$100K-Plus Earners Pay 72% of Federal Income Taxes

[bendog]

There is no arguing that the numbers and the economic climate improved dramatically as the result of the New Deal. During the first term unemployment dropped by 15 percentage points. Gross national product went from $55 billion to $85 billion. Purchase of consumer goods went from $45 billion to $65 billion. Private investment in industry went from $2 billion to $10 billion. All accomplished over a six-year period prior to the onset of the wartime economy.

Trying to re-write history to meet a current political philosophy just doesn't work. Too many people know better.

As the crisis lessened - the New Deal had a reverse effect. And Many of those gains were lost. Which is why I said that it was a good emergency response - but not a good "business-as-usual" policy. The numbers clearly back that up.

Hardly... it did not 'improve dramatically as a result of the new deal'.. and this has been shown time and time again by numerous people...

It was a horrid emergency response as it was not the job of the federal government.... many things from the new deal plague us still today.. it was one of the greatest over-reaches in our governmental history

The numbers show the dramatic improvement - no matter how many revisionists try to say different - the numbers are right there. I've never found opinions to be more persuasive than the actual numbers.

There are New Deal programs alive that I think should have expired when the emergency past (as I posted before).

Ah, time for another graph! LOL

60 Years of American Economic History, Told in 1 Graph - Jordan Weissmann - The Atlantic

 

[NYcarbineer]

"you cannot raise the poor by bringing down the rich" Do you know who said that?

Why would I care who said it? Do you really think I judge right or wrong that way? Are you projecting?

It's wrong. The production of wealth is a zero sum game. The more that is confiscated by the Rich, the less there is left for the not-rich.

It is not a zero sum game

Thanks for playing

Please see Don Pardo on your way out for some lovely parting gifts

It has to be a zero sum game because every year's annual income is a finite number.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Hardly... it did not 'improve dramatically as a result of the new deal'.. and this has been shown time and time again by numerous people...

It was a horrid emergency response as it was not the job of the federal government.... many things from the new deal plague us still today.. it was one of the greatest over-reaches in our governmental history

The numbers show the dramatic improvement - no matter how many revisionists try to say different - the numbers are right there. I've never found opinions to be more persuasive than the actual numbers.

There are New Deal programs alive that I think should have expired when the emergency past (as I posted before).

Ah, time for another graph! LOL

60 Years of American Economic History, Told in 1 Graph - Jordan Weissmann - The Atlantic

Doesn't cover the New Deal period - but I think my numbers gave a pretty good snapshot of that.

But the graph is pretty interesting. Thanks.

 

[Kosh]

It was not.. it is PREACHED to be, by the big government types... it was actually a benchmark in our government's over-reach... and it's interference lengthened the recovery

There is no arguing that the numbers and the economic climate improved dramatically as the result of the New Deal. During the first term unemployment dropped by 15 percentage points. Gross national product went from $55 billion to $85 billion. Purchase of consumer goods went from $45 billion to $65 billion. Private investment in industry went from $2 billion to $10 billion. All accomplished over a six-year period prior to the onset of the wartime economy.

Trying to re-write history to meet a current political philosophy just doesn't work. Too many people know better.

As the crisis lessened - the New Deal had a reverse effect. And Many of those gains were lost. Which is why I said that it was a good emergency response - but not a good "business-as-usual" policy. The numbers clearly back that up.

Hardly... it did not 'improve dramatically as a result of the new deal'.. and this has been shown time and time again by numerous people...

It was a horrid emergency response as it was not the job of the federal government.... many things from the new deal plague us still today.. it was one of the greatest over-reaches in our governmental history

Actually it was FDR's lie to get the US into WWII that spurred the US growth, but the far left will never admit to that. It was also the FDR admiration that created the great military industrial complex that the far left often rails against.

 

[bendog]

There is no arguing that the numbers and the economic climate improved dramatically as the result of the New Deal. During the first term unemployment dropped by 15 percentage points. Gross national product went from $55 billion to $85 billion. Purchase of consumer goods went from $45 billion to $65 billion. Private investment in industry went from $2 billion to $10 billion. All accomplished over a six-year period prior to the onset of the wartime economy.

Trying to re-write history to meet a current political philosophy just doesn't work. Too many people know better.

As the crisis lessened - the New Deal had a reverse effect. And Many of those gains were lost. Which is why I said that it was a good emergency response - but not a good "business-as-usual" policy. The numbers clearly back that up.

Hardly... it did not 'improve dramatically as a result of the new deal'.. and this has been shown time and time again by numerous people...

It was a horrid emergency response as it was not the job of the federal government.... many things from the new deal plague us still today.. it was one of the greatest over-reaches in our governmental history

Actually it was FDR's lie to get the US into WWII that spurred the US growth, but the far left will never admit to that. It was also the FDR admiration that created the great military industrial complex that the far left often rails against.

Absolutely, no FDR not US in WWII. (for fks sake, LOL)

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why would I care who said it? Do you really think I judge right or wrong that way? Are you projecting?

It's wrong. The production of wealth is a zero sum game. The more that is confiscated by the Rich, the less there is left for the not-rich.

It is not a zero sum game

Thanks for playing

Please see Don Pardo on your way out for some lovely parting gifts

It has to be a zero sum game because every year's annual income is a finite number.

No it doesn't.

There is no limit to income at the beginning of the year so the number is not finite.

If we think both of us are going to make X this year and I actually wind up making X+1 that does necessarily mean you were forced to make X-1

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Someone working at minimum wage is poor. They don't appear to be lazy to me from what I've seen.

There is no reason why someone should stay at min wage. It takes very little effort to take that next step. Hell,just showing up and doing your job to the best of your ability will bring raises. If it doesnt,you work long enough to get a work history and move on.

When a thousand people show up to apply for a hundred jobs at a new Walmart, and that and similar situations occur all the time now, I think you're full of shit to argue that people are poor because they want to be.

If thats the case maybe obama and dems should do a better job of creating jobs by staying the hell out of the way of business and stop implementing policies that hinder job growth.

And if possible I'd like to see a link about these thousands of people lining up at wally world for a job.

I also find it rather strange that in my thirty odd years in the work force I never once had a problem finding a job and advancing. Of course living in Texas were conservatives run things might have something to do with it.

 

[Redfish]

Help those who need helping. It is what great societies do

Yes, that is absolutely correct. BUT, there is a difference between voluntary help via charities, churches, etc and mandatory help via government confiscation of wealth.

Americans are the most giving people in the history of the world--------------But do not take our money and then decide who gets it, WE should decide who gets our help.

I know thats a tough concept for a marxist like you, but thats what the US constitution and declaration of independence are all about----------FREEDOM.

There is no way that a society of over 300 million can provide for its less fortunate by charities alone. Even the charities will tell you that

Note: if private gifts to charities could support the needs of the poor, disabled, elderly we would not need ANY government help.

The govt should only provide for citizens who are physically or mentally unable to provide for themselves. Income equalization and subsidization is not a constitutional role of government.

no matter how much you libs whine about it, there will always be rich and poor.

what you fools don't get is that under the socialism that you beg for, there will be an even greater gap between the rich and the poor and the poor will never be able to be anything but poor. Free market capitalism is the ONLY system that allows poor people to become rich people.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

When have you ever paid for someone elses milk at the grocery store?

When they pay for their milk with an EBT card.

Really?

And how much of your taxes go to pay for that poor womans milk?

That poor womens milk....and millions of other poor women and mens milk....and bread and electricity and water and housing and on and on............

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

When a thousand people show up to apply for a hundred jobs at a new Walmart, and that and similar situations occur all the time now, I think you're full of shit to argue that people are poor because they want to be.

"you cannot raise the poor by bringing down the rich" Do you know who said that?

Why would I care who said it? Do you really think I judge right or wrong that way? Are you projecting?

It's wrong. The production of wealth is a zero sum game. The more that is confiscated by the Rich, the less there is left for the not-rich.

I've never confiscated anyone's money...I earned it.
Now taking from me to give to the able bodied poor is a fine example of confiscation.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Yes, that is absolutely correct. BUT, there is a difference between voluntary help via charities, churches, etc and mandatory help via government confiscation of wealth.

Americans are the most giving people in the history of the world--------------But do not take our money and then decide who gets it, WE should decide who gets our help.

I know thats a tough concept for a marxist like you, but thats what the US constitution and declaration of independence are all about----------FREEDOM.

There is no way that a society of over 300 million can provide for its less fortunate by charities alone. Even the charities will tell you that

Note: if private gifts to charities could support the needs of the poor, disabled, elderly we would not need ANY government help.

The govt should only provide for citizens who are physically or mentally unable to provide for themselves. Income equalization and subsidization is not a constitutional role of government.

no matter how much you libs whine about it, there will always be rich and poor.

what you fools don't get is that under the socialism that you beg for, there will be an even greater gap between the rich and the poor and the poor will never be able to be anything but poor. Free market capitalism is the ONLY system that allows poor people to become rich people.

But making everyone equally miserable will make them feel better.
Take that you dirty thieving rich people!!!

 

[hunarcy]

There is no arguing that the numbers and the economic climate improved dramatically as the result of the New Deal. During the first term unemployment dropped by 15 percentage points. Gross national product went from $55 billion to $85 billion. Purchase of consumer goods went from $45 billion to $65 billion. Private investment in industry went from $2 billion to $10 billion. All accomplished over a six-year period prior to the onset of the wartime economy.

Trying to re-write history to meet a current political philosophy just doesn't work. Too many people know better.

As the crisis lessened - the New Deal had a reverse effect. And Many of those gains were lost. Which is why I said that it was a good emergency response - but not a good "business-as-usual" policy. The numbers clearly back that up.

Hardly... it did not 'improve dramatically as a result of the new deal'.. and this has been shown time and time again by numerous people...

It was a horrid emergency response as it was not the job of the federal government.... many things from the new deal plague us still today.. it was one of the greatest over-reaches in our governmental history

The numbers show the dramatic improvement - no matter how many revisionists try to say different - the numbers are right there. I've never found opinions to be more persuasive than the actual numbers.

There are New Deal programs alive that I think should have expired when the emergency past (as I posted before).

The numbers actually show that the U.S. did not return to 1929 GNP for over a decade and still had an estimated unemployment rate of about 15% in 1940. Granted that was down from an estimated high of 25% in 1933, but that's really not all that dramatic in the context of the 30's.

Christina Romer claimed it was money supply growth that truly was the crucial source of the recovery of the United States economy. Ben Bernanke said it was the reconstitution of the gold standard and how many was managed on an international level that turned the corner.

FRB: Speech, Bernanke--Money, Gold, and the Great Depression --March 2, 2004

 

[Redfish]

When a thousand people show up to apply for a hundred jobs at a new Walmart, and that and similar situations occur all the time now, I think you're full of shit to argue that people are poor because they want to be.

"you cannot raise the poor by bringing down the rich" Do you know who said that?

Why would I care who said it? Do you really think I judge right or wrong that way? Are you projecting?

It's wrong. The production of wealth is a zero sum game. The more that is confiscated by the Rich, the less there is left for the not-rich.

are you really that ignorant? Who is poorer because Bill Gates is very rich? Wealth can be created, it does not have to be taken from someone else.

Do you really think the supply of wealth is finite? If so, you really need to sign up for an Econ 101 class are your local jr college.

 

[Flopper]

[

Wealth and income are two entirely different things.
Last I looked, there is an annual income tax, not an annual wealth tax.
Fools tend to confuse the difference between wealth and income.
Although, at the point somebody dies, their wealth is taxed prior to said wealth being passed on to their heirs.

actually, thanks to insideous GOP propaganda, the inheritance tax in this country is ridiculously low.

Because they call it a "Death Tax" and say just how unfair it is that they tax you after you are dead.

No, they are taxing your heirs. Not you. You're dead.

The inheritance tax is unfair because there are huge loopholes that allow cleaver estate planning to reduce the rate by over 50% and in some cases to nearly zero.

However, the current exemption is now 5.34 million and the top rate has dropped to 40%. In 2001 the exemption was $675,000 and the top rate was 55%.

The problem with estate taxes is it can create a real hardship when there is no liquidity in the estate. For example, a family business, farm, or home with an asset value of 10 million could produce a federal tax bill of 4 million in addition to any state inheritance taxes forcing the heirs to sell the property.

Although everyone dies, only .14% pay any estate taxes and those taxes amount to only about 1% of federal revenue. The better approach is to eliminate all the loopholes, lower the exemption and lower the rate.

 

[nodoginnafight]

he numbers actually show that the U.S. did not return to 1929 GNP for over a decade and still had an estimated unemployment rate of about 15% in 1940. Granted that was down from an estimated high of 25% in 1933, but that's really not all that dramatic in the context of the 30's.

Again - opinion versus the numbers.

The numbers win.

That drop in unemployment, in GDP, in consumer spending are dramatic for ANY era.

And I posted earlier that many of the gains faded as the programs extending beyond their usefulness - all you are doing is echoing part of what I said, and denying the statistics with opinion on the rest.

Not very compelling evidence imho. But everyone gets to choose where to hang their hat.

 

[hunarcy]

he numbers actually show that the U.S. did not return to 1929 GNP for over a decade and still had an estimated unemployment rate of about 15% in 1940. Granted that was down from an estimated high of 25% in 1933, but that's really not all that dramatic in the context of the 30's.

Again - opinion versus the numbers.

The numbers win.

That drop in unemployment, in GDP, in consumer spending are dramatic for ANY era.

And I posted earlier that many of the gains faded as the programs extending beyond their usefulness - all you are doing is echoing part of what I said, and denying the statistics with opinion on the rest.

Not very compelling evidence imho. But everyone gets to choose where to hang their hat.

Nope. you are the one clinging to your dogma. While the DROP in employment, GDP and consumer spending WAS dramatic, regaining only half of what was lost is not a dramatic gain. Your claim that it is dramatic is your opinion and not a fact. So, the truth is that you accuse me of the crime which you are actually committing.

 

[nodoginnafight]

he numbers actually show that the U.S. did not return to 1929 GNP for over a decade and still had an estimated unemployment rate of about 15% in 1940. Granted that was down from an estimated high of 25% in 1933, but that's really not all that dramatic in the context of the 30's.

Again - opinion versus the numbers.

The numbers win.

That drop in unemployment, in GDP, in consumer spending are dramatic for ANY era.

And I posted earlier that many of the gains faded as the programs extending beyond their usefulness - all you are doing is echoing part of what I said, and denying the statistics with opinion on the rest.

Not very compelling evidence imho. But everyone gets to choose where to hang their hat.

Nope. you are the one clinging to your dogma. While the DROP in employment, GDP and consumer spending WAS dramatic, regaining only half of what was lost is not a dramatic gain. Your claim that it is dramatic is your opinion and not a fact. So, the truth is that you accuse me of the crime which you are actually committing.

Nope - I'm hanging my hat on the numbers. That kind of turnaround in three years is very dramatic. By any standard. Attempts to claim otherwise - in contradiction to the numbers based on opinion - is not solid imho.

 

[hunarcy]

Nope - I'm hanging my hat on the numbers. That kind of turnaround in three years is very dramatic. By any standard. Attempts to claim otherwise - in contradiction to the numbers based on opinion - is not solid imho.

Ah, you admit it's your opinion.

Keynesian economics assumes government spending is good for the economy and you assume that there are zero costs when the government diverts money from the private sector. That is not the case. Whether the money for increased spending comes from increased taxes or borrowing, the damage to the economy is the same. Less money for consumers to put into the economy, so slowing economic growth. It was true in the 30's and 60's and 70's in the United State,, in Japan in the 90's to today and it's true today.

 

[bendog]

Hunarcy, the bernank does not say what you assert he says in the link



"Christina Romer claimed it was money supply growth that truly was the crucial source of the recovery of the United States economy. Ben Bernanke said it was the reconstitution of the gold standard and how many was managed on an international level that turned the corner."

In fact, the bernank says the "reconsitituted gold standard" and the federal reserves policies cause the depression.

Here's a link to Friedman explaining it.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7pnjzCuSv8]Milton Friedman explains role of gold in Great Depression. - YouTube[/ame]

However, I believe the numbers back up your assertion that US gnp did not return to 1929 levels in real dollar terms until 1941. But, I have to ask, so what? The economy , and the world economies, recovered spectaculary with Keynes ... so long as the govts guaranteed everything that could be produced would be purchased. From the BEA

GDP in billions of current dollars GDP in billions of chained 2009 dollars GDP in billions of current dollars GDP in billions of chained 2009 dollars


1929 104.6 1,055.6 1947q1 243.1 1,932.6
1930 92.2 965.8 1947q2 246.3 1,930.4
1931 77.4 904.1 1947q3 250.1 1,928.4
1932 59.5 787.5 1947q4 260.3 1,958.8
1933 57.2 777.6 1948q1 266.2 1,987.6
1934 66.8 861.4 1948q2 272.9 2,019.9
1935 74.3 938.2 1948q3 279.5 2,031.2
1936 84.9 1,059.6 1948q4 280.7 2,033.3
1937 93.0 1,113.6 1949q1 275.4 2,005.6
1938 87.4 1,076.7 1949q2 271.7 1,998.8
1939 93.5 1,162.6 1949q3 273.3 2,020.8
1940 102.9 1,265.0 1949q4 271.0 2,002.7
1941 129.4 1,488.9 1950q1 281.2 2,082.5
1942 166.0 1,770.3 1950q2 290.7 2,145.5
1943 203.1 2,072.0 1950q3 308.5 2,228.2
1944 224.6 2,237.5 1950q4 320.3 2,271.2
1945 228.2 2,215.9 1951q1 336.4 2,302.3
1946 227.8 1,959.0 1951q2 344.5 2,342.3

Friedman's thesis is simply that the federal reserve must ensure a stable, and growing, money supply. How much growth is something still debated, and strict monetarists are no longer the reigning champs in economics.

As to Keynes v. Friedman .... the Bernank absolutely proved Friedman's theory is capable of resolving a credit contraction similar to 1929, without nationalizing the world economies by the communists, the Nazis and the western democracies. But what Friedman himself proved was that Keynes did not really have an answer run away inflation, because Keynes did not pay attention to the amount of money in an economy but instead only to the amount of production. Keynes probably could end inflation if we nationalize the economy and instill price limits on everything. And, that really cannot be sustained, as the soviets showed. Truman pulled off the economic miracle of transitioning back from a nationalize to a privatized economy. But that's another story.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Nope - I'm hanging my hat on the numbers. That kind of turnaround in three years is very dramatic. By any standard. Attempts to claim otherwise - in contradiction to the numbers based on opinion - is not solid imho.

Ah, you admit it's your opinion.

Keynesian economics assumes government spending is good for the economy and you assume that there are zero costs when the government diverts money from the private sector. That is not the case. Whether the money for increased spending comes from increased taxes or borrowing, the damage to the economy is the same. Less money for consumers to put into the economy, so slowing economic growth. It was true in the 30's and 60's and 70's in the United State,, in Japan in the 90's to today and it's true today.

I assume unemployment was slashed, GDP soared, and consumer spending soared.
Oh wait .... the numbers say that - I'm not assuming anything. Yes, dramatic is a subjective term.