United Kingdom in terms of inequality of pay, figures show. In fact, the situation is so extreme, America falls behind countries such as Cameroon, the Ivory Coast and revolutionary Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen - and only just in front of Uganda and Jamaica.

According to the CIA's World Fact Book, which ranks countries in terms of how 'equally' wealth is distributed, the U.S. is the 42nd most unequal country in the world. In contrast, Tunisia is the 62nd most unequal country, Yemen is 76th and Egypt, which has been ravaged by civil war, comes in at 90th place. All better than the USA.

Income disparity in the U.S. has been growing for decades but the latest figures show it has now reached levels not seen since the Great Depression.
BILLIONAIRES: THE TEN WEALTHIEST AMERICANS

No. 1: Bill Gates
by GAVI, London, Great Britain, 13 June 2011. EPA/JONATHAN BRADY
Microsoft tycoon Bill Gates is worth a huge net $54 billion

No. 2: Warren Buffett has $45 billion to smile about

No. 3: Larry Ellison
Larry Ellison, chief executive officer of Oracle Corp a computer technology company, is worth $27 billion

No. 4: Christy Walton and family - As the widow of John Walton, son of Wal-Mart's founder, Christy Walton has inherited a cool $24 billion

No. 5: Charles Koch - The chairman and CEO of Koch Industries, said to be the largest private company in the world, is worth $22 billion

No. 6: David Koch - As executive vice president of Koch Industries, David trails his brother slightly, with $21.5 billion

Nos. 8 and 7: Alice and Jim Walton - The Wal-Mart siblings and heirs are each worth between $20 and $20.1 billion.

No. 9: S. Robson Walton - As chairman of Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Robson's net worth stands at $19.7 billion

No. 10: Michael Bloomberg - New York City's Mayor, who also owns media company Bloomberg LP, takes home $18 billion

Feeling a bit uncomfortable reading this, Mr. & Mrs. $9/hour ?

Ten per cent of the total personal income in America was taken home by the top 0.1 per cent of earners in 2008 - the latest year for which figures are available.

The top one per cent took home more than a fifth of all personal income in the U.S.

Now, regarding the Reagan/Bush tax cut, you have the gall to refer to this as a time of good GDP growth ? Pheeeeeww !! (high-pitched whistle) I was one of the WORST periods since World War II for GDP growth, with GDP dropping a whopping 10.5 percentage points from 1988 (when Reagan dropped the top tax to 28%), and 1991, when Bush's tax was still a meager 31%. And it was a steady decline over those 3 years, from a high of 7% in late 1987 (before the tax drop), down to a pitiful minus 3.5 in 1991.
Job growth also was awful during this period.

Best periods of GDP growth , were when top taxes were at 75-80% and second best at 90% +

Best periods of Job Growth were when top taxes were at 75-80% and 69-75%.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/taxratesgrowth.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/jobsvtaxeschart0628.jpg

 

Income distribution is the natural product of any economy.

Get used to it. some people are going to make more money that you do, and it's childish to hate them. You weren't robbed at birth; it's your fault for picking the wrong parents. Get over it already. You weren't cheated, you simply failed to spot the better opportunity. It's not fair, really, but did someone tell you life was supposed to be fair? Tell that to the salmon caught by the grizzly before he can breed.

What would happen if a law was passed and EVERYONE had five million dollars, not one penny more, not one penny less, and then everyone was restored the freedom to buy and sell? Well, within a very short period of time, there would be the poorest of the poor who wasted their largesse and there would be the wealthiest, who know how to manage their money....and that situation would develop even if nobody cheated or robbed anyone else.

It's called "human nature", combined with statistics and entropy. People need to stop pretending unequal distributions of any resource is bad. It's nature, deal with it.

 

HA HAHA. Oh "get used to it" huh ? Well, after 66 years of life I'm NOT USED TO IT, and I have no intentions of getting used to it, and with 4/5 of the American people calling for tax increases on the rich, somebody ought to SMACK YOUR FACE for saying "get used to it".

I suspect this 80% of the population is going to get really tired of the obstruction to tax increases being waged by Republicans in the House, and this is going to start showing up in the upcoming elections. You can then GET USED TO 80% taxes on the rich.

And yeah, someone told me that life certainly IS supposed to be fair. My parents, my older relatives when I was growing up, all my teachers in school, my religious leaders, my boy scout leaders, my military NCOs and officers. And they also warned me that there would be misguided people like you who I would have to be sure to pay no attention to. I got a lot of good advice over the years.

As for nature, did someone tell you it was supposed to be a model to emulate ? Nature contains the predator-prey relationship, which is absolutely the worst thing in the world. You have a very bad perspective on life.

 

Well, the Mayor COULD read your whole post, but there's no need.

The expansion of the dreaded "income inequality" is greatest in the United States than anywhere else for one reason, and one reason only:

Every nation got's da po' peoples. Even the US.

But FREE nations allow citizens to earn money and KEEP IT, because they're the ones that earned it. Naturally, the United States, having more economic freedom than anywhere else, plus having the single largest economy in the entire world, has more millionaires and billionaires than elsewhere....but those damn poor people they can't have less than nothing.

So the United States naturally evolves the highest "income inequality". The phrase you need to learn is "BFD". Income inequality, in a free nation, is a good thing.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, the Mayor COULD read your whole post, but there's no need.

The expansion of the dreaded "income inequality" is greatest in the United States than anywhere else for one reason, and one reason only:

Every nation got's da po' peoples. Even the US.

But FREE nations allow citizens to earn money and KEEP IT, because they're the ones that earned it. Naturally, the United States, having more economic freedom than anywhere else, plus having the single largest economy in the entire world, has more millionaires and billionaires than elsewhere....but those damn poor people they can't have less than nothing.

So the United States naturally evolves the highest "income inequality". The phrase you need to learn is "BFD". Income inequality, in a free nation, is a good thing.