Historic High for WAGE earners

[maineman]

I appreciate your efforts. But I'm afraid some blogger guy named Sugi's interpretation of the numbers isn't going to be really compelling to me. I don't mean that as an insult, but is what it is.

Any reason why we should care about Sugi's opinion on this?

maybe Sugi is zoomie's real name?

 

[Helios]

maybe Sugi is zoomie's real name?

 

[Alpha1]

Summary of Federal Individual Income Tax Data, 2005 (Updated October 2007)

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

 

[Zoomie1980]

I appreciate your efforts. But I'm afraid some blogger guy named Sugi's interpretation of the numbers isn't going to be really compelling to me. I don't mean that as an insult, but is what it is.

Any reason why we should care about Sugi's opinion on this?

You can get these same numbers from the IRS. The GAO has the same info on their site. I have over 200 other links available that all show roughly the same thing. Virtually every financial magazine published in the last year have had countless articles that depict the same thing.

The wealthiest 10% pay for the overwhelming majority of the public infrastructure and services the other 90% enjoy. Their spending also accounts for over 80% of the DISCRETIONARY spending that drives the US economy.

 

[Helios]

Summary of Federal Individual Income Tax Data, 2005 (Updated October 2007)

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

Those statistics don't do justice to the middle class. It has many interesting facts, but it never equates how much the middle 60% of the population pays. For the sake of argument, lets say theres a 10% upper class, a 60% middle class, and a 30% lower class. That document lumps part of the middle class and part of the lower class into one category: Bottom 40%. Leave it to the damn IRS to leave out the most vital piece of information, how much is the middle class paying? I would wager that the the majority of the tax burden is being payed by the middle class. By the way, with Bush's Corporate Taxcuts, many rich people saved huge sums of money in their business. And on their income can't be taxed on money they SAVE... hence, they aren't paying their share anymore.

 

[Alpha1]

Just because the lies from the liberals skew the facts doesn't mean you have to believe them.....Table 6 is very interesting.....25 years of data.....

 

[Zoomie1980]

Those statistics don't do justice to the middle class. It has many interesting facts, but it never equates how much the middle 60% of the population pays. For the sake of argument, lets say theres a 10% upper class, a 60% middle class, and a 30% lower class. That document lumps part of the middle class and part of the lower class into one category: Bottom 40%. Leave it to the damn IRS to leave out the most vital piece of information, how much is the middle class paying? I would wager that the the majority of the tax burden is being payed by the middle class. By the way, with Bush's Corporate Taxcuts, many rich people saved huge sums of money in their business. And on their income can't be taxed on money they SAVE... hence, they aren't paying their share anymore.

Not very good with arithmetic are you? It's not that hard to figure out. The top 10% pay about 70%. The top 20% pay about 78%. the bottom 20% pay less than 2%. The next rung pays about 5%. That means that middle rung between 40-80% pay about 15% of the taxes. And that's just income taxes.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Those statistics don't do justice to the middle class. It has many interesting facts, but it never equates how much the middle 60% of the population pays. For the sake of argument, lets say theres a 10% upper class, a 60% middle class, and a 30% lower class. That document lumps part of the middle class and part of the lower class into one category: Bottom 40%. Leave it to the damn IRS to leave out the most vital piece of information, how much is the middle class paying? I would wager that the the majority of the tax burden is being payed by the middle class. By the way, with Bush's Corporate Taxcuts, many rich people saved huge sums of money in their business. And on their income can't be taxed on money they SAVE... hence, they aren't paying their share anymore.

Short answer...it's all in the tables. The "middle" 60% from 20%-80% pay a paltry 20% of all income taxes. They pay EVEN LESS of the sales tax.

 

[Alpha1]

Taxpayers > $103,900 paid 70.3% of total income tax

Taxpayers > $62,068 paid 86% of total income tax.....

So >62,000 but less than 104,000 paid about 16% of total.....

Those > 145,000 paid about 35.75% of total

 

[Helios]

Taxpayers > $103,900 paid 70.3% of total income tax

Taxpayers > $62,068 paid 86% of total income tax.....

So >62,000 but less than 104,000 paid about 16% of total.....

Those > 145,000 paid about 35.75% of total

Yeah, this is income tax. I'm interested in complete data, let's see the middle class in terms of total taxes payed. All taxes added up, property, sales, income, cigarette, etc etc etc.

Dude... the income tax doesn't even really exist. Why are we arguing about it.

 

[Bern80]

Yeah, this is income tax. I'm interested in complete data, let's see the middle class in terms of total taxes payed. All taxes added up, property, sales, income, cigarette, etc etc etc.

Dude... the income tax doesn't even really exist. Why are we arguing about it.

then you must mean sales taxes as well. How do you propose we determine what classes sales taxes cames from?

 

[Helios]

then you must mean sales taxes as well. How do you propose we determine what classes sales taxes cames from?

I propose lowering taxes so far that no one will give a shit who is paying what, since no one is getting screwed by Uncle Sam.

 

[Angel Heart]

Only one I'm getting screwed by is the State of Oregon. As far as Federal goes. I get back several thousand a year and put nothing in. Oregon takes about $1500 a year at least. I'm not pissed at the feds, it's the damn state.

 

[Helios]

Only one I'm getting screwed by is the State of Oregon. As far as Federal goes. I get back several thousand a year and put nothing in. Oregon takes about $1500 a year at least. I'm not pissed at the feds, it's the damn state.

The fed and the state government BOTH need to take their damn hands out of taxpayers' pockets.

 

[Shogun]

And while Shogun has baselessly said I'm wrong, it is more like 80/20


sure.. according to manipulated statistic and man-handled definitions. What, NOW the book proves your point all of a sudden?

if I have a bushel of fruit that consists of 75% bananas and 25% oranges and narrow the criteria down to only ROUND fruit I guess you would think it is accurate to insist that the majority, in your case 80%, in my bushel are citrus fruits. Makes sense, doesn't it? How do you figure that your single source has anything valid to say about the population of America's wealthy class when it hinges upon narrowing down the sample criteria to only those who hover around a million? Indeed, I guess the number WOULD be 80% if all you are taking into consideration is a bracket stuck in between the middle class and the status quo wealthy.


Like I said, maybe think with a little critical examination rather than poke out your excited little dog dick when reading a book that says what you want to hear.

 

[Shogun]

And quite honestly $1,000,000 in net assets is not all that much these days.


THAT is exactly the point and, im betting, the very reason Bern's single source is such a trainwreck. By the time the author narrows the sample criteria down to the million mark, REGARDLESS of scale to the rest of America's wealthy class, of COURSE he is going to get the result he was looking for. Hell, how many small business owners show an income of over 100k on a w2 but still live like scavengers due to the cost of their business? Does this mean that they are WEALTHY and are at all reflective of the POPULATION of America's wealth? Especially when the author makes an argument based on PERSPECTIVE when validating his manipulated definition?

Also, a fatter lower end wealthy class is not mutually exclusive with a shrinking middle and increasing lower class. More millionaires? great. If only a million was worth what it was 15 years ago and was as significant in lifestyle as it was back in the day. Certainly, having 500 dollars in my pocket today is as impressive as it would have been in 1912.

 

[Bern80]

And while Shogun has baselessly said I'm wrong, it is more like 80/20


sure.. according to manipulated statistic and man-handled definitions. What, NOW the book proves your point all of a sudden?

if I have a bushel of fruit that consists of 75% bananas and 25% oranges and narrow the criteria down to only ROUND fruit I guess you would think it is accurate to insist that the majority, in your case 80%, in my bushel are citrus fruits. Makes sense, doesn't it? How do you figure that your single source has anything valid to say about the population of America's wealthy class when it hinges upon narrowing down the sample criteria to only those who hover around a million? Indeed, I guess the number WOULD be 80% if all you are taking into consideration is a bracket stuck in between the middle class and the status quo wealthy.


Like I said, maybe think with a little critical examination rather than poke out your excited little dog dick when reading a book that says what you want to hear.

What is it I want to hear?

Again had you read it you would know the 80% pertains to all people with networth over $1,000,000.

 

[Bern80]

And quite honestly $1,000,000 in net assets is not all that much these days.


THAT is exactly the point and, im betting, the very reason Bern's single source is such a trainwreck. By the time the author narrows the sample criteria down to the million mark, REGARDLESS of scale to the rest of America's wealthy class, of COURSE he is going to get the result he was looking for. Hell, how many small business owners show an income of over 100k on a w2 but still live like scavengers due to the cost of their business? Does this mean that they are WEALTHY and are at all reflective of the POPULATION of America's wealth? Especially when the author makes an argument based on PERSPECTIVE when validating his manipulated definition?

Also, a fatter lower end wealthy class is not mutually exclusive with a shrinking middle and increasing lower class. More millionaires? great. If only a million was worth what it was 15 years ago and was as significant in lifestyle as it was back in the day. Certainly, having 500 dollars in my pocket today is as impressive as it would have been in 1912.

Do understand the concept of 'assets' - what you have of value and 'net' - after liabilities. Apparently not.

 

[Shogun]

What is it I want to hear?

Again had you read it you would know the 80% pertains to all people with networth over $1,000,000.

Do I need to quote myself from yesterday? You know, when I posted EVIDENCE from a NYT review that illustrates EXACTLY how the author comes to his silly assed conclusions? Do we need to tangent this thread another 20 posts and argue about a single valid source until you say uncle again? What you WANT to hear is that the wealthy are the product of their own efforts while the lower classes are the product of THEIR own efforts. This is not only a stupid position when considering the FULL range of wealth in the US, inflation, and upper class opportunity but is a total joke when trying to insist that manipulated statistics proves as much.

either scroll up or say the word and I'll repost my criticism of your single source... you know, the one that wasn't as significant as the posted blog.

 

[Shogun]

Do understand the concept of 'assets' - what you have of value and 'net' - after liabilities. Apparently not.

do you understand that such is the definition for wealth that is specifically NOT used by the author of your amazing source? Apparently not.





THE NOMINAL DEFINITION OF WEALTHY

One way we determine whether someone is wealthy or not is based on net worth--"cattle," not "chattel." Net worth is defined as the current value of one's assets less liabilities (exclude the principle in trust accounts). In this book we define the threshold level of being wealthy as having a net worth of $1 million or more. Based on this definition, only 3.5 million (3.5 percent) of the 100 million households in America are considered wealthy. About 95 percent of millionaires in America have a net worth of between $1 million and $10 million. Much of the discussion in this book centers on this segment of the population. Why the focus on this group? Because this level of wealth can be attained in one generation. It can be attained by many Americans.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s...llionaire.html



taking notes?