Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    1:56 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Do you think the "rich" should be paying more in taxes? Back to Topics
101Speedster

Champion Author
Ventura

Posts:31,641
Points:2,861,230
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Aug 20, 2005 3:12:20 PM

If so, how do you define rich?
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,633
Points:545,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 29, 2014 8:41:01 AM

"Now that I have igged the genius' we can have a constructive conversation."

An interesting perspective, since the majority of your posts have had zero to do with the topic at hand...

Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,444
Points:2,808,820
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 28, 2014 9:44:24 PM

Sounds more like an admission that you can't cope.
Profile Pic
Chiefaz
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:3,501
Points:1,437,425
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 28, 2014 7:10:08 PM

Now that I have igged the genius' we can have a constructive conversation.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,633
Points:545,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 28, 2014 9:12:28 AM

"Weaselspit and RJHenn
When will they be deleting you?????????"

Not sure how this applies to the rich paying more taxes or not...

Why so mad, bro?
Profile Pic
Chiefaz
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:3,501
Points:1,437,425
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 27, 2014 10:28:52 PM

Weaselspit and RJHenn
When will they be deleting you?????????
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,444
Points:2,808,820
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 27, 2014 6:06:07 PM

Chiefaz - "A-Holes applies."

Actually, it seems that "It takes one to know one" is more applicable.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,633
Points:545,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 27, 2014 4:42:48 PM

"RJHenn & Weaselspit
A-Holes applies."

Hmmm. I see your previous post has been deleted. Better be careful...

[Edited by: Weaslespit at 10/27/2014 4:42:56 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:23,814
Points:3,778,840
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Oct 27, 2014 2:30:22 PM

"the tail section of a plane is the safest."

You are probably correct.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,633
Points:545,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 27, 2014 2:24:56 PM

"Um, actually, I think statistically that the tail section of a plane is the safest. The cockpit and first class tends to get crunched first on impact."

Lol, you might have something there, although the strongest part of the fuselage is in the wing section...
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,487
Points:830,410
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Oct 27, 2014 2:17:43 PM

Um, actually, I think statistically that the tail section of a plane is the safest. The cockpit and first class tends to get crunched first on impact.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,633
Points:545,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 27, 2014 2:10:44 PM

"If a 747 crashes and the back of the plane is demolished and people die and 1st class survives? That is class-envy, what a crock. You sit where you can afford."

Interesting deflection, since the rich that we are talking about would fly in a private jet as they wouldn't be caught dead flying on a commercial flight...

"Only idiots like you blame it on the rich people."

Nice personal attack.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,444
Points:2,808,820
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 27, 2014 1:50:40 PM

Chiefaz - "What a crock you peddle?"

Funny, I was thinking that about your post before I even reached the last sentence.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,444
Points:2,808,820
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 27, 2014 12:30:33 PM

SoylentGrain - "What nonsense."

History is nonsense?
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,633
Points:545,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 27, 2014 9:27:29 AM

"Class-envy economics wasn't even taught back then."

You are right, and it used to be worse - check the records on the Titanic regarding the disparity and the class warfare that cost many people their lives.

It has been a long and arduous battle to have the 1% recognize that they are not simple 'better' than everybody else.

Unfortunately they have taken their attacks 'underground' so rather than outright discrimination we see more barriers created through socioeconomic's by leveraging their money to influence government.

The battle front on income inequality has been one-sided for the past 50 years...
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,195
Points:21,880
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Oct 27, 2014 8:47:46 AM

"We've learned a lot about economics since the 60's ;) <rimshot>"

How true. Class-envy economics wasn't even taught back then.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,633
Points:545,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 27, 2014 8:30:36 AM

"I certainly never learned of such cases in the undergraduate and graduate economics classes I sat in."

We've learned a lot about economics since the 60's ;) <rimshot>
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,195
Points:21,880
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Oct 27, 2014 8:10:46 AM

"With Income Tax Loopholes in place you could raise taxes on the Wealthiest of Americans to 99.9% and the would still pay the SAME AMOUNT. It's economics 101."

I certainly never learned of such cases in the undergraduate and graduate economics classes I sat in.

Show me verbiage in US tax code that allows individuals to pay no tax.
Profile Pic
Valandingham
Champion Author Washington

Posts:9,424
Points:1,987,955
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Oct 27, 2014 7:42:51 AM

SoylentGrain
With Income Tax Loopholes in place you could raise taxes on the Wealthiest of Americans to 99.9% and the would still pay the SAME AMOUNT. It's economics 101. Take out the loopholes and then the wealth pay more because then they couldn't hide there wealth.

Chiefaz,
FDR brought the United States out of the Great Depression thru a series of work projects. He also established Social Security as a means for the people to save money for time of hardship and retirement. Administrations before Bush(2001-2009) were borrowing from SS with the promise to repay it back. And under the Bush (2001-2009) was trying to bankrupt SS to privatize it which is a bad idea.

With the loopholes closed and the wealthiest of Americans back taxed, the Federal Government can Pay back Social Security, increase Military Basic Pay and Military Retired Pensions, and pay down the National Debt. If Congress closed U. S. Borders to all outsourced Products and forced all manufacturing back to U. S. Soil, the Economy would stabilize and become strong again.

[Edited by: Valandingham at 10/27/2014 7:44:16 AM EST]
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,195
Points:21,880
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Oct 27, 2014 3:42:39 AM

"We tried that. It left most retirees dirt poor, because the rich managed to swindle them out of their money."

What nonsense.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,444
Points:2,808,820
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 27, 2014 2:27:26 AM

flyboyUT - "But instead of the govt taking the money from poor working people by force maybe they should have given folks the option of just keeping their own money."

We tried that. It left most retirees dirt poor, because the rich managed to swindle them out of their money.
Profile Pic
Chiefaz
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:3,501
Points:1,437,425
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 26, 2014 12:31:40 PM

Valandingham
If we are wishing Why not go all the way back to Roosevelt and cut everything out. Welfare, food stamps, all the tax cuts ever passed.
We would be a rich country. No more tax cuts period and no more give aways.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,195
Points:21,880
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Oct 26, 2014 8:15:45 AM

"With Income Tax Loopholes in place you can raise taxed on the wealthiest Americans and they still will hide behind the loopholes and still pay the same LOW AMOUNT."

Professor, the wealthiest Americans pay the highest rates and carry the majority of the tax burden. You have been misled.
Profile Pic
Valandingham
Champion Author Washington

Posts:9,424
Points:1,987,955
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Oct 26, 2014 4:21:28 AM

Everyone,
In order to have the wealthiest of Americans payingore in taxed is to Close all Income Tax Loopholes signed into law be President Reagan back in 1986. Them back tax them all to that point.

With Income Tax Loopholes in place you can raise taxed on the wealthiest Americans and they still will hide behind the loopholes and still pay the same LOW AMOUNT.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,633
Points:545,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 26, 2014 2:48:12 AM

"Weaselspit
Go back to school. Socialism is where the government controls the companies. Communism is where the government owns the companies. A vast
difference !"

Read it again. You missed the point... (or sarcasm, anyway)

[Edited by: Weaslespit at 10/26/2014 2:48:30 AM EST]
Profile Pic
RAB2010
All-Star Author Kalamazoo

Posts:656
Points:78,050
Joined:Mar 2010
Message Posted: Oct 25, 2014 7:45:15 PM

If we are going to tax income, which is a negative economic theory to begin with, income tax should be a flat tax not exceeding three percent. It should apply to all income, with no write-offs and no loopholes or deductions. It is more appropriate to tax trade and consumption , such as a sales tax.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,256
Points:1,532,370
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Oct 25, 2014 5:44:41 PM

RJ you said - "What were they supposed to do, stuff it all in mattresses and create a Fort Knox for the mattresses? Or lend it to the government and collect interest on it?"

Boy that is wrong on so many levels its hard to know where to start.

But instead of the govt taking the money from poor working people by force maybe they should have given folks the option of just keeping their own money. Least you say the money was not taken by force - did you ever try to not pay it or request your employer give to you what they had to pay? No far better than stuffing it in mattresses just let the people keep it.

Then you come up with this concept of the govt loans your money to itself and pays interest on it????? Did yo have any say in making the "loan"? Were yo able to tell the govt no dont use my money in my account for other purposes?

So the govt takes money from your paycheck. Tells yo its in a lockbox for your future use. Steals it out of the lockbox and tells you its a lona to itself and then takes more money from you in the form of taxes to pay the so called interest - which you cant get because its in the "lockbox".Sure now - do you have any other fairy tales to try and lay on us?


Profile Pic
Chiefaz
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:3,501
Points:1,437,425
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 25, 2014 5:34:33 PM

RJ
Uncle Sam didn't borrow the money, they took it, Now they pay a debt with borrowed money.
How can you shed debt with debt.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,444
Points:2,808,820
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 25, 2014 3:40:04 PM

Chiefaz - "There you go again! Social Security is NOT a government transfer of money akin to the other items you list. Social Security and Medicare are paid for by the people. It was always referred to as insurance. You pay in all your working life and they sent you a monthly stipend to exist on when you can no longer work."

I was just quoting the document that Soylent linked to.

"Government spent all the money and left IOU's."

What were they supposed to do, stuff it all in mattresses and create a Fort Knox for the mattresses? Or lend it to the government and collect interest on it?

"Be correct on your assertions, they leave the wrong impression on the youngsters. We ARE NOT spending their money!"

Obviously, you're retired. That makes you the enemy of the RWNJs who want to destroy SS.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,444
Points:2,808,820
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 25, 2014 3:35:14 PM

SoylentGrain - "RJ, when you speak of "The "wealthy" are sucking up almost all of the growth, leaving little or nothing nothing for the rest" , that's zero sum game propaganda speak."

Again, you're ignoring the word "growth". Zero sum games don't have growth, they merely redistribute a fixed amount of assets around. The economy has growth. Therefore, your use of "zero sum game" is just a strawman.

"Wealth is created by individual effort. If you are not doing the things to grow or are not placing yourself in a position to grow, that's your fault."

Unless you are "doing the things to grow" the economy, but someone else is taking the results of those efforts. In this case, that means that workers are putting forth the individual effort to grow the economy, but their employers are the only ones benefiting from that individual effort.
Profile Pic
lpatti1
Champion Author Philadelphia

Posts:10,995
Points:2,444,085
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 25, 2014 12:56:23 PM

I pay toooo much already & I'm already poor!
Profile Pic
Chiefaz
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:3,501
Points:1,437,425
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 25, 2014 12:43:29 PM

RJ
There you go again! Social Security is NOT a government transfer of money akin to the other items you list. Social Security and Medicare are paid for by the people. It was always referred to as insurance. You pay in all your working life and they sent you a monthly stipend to exist on when you
can no longer work. Was also intended to get the old people to quit work to make room for the younger generation. Government spent all the money and left IOU's. Now the paying back is out of taxpayer inputs.
Be correct on your assertions, they leave the wrong impression on the youngsters. We ARE NOT spending their money!
Profile Pic
Chiefaz
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:3,501
Points:1,437,425
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 25, 2014 12:36:33 PM

Weaselspit
Go back to school. Socialism is where the government controls the companies. Communism is where the government owns the companies. A vast
difference !
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,195
Points:21,880
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Oct 25, 2014 7:14:14 AM

RJ, when you speak of "The "wealthy" are sucking up almost all of the growth, leaving little or nothing nothing for the rest" , that's zero sum game propaganda speak. Wealth is created by individual effort. If you are not doing the things to grow or are not placing yourself in a position to grow, that's your fault.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,444
Points:2,808,820
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 25, 2014 2:17:14 AM

Cirdan - "The amazing thing is they don't even understand how their (liberal) arguments are inherently contradictory. On the one hand, it's a zero sum game and the rich take away from the poor. At the same time they support classic Keynes economics, calling for massive government spending to stimulate the economy through the multiplier effect. In other words, it's a positive sum game. . . unless you want to take a cheap shot at rich people."

Since you and Soylent are the only ones talking about a "zero sum game", it seems your counterarguments are simply strawmen.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,444
Points:2,808,820
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 25, 2014 2:15:32 AM

SoylentGrain - "RJ, I wasn't talking about the paper. I was referring to asking legislators not to enact any new tax incentives."

Then you changed the subject, which was why the upper 40% is getting somewhere around 20% of "government transfers", as defined by the paper you linked to.

"Yes, the zero sum game propaganda."

Apparently you don't understand your own arguments. A "zero sum game" doesn't have any growth. There's a fixed amount of assets, so one person's gain is another's loss.

What we have is growth, or an increase in total assets, but with almost all of that growth going to a small segment of the population, leaving little or none of the growth to the rest. That restricts future growth.
Profile Pic
Cirdan
Champion Author Nevada

Posts:2,543
Points:139,865
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Oct 25, 2014 12:35:39 AM

"The "wealthy" are sucking up almost all of the growth, leaving little or nothing for the rest. Which means less consumer spending and a stagnant economy."

"Yes, the zero sum game propaganda."

The amazing thing is they don't even understand how their (liberal) arguments are inherently contradictory. On the one hand, it's a zero sum game and the rich take away from the poor. At the same time they support classic Keynes economics, calling for massive government spending to stimulate the economy through the multiplier effect. In other words, it's a positive sum game. . . unless you want to take a cheap shot at rich people.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,195
Points:21,880
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Oct 25, 2014 12:09:54 AM

RJ, I wasn't talking about the paper. I was referring to asking legislators not to enact any new tax incentives.

"The "wealthy" are sucking up almost all of the growth, leaving little or nothing for the rest. Which means less consumer spending and a stagnant economy."

Yes, the zero sum game propaganda. There's nothing preventing you from creating your own growth.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,444
Points:2,808,820
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 24, 2014 4:51:32 PM

SoylentGrain - "Everything."

That's not what your link says: "Government transfers consist of cash payments from Social Security, unemployment insurance, Supplemental Security Income, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (and its predecessor, Aid to Families with Dependent Children), veterans’ programs, workers’ compensation, and state and local government assistance programs. Such transfers also include the value of in-kind benefits: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program vouchers (popularly known as food stamps); school lunches and breakfasts; housing assistance; and energy assistance and benefits provided by Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Health care benefits are measured using the Census Bureau’s estimates of the average cost to the government of providing those benefits."

"Its not a zero sum game."

Apparently you didn't understand the word "increase".

The "wealthy" are sucking up almost all of the growth, leaving little or nothing for the rest. Which means less consumer spending and a stagnant economy.

And, ultimately, a smaller pie.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,195
Points:21,880
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Oct 24, 2014 4:09:26 PM

"Is any of that included in the figures for "cash payments and in-kind benefits from social insurance and other government assistance programs"?"

Everything.

"It's not about "preventing the 'wealthy' from growing income". It's about getting them to stop grabbing all of the increase for themselves."

Its not a zero sum game.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,444
Points:2,808,820
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 24, 2014 1:31:51 PM

Chiefaz - "I pay attention. That's how I see you destroying the tax base in this country and with it most of the jobs. And, the taxes that go with them."

Wow, I didn't know I'd become King.

What's destroying the tax base and jobs is the "rich", by paying people less and moving businesses to other countries where they can exploit the actual workers more easily.

Of course, in the long run, that's hurting their customer base here, as fewer people have money to spend on their products.

As the current economy demonstrates.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,444
Points:2,808,820
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 24, 2014 1:28:03 PM

SoylentGrain - "Great point. Tell your congressman not to vote for any bills that provide incentives for investment. Im dead serious. No incentives for solar, energy efficient cars, and on and on. No tax breaks or subsidies to anyone, regardless of income level. Just stop it."

Is any of that included in the figures for "cash payments and in-kind benefits from social insurance and other government assistance programs"?

"And preventing the "wealthy" from growing income will help you how?"

It's not about "preventing the 'wealthy' from growing income". It's about getting them to stop grabbing all of the increase for themselves.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,633
Points:545,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 24, 2014 1:27:37 PM

"About like Stalin did when he took over. I call that communist."

Weird, most accuse people of being 'Socialist' these days...
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,633
Points:545,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 24, 2014 1:27:03 PM

"Come on now. You have raised the implications of state and local taxes several times now. Use your head."

Again, you might want to research that a bit more. When you include State and Local taxes, the gap in taxes paid decreases between the top and every one else - it doesn't increase.

Profile Pic
Chiefaz
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:3,501
Points:1,437,425
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 24, 2014 12:09:17 PM

RJHenn
I pay attention. That's how I see you destroying the tax base in this country and with it most of the jobs. And, the taxes that go with them.
About like Stalin did when he took over. I call that communist.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,195
Points:21,880
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Oct 24, 2014 9:38:11 AM

"You might want to find a link to back that claim up before making condescending comments..."

Come on now. You have raised the implications of state and local taxes several times now. Use your head. The person making $10,000 or $25,000, typically, will not own vast amounts of land. Therefore, minimal or no property tax liability. Ther person in the top 20% income bracket will at a minimum, have a nice home and incure a significant local tax liability.

These are public records. Take any low income and high income individuals you want to compare. Go online and searce the tax records. You will find the low income person pays no or next to nothing. The guy making $200,000 will have tax liabilities that are tens of thousands of dollars, if not higher.

Just like the federal portion, almost all that money flows to benefit people who paid little into the system.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,633
Points:545,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 24, 2014 9:11:13 AM

"You read the title. But, it doesnt take too sharp a pencil to calculate the "rich" guy pays a bunch more in state and local taxes as well."

You might want to find a link to back that claim up before making condescending comments...
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,195
Points:21,880
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 8:17:35 PM

"If you could quote where it specifies sate and local taxes, it would help."

You read the title. But, it doesnt take too sharp a pencil to calculate the "rich" guy pays a bunch more in state and local taxes as well.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,195
Points:21,880
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 8:09:35 PM

"So why is the upper 40% getting any of that ("Government transfers include cash payments and in-kind benefits from social insurance and other government assistance programs."), when they've got over 70% of total income?"

Great point. Tell your congressman not to vote for any bills that provide incentives for investment. Im dead serious. No incentives for solar, energy efficient cars, and on and on. No tax breaks or subsidies to anyone, regardless of income level. Just stop it.

"Also notice Figure 2, which tells us a lot about what's wrong with the current economy."

And preventing the "wealthy" from growing income will help you how?
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,337
Points:440,885
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 3:42:26 PM

teacher_tim: "So now you're saying ..." strawman, strawman, strawman,

No. I said what I said.

Anything you make up and assign to me is what you made up and assigned to me.

Please try again. I said my view. What's is YOURS?

Oh, here it is:

"How about everyone pays the exact same flat tax rate on everything? The more you make, the more you pay, regardless of source. Everything from dividends and capital gains to welfare and WIC is taxed exactly the same. If there is money coming in to an individual, they pay a set tax rate on it, just like everyone else. No exemptions, no tax breaks for ANYTHING. "

Great plan. Except the ones we are supporting can't afford to pay anything.

Instead of taxing what comes in I like the pay tax on what you spend plan better.

It's called the FairTax. It makes a helluva lot of sense. Please check it out thoroughly before forming a view on it. It promotes a healthy economy, reduces planned obsolescence, favors quality over planned obsolescence and protects the environment by reducing the amount of cheap product waste going into landfills.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,444
Points:2,808,820
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 3:25:21 PM

SoylentGrain - "Again, the CBO paper contradicts your claim."

The title of the paper is "The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2010", so, no, it doesn't contradict his claim.

"Furthermore, the paper details that approximately 80 % of all government transfers go to the bottom 60% of tax filers."

So why is the upper 40% getting any of that ("Government transfers include cash payments and in-kind benefits from social insurance and other government assistance programs."), when they've got over 70% of total income?

Those government transfers are included in "income". Even with that, notice from the cover how the picture changes if you assume that the 5% level is the poverty rate.

Also notice Figure 2, which tells us a lot about what's wrong with the current economy.

("For example, real capital gains income rose by 55 percent from 2009 to 2010, although it was still 60 percent below the peak reached in 2007, and dividends and business income also grew rapidly from 2009 to 2010, by 10 percent and 12 percent, respectively. In contrast, wage income, the most important source for households in the lower 80 percent of the distribution, grew by less than 1 percent in real terms from 2009 to 2010. Transfer income, which is quite important to the lower income quintiles, grew by less than 2 percent in real terms.")

[Edited by: rjhenn at 10/23/2014 3:26:46 PM EST]
Post a reply Back to Topics