You voted to tax the rich

[bugeye]

Have gains by the rich come at the expense of a declining living standard for the middle class?

Median family income in America between 1980 and 2004 grew by 17 percent. The middle class (defined as those between the 40th and the 60th percentiles of income) isn’t falling behind or “disappearing.” It is getting richer.
The lower income bound for the middle class has risen by about $12,000 (after inflation) since 1967. The upper income bound for the middle class is now roughly $68,000—some $23,000 higher than in 1967. Thus, a family in the 60th percentile has 50 percent more buying power than 30 years ago.

To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, way back in 63', this has been a “rising tide” expansion, with most (though not all) boats lifted.

We've had a bit of a glitch these last few years but not that much worse than in the late 70's-early 80's.
What this glitch has done is to show that the Governments at all levels are bloated in size by their over use of OUR MONEY.

Getting richer is an interesting concept, you base it only on uncited information about income, and I cant even figure out if the percentiles you mention are stay in medians or migrate to averages, or how inflation was calculated into the figures. I do suspect you're comparing apples and oranges.
Also an income bound is an arbitrary divider and carries no weight in and of itself.

The middle class is not thriving, we are having our bones picked dry by the high cost of insurance, the decline in the value of homes, flat wages, declining jobs market, high cost of education for our children with a potential that they may not be able to find employment, high taxes, and a system that finds the interests of the rich to be far more important than preserving the economic base of middle class families. In addition the decisions made by our gov and our business interests seem suicidal for our system as a whole. You simply can't allow everything to be done elsewhere because it is cheaper over there and maintain a viable economy.

 

[bugeye]

What?:huh:

The chart shows government ESTIMATES of taxes without considering the Bush tax cut vs. ACTUAL TAXES paid with the Bush tax cuts, the stated conclusion that that tax cuts increased the actual payments misses the point that the ESTIMATES might have been off. This is just the old shell game of using rubber rulers, but I guess this sort of goofy fluff is argument enough to fool most righties as they lack critical thinking abilities.

 

[elsullo]

This chart is OK, but the conclusion is absurd, showing estimates without something vs. actual payments with something probably shows an error of estimates.

Just because somebody paints a chart and draws a conclusion does not make anything "hard facts." I agree with Bugeye, of course. The source of these charts is not given so they might be totally bogus, but let's assume for argument that they are real and correct. That particular chart compares Treasury Department advance ESTIMATES of potential taxes before the tax cuts, versus the actual taxes collected later after the Bush tax rate cut. It does NOT at all prove that taxing at a lower rate generates more taxes! That chart is meaningless and proves only that the rich got EVEN richer than expected and chose not to reinvest in production, and so had to pay more taxes on their net income.

It is crucially important to scrutinize how these charts and studies are assembled to make sure that they are not just a smokescreen for false conclusions and DISINFORMATION. The bottom line as always is that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer..........even FASTER than in the past........................elsullo

 

[Brown Trout]

It does NOT at all prove that taxing at a lower rate generates more taxes! That chart is meaningless and proves only that the rich got EVEN richer than expected and chose not to reinvest in production, and so had to pay more taxes on their net income.

The bottom line as always is that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer..........even FASTER than in the past........................elsullo

the chart started out meaningless but then became a master proof when it was interpreted from your point of view? The thing I don't get is why it is so hard to understand why lower tax rates lead to more tax dollars generated. The bourgeoisie either got a raise (not hard to conceive I'll grant you ) and paid more taxes, or they took the capital from the tax cuts and reinvested it one way or another, thus earning more income, thus paying more in taxes at a reduced rate. Capital that has been streamed into the economy is used to "purchase" new work, whether construction, research, developement, what have you which in turn fosters the demand for labor (white and blue collar). By the way, there are many charts available for your reading pleasure that will show the exact same information based on historic tax cuts back to the mid 30's I believe.

 

[Jamie6.5]

A pretty good description of the many government jobs that are being "created" don't ya think? Since they are using the taxpayer's money to fund their jobs, should they pay a higher tax rate?

Well they would,... Except they are union jobs.
That is precisely why we need to get unions out of the public sector, and be VERY wary of any union backed political candidates.

 

[Stomper]

The middle class is not thriving, we are having our bones picked dry by the high cost of insurance,
Driven up by mandatory "blanket coverage" legislated by progressives... i.e. why does a retired couple need to pay for prenatal care coverage for instance? Why can't people pick and choose what type of coverage they want? What if I don't want to pay for a DEAD BEAT TWENTY-SIX YEAR OLD to stay on my policy? Typical "one shoe fits all" big government mentality.

the decline in the value of homes,
Thank you Barney Frank & Chris Dodd!!

flat wages,
rising minimum wages could be contributing to that, plus growing business expenses of "complying" with every stupid regulation that out of touch politicians can dream up.,

declining jobs market,
because its being regulated and taxed to death,

high cost of education for our children,
Thank you NEA, more money and less results... EVERY TIME!!

with a potential that they may not be able to find employment,
thank you again big government

high taxes,
yeah... its all the "righties fault on this one..... NOT! Haven't you heard?!! Joe Biden says its PATRIOTIC to pay high taxes!!,

and a system that finds the interests of the rich to be far more important than preserving the economic base of middle class families. In addition the decisions made by our gov and our business interests seem suicidal for our system as a whole.
I would say you are on to something, but down the wrong trail... leftist policies ARE suicidal

You simply can't allow everything to be done elsewhere because it is cheaper over there and maintain a viable economy.
I do agree with that to an extent!

The chart shows government ESTIMATES of taxes
without considering the Bush tax cut vs. ACTUAL TAXES paid with the Bush tax cuts, the stated conclusion that that tax cuts increased the actual payments misses the point that the ESTIMATES might have been off. This is just the old shell game of using rubber rulers, but I guess this sort of goofy fluff is argument enough to fool most righties as they lack critical thinking abilities.

You mean "rubber ruler shell games" like saying the MASSIVE Obama care program will actually REDUCE THE DEFICIT, (and in light of my highlighted comments in your quotes above) you think "righties" lack critical thinking abilities... stuff like that you mean?

Well they would,... Except they are union jobs.
That is precisely why we need to get unions out of the public sector, and be VERY wary of any union backed political candidates.

There is a growing rift between public sector and private sector unions. We private sector union thugs can see that the lavish "guaranteed" benefits packages of the public secter are indeed bankrupting our systems. My 401k hasn't been guanateed, it's remained "flat"... I haven't lost, but it hasn't gained either. Our pension fund through the union has been in "critical status" for a few years now. If it doesn't turn around the Fed will seize control of it.





Remember kids, guns aren't evil they're tools, just like those who think guns are evil!!

 

[Stomper]

I remember the left used to say that if you made $1,000,000.00 a year you were wealthy, then after a while it was $500,000.00 a year, now its $250,000.00 a year... I suspect I'll be next in this OBVIOUS trend... and when they get down to $18,000.00 a year it will be Buggy's turn, but by then we won't care!


"When Hitler attacked the Jews
I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned.
And when Hitler attacked the Catholics,
I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned.
And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists,
I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned.
Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church --
and there was nobody left to be concerned."

 

[Jamie6.5]

2. Why is it always about raising taxes and not reducing the size of government with you guys?

Nevermind...

Sorry Gunfixx,... Nevermind IS the problem.

The answer(s) to your question is/are:
Because they never met an entitlement program they didn't like.

They kowtow to the public sector union bosses that back candidates that promise the moon.

They view the public budget as a bottomless well they can tap. As long as they can convince the sheeple that profits are evil, and those that generate/make them don't pay their "fair share."


I was told long ago that the fiscal difference between a liberal and a conservative is in how they view public spending.
The conservative looks at the treasury/budget first, to see what they can afford, and prioritizes spending accordingly.
The liberal looks at what (s)he sees as a public "need" and spends the money now, and worries about paying for it later.

Like Boehner said yesterday,... We can no longer "kick the can (of budget accountability) down the road." In case nobody noticed, only the republican side of the aisle stood and applauded when he said it.
In speech, Boehner promises 'openness'
(Starts @3:00 minutes)
Words to live by. The little people know this, why don't liberal politicians? Even more so, why don't reasonably intelligent people like elsullo and bugeye realize it and vote accordingly?

 

[rufus]

The inability to face reality head-on?

They call it superior critical thinking abilities.

 

[Brown Trout]

be VERY wary of any union backed political candidates.

Don't worry, my Labor Press is saved only to be used to start the fire.

 

[elsullo]

First of all, you did not explain where YOU got the charts, so that anyone else could verify them. The charts claim to use IRS and Dept of Treasury data, but we have no way to know if anything is falsified or distorted on the chart citations. Just because a chart SAYS it is true does not mean that it is. WHERE IS IT FROM? It's all about the actual source, and Fox News just will not do!

Second, I actually read these messages very thoroughly, because I always find something to question---like the conclusions drawn from little information. Also, I pay close attention because frankly I am grateful for the trouble you go to to support your views---I just end up with different conclusions.

As for tax rates, the Bush tax cuts to 36% on the highest income are bankrupting our Nation! Before the tax cuts the richest 2% paid a tax rate of 39% on their highest income, and the country had a budget SURPLUS, so why not go back to that? All of these rich folks screaming about three percent less taxes on their millions and billions! They are FILTHY RICH and can afford to pay it without pain! Of course that was before we went to war in Middle Asia, so how about we go back to the REAGAN ERA tax rates to get our Nation out of the hole?

Finally, who says we don't need to cut government spending? Not me! You complain about "presumption" and "preconception" yet you put all kinds of beliefs upon me that I do not have! Cutting waste and fraud is imperative, and eliminating redundency in government is a great start. "Consultants" to the government are quite possibly far more of a waste than all of the "welfare bums" could ever dream! All of those boards and commissions who meet for a few hours once in a while and then charge a huge fee eat up more government money than all of the cold and hungry old ladies in the country. No, I TOO AM ALL FOR cutting government spending and waste..........................elsullo

This is why it is futile discussing anything with you and the bugeye.
The source of the charts is listed on the charts!!
Furthermore, I've noted where my data came from. (IRS, DOT)
Neither of you two pay attention to what you read, and neither of you seem to absorb what you read in a subjective manner.
You read and comprehend in a manner that is tainted with defensive preconception, and presumption.

The name calling is also a clue that your lock-step thought is showing.
"righties..."
Our economy is OUR problem.

Still no answer to my basic questions.
1. What is a fair tax for the rich if 35% is not?
2. Why is it always about raising taxes and not about reducing the size of government with you guys?

 

[Stomper]

They call it superior critical thinking abilities.

LMAO!!

Don't worry, my Labor Press is saved only to be used to start the fire.

Ditto, Brother... ditto!

Finally, who says we don't need to cut government spending? Not me! You complain about "presumption" and "preconception" yet you put all kinds of beliefs upon me that I do not have! Cutting waste and fraud is imperative, and eliminating redundency in government is a great start. "Consultants" to the government are quite possibly far more of a waste than all of the "welfare bums" could ever dream! All of those boards and commissions who meet for a few hours once in a while and then charge a huge fee eat up more government money than all of the cold and hungry old ladies in the country. No, I TOO AM ALL FOR cutting government spending and waste..........................elsullo

Elsullo, you hit it on the head about "consultants"! Case in point; Woodburn just spent$250,000.00 on "consultants" to see what it will take to make the public pool self-sustaining as the city has been subsidizing it to the tune of $500,000.00 a year!!

But on the other hand, you contradict yourself as you SAY you're all for cutting goobermint spending, but you are all for Obama care and it has just come out with CBO NUMBERS that it will be another $760BILLION hole... after the double counting, and slight of hand numbers supplied to the CBO when the legislation was crafted were corrected. But that is just one thing on the national level, what else (besides "consultants") do you see as over-spending and/or waste on a state level. :huh:

NOTHING that comes out of Salem will surprise me in this upcoming administration of Gov. Kidslobber... I'm currently enjoying that .06/gallon tax hike on gasoline when I fill the tank(s)... NOT!

 

[Jamie6.5]

"Consultants" to the government are quite possibly far more of a waste than all of the "welfare bums" could ever dream! All of those boards and commissions who meet for a few hours once in a while and then charge a huge fee eat up more government money than all of the cold and hungry old ladies in the country. No, I TOO AM ALL FOR cutting government spending and waste..........................elsullo

So how many politicians have you voted for that decided we needed an "independent panel" to find a solution looking for a problem?

The problem isn't with the consultants, it's with the idiots in power that hire them, and pay them with YOUR money! Usually for the purpose of greasing a political skid somewhere, or to pay back a political favor.
Like Kulongoski and his crusade to implement marine reserves when the NOAA, PFMC and ODFW admit Oregon has some of the best managed nearshore fisheries in the U.S?
Marine reserves at the cost of millions to our cash-strapped state, all to placate his liberal enviro campaign supporters.

Or like when Pelosi hired her husband's construction/engineering firm,...
I'd continue, but there isn't enough bandwidth on the net.

 

[elsullo]

So how many politicians have you voted for that decided we needed an "independent panel" to find a solution looking for a problem?

The problem isn't with the consultants, it's with the idiots in power that hire them, and pay them with YOUR money! Usually for the purpose of greasing a political skid somewhere, or to pay back a political favor.
Like Kulongoski and his crusade to implement marine reserves when the NOAA, PFMC and ODFW admit Oregon has some of the best managed nearshore fisheries in the U.S?
Marine reserves at the cost of millions to our cash-strapped state, all to placate his liberal enviro campaign supporters.

Or like when Pelosi hired her husband's construction/engineering firm,...
I'd continue, but there isn't enough bandwidth on the net.

Well, I have no idea who established just what consultancy panels, and neither to you. I can't study the day-by-day activities of all officials, and the newscasts and newspapers don't report it. My recollection is that Republicans are far more busy at this than Democrats are. I just think that it all needs to be totally transparent, with fees and costs established beforehand and made very public, so the voters can decide what is worthwhile. We usually only learn about these fiascos afterward.

Here's a steaming pile of example: Last year Metro, the regional multi-county government layer for the Portland Metro area, paid several hundred thousand dollars to a consultant for a "study" of how to make Metro government more efficient. Well, it turns out that none of the Metro Councilers ever READ it! We only learned of it because the Councilers were debating hiring another consultant to write a SUMMARY of it for many more thousands of dollars! Now, I wonder who those consultants will be making political campaign donations to? Yah...............

Naturally, I heartily support the proposed Marine Reserves! Saying that we have the best managed fisheries in the US is NOT SAYING MUCH, since fisheries are declining severely nearly everywhere. Many New England fish species are GONE forever. Remember the great Oregon Scallop Boom? Well, they are almost extinct now---in one year they CAUGHT THEM ALL, nearly that is. Great management there! We urgently need refuge sites reserved from fishing so that Nature has any chance of restoring itself, like a battery recharging site, a refuge where surviving creatures can spread their eggs to the waters and expand. If the prospector ate ALL of his sourdough and kept nothing back as a "starter", then there are NO more pancakes. If the brewer drank up ALL of his beer and kept nothing back as starter yeast, then there is NO more beer. There is a financial cost, but it is an investment we OWE to furture generations if we are to leave anything behind us.

Well, I would certainly never have voted for anybody like Pelosi, if I ever lived there. I would NEVER vote for any multi-millionaire. Having that much money is obviously a conflict-of-interest against public service!....................elsullo

 

[MA Duce]

WOW Elsullo you have laid your finger on a sore spot with me. eg. Consultants. When we taxpayers hire officials to manage an agency, it is not too far out of the scope of reality to expect them to do the managing. I can offer an example from personal experience.

My father was conducting a research project for the USFS on the benefits to natural grasslands by controlled burns. But due to regulations about personnel in fire management being in a risk position, he was required to retire at age 55. He requested to stay for the remaining year of the project but was denied. Upon retirement he was asked to be a "consultant" to manage the project's completion.....at nearly TWICE his normal salary. I would laugh if it wasn't our tax dollars being pi**ed away like that.

 

[bugeye]

Well they would,... Except they are union jobs.
That is precisely why we need to get unions out of the public sector, and be VERY wary of any union backed political candidates.

Yes, you're much better off favoring candidates that are backed by the rich, as they will create your dream utopia by transforming the US in a feudal aristocrisy of money, where most people can live the happy lives of slaves dreaming of being the master in the big house!

You guys are funny, for a bunch of pea pickers driving rustbuckets and living in hovels ,you sure do like to make political decisions as if you had megabucks!

 

[Sling Blade]

Yes, you're much better off favoring candidates that are backed by the rich, as they will create your dream utopia by transforming the US in a feudal aristocrisy of money, where most people can live the happy lives of slaves dreaming of being the master in the big house!

You guys are funny, for a bunch of pea pickers driving rustbuckets and living in hovels ,you sure do like to make political decisions as if you had megabucks!

They dream of America as it used to be before unions: 6 day work weeks, no legal rights for employees, no paid holidays, no safety gear, no child labor laws, none of those posh safety net pension programs, etc. Yeah, living was great back then, by god.

 

[Scott]

They dream of America as it used to be before unions: 6 day work weeks, no legal rights for employees, no paid holidays, no safety gear, no child labor laws, none of those posh safety net pension programs, etc. Yeah, living was great back then, by god.

And after unions there are still 6 day work weeks, not many legal rights for employees, no paid holidays, safety gear. Same crap as many people on here know.

But they seem to do well for the universities, schools, cops, and auto makers. Look at the states that are going bankrupt. Their pensions are killing states and I wonder who caused that? Union pensions are killing states and the tax payers have to pick up the tab. Why don't the unions pay all their pensions? I think they should.

Unions are just doing wonderful things to this country. How did the unions, the largest contributor to Obama get the money? Oh they just raised dues. I think they donated over 70 million and I wonder why.

Just keep thinking unions are looking out for you.

Why isn't Toyota, Volkswagen, Honda, Nissan ect.... having problems like the union auto makers? I wonder why..............................

 

[KalamaMark]

"Unions are just doing wonderful things to this country. How did the unions, the largest contributor to Obama get the money? Oh they just raised dues."

You must remember to keep these things in perspective. The only purpose of a Union is to look out for the interests of it's members, get the best deal it can for them, and become as powerful as possible to do that. To expect such an entity to look out for the best interest of the general public is ludicrous.

The only purpose of a corporation is to get a good return on investment to it's shareholders. To do so, it must lobby and gain a favorable environment from the government it works under. You can't expect them to look out for workers or the public.

The only purpose of government is to spend taxpayer money. That's it. There is no profit motive, no incentive...the only role is to properly dispense and dispose of the money extracted from the public.

And, if you want to be really cynical, the only role of religion is to extract income from the faithfull, re-distribute it(minus perfectly reasonable overhead and administrative fees) and promise some non-tangible eternal solace.

Now...the government and religion have kind of merged on the last point...as Social Security sure looks like a 'non-tangible, promised, paid for weekly as the plate goes by, pie in the sky, hope like heck and you'll see when you get there' solace.

But I digress...You were complaining that the Unions looked out for their members, negotiated contracts in good faith with the government entities, and these contracts were signed and agreed upon by elected and appointed officials. However, the government wasn't able to hold up the end of the bargain that they signed for, so that makes the entity that represented the workers evil, and all the workers should be flogged for their service and work until they die.

Let's continue to disparage and vilify the ONLY one of the above mentioned parties that has taken an active role in representing the welfare of the middle class in the last 50 years.

I'll let you get back to that.

Mark

 

[Jamie6.5]

They dream of America as it used to be before unions: 6 day work weeks, no legal rights for employees, no paid holidays, no safety gear, no child labor laws, none of those posh safety net pension programs, etc. Yeah, living was great back then, by god.

Sorry bud,... That doesn't begin to compare to what a public sector union does.
We aren't protecting workers from evil profit mongers with public sector unions.
Unless you consider yourself, a taxpayer. an evil profit monger.
Unless you believe that counties statewide would be forcing 8 year olds to shovel snow and rake up the leaves in parks, and put them on litter patrol.
The list is longer but most will get the point. Are you really that clueless?

Public sector unions are bleeding the state, county and city governments dry, and need to go.