So im starting to worry about the shrinking middle class [Archive]

[censored]

06-25-2005, 02:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"I fail to see how taking more money from the rich helps the middle class much"

If this year they take in X in taxes, and 50% of it comes from the rich and 50% from the middle class, and next year they make it 75% from the rich and 25% from the middle class, the middle class is better off, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

assuming a constant level of gross taxation then yes. What I was referring to was if the rich recieved a tax cut of x, and the middle class a tax cut of x-b (assuming b is positive of course) then while the middle class pay an higher share of the gross tax collected both classes now pay a lessor amount of tax. Thus I do not see how a tax reduction for the wealthy hurts the middle class as long as their taxes are not raised. All that has happened is a reduction in the gross tax collected. Where do you disagree?

Still my worry does not lie with the tax system specifically but with a belief that a democracy does best when it has a vibrant middle class of satisfied and happy citizens. I have heard (but have no evidence) that America is not only now losing blue collar manifacturing jobs but also the so called "knowledge" jobs. This is what I fear.I am not sure if there are any viable solutions.

Fixing education grades 6-12 would be a good start, however I won't hold my breath.

James Boston

06-25-2005, 03:11 AM

One suggestion:

Adjust the alernative minimum tax. This was created as a tax on tax shelters, but it wasn't designed to adjust with inflation. Now, it is basically a middle class tax, and a tax on small business owners. It needs to change.

kurto

06-25-2005, 03:18 AM

One rich man's thought on taxation:
[ QUOTE ]
NEW YORK - Warren Buffett, the world's second-richest person, wants to pay more taxes. And he wants the rest of corporate America to pay more too.

In his annual letter to shareholders of his Berkshire Hathaway Inc. holding company, released on Saturday, the 73-year-old Buffett said Berkshire's taxes rose more than eleven-fold to $3.3 billion from 1995 to 2003, as profits rose ten-fold to $8.15 billion.

During the same period, federal income taxes paid by all U.S. companies fell by 16 percent, to $132 billion.

"We hope our taxes continue to rise in the future -- it will mean we are prospering -- but we also hope that the rest of corporate America antes up along with us," said Buffett, who has previously criticized Bush administration tax policy.

Tax cuts won by President Bush, amounting to $1.7 trillion over 10 years, have helped push the federal budget deficit to record levels, as have a weak economy and higher spending for defense and domestic security.

"Tax breaks for corporations -- and their investors, particularly large ones -- were a major part of the administration's 2002 and 2003 initiatives," Buffett said. "If class warfare is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning."

Buffett's personal wealth is closely tied to his company. Forbes magazine last month put Buffett's net worth at $42.9 billion, most of which is in Berkshire stock. His wealth was just behind that of Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, whose estimated net worth stood at $46.6 billion.

Buffett's letter, which is 21 pages long this year, is highly anticipated by investors. Unlike most shareholder letters seen as heavy with banalities, Buffett's are considered fun to read and sometimes controversial.

Last May, Buffett wrote a Washington Post opinion article criticizing a key element of Bush's tax package -- a cut in tax rates on corporate dividends. Buffett urged that any tax cuts should go to lower-income people or others "who both need and will spend the money gained."

Buffett said corporate income taxes accounted for 7.4 percent of fiscal 2003 U.S. tax receipts. Except for 1983, that was the lowest in the last 70 years, he said.

The billionaire has not always been critical of anti-tax politicians. Last year, he backed Arnold Schwarzenegger's successful bid to become California's state's governor, despite the actor's campaign pledge not to raise taxes to reduce the state's mammoth budget deficit.

Berkshire's $3.3 billion tax payment "will almost certainly place us among our country's top ten taxpayers," Buffett said. That's a big change from 1944, when as a 13-year-old newspaper carrier, Buffett filed his first personal tax return.

[/ QUOTE ]

slamdunkpro

06-25-2005, 04:05 AM

Since you threw this drivel in this thread too, see my responses in the Howard Dean thread.

The short version – He wants to pay higher taxes? Then pay ‘em. No law says you have to take every deduction. Be the first, be bold: Write that check from your account.

Yeah, like this will ever happen

Please respond in the Howard Dean thread.

The once and future king

06-25-2005, 07:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Favoring tax cuts for ALL (which is what happened under Bush cuts) is not damaging to the middle class, which is the class I am in.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think it is just coincendetal that under Bush the share of the wealth amongst the Middle classes has diminished and the share of the wealth of the super rich has increased. Though it has to be said it this has been happening since 1980.

Its allways amusing to watch turkeys voting for christmas.

In the 50s and 60s the super rich had an income tax of 88%. We all know how poorely the American economy performed in that period. (That was sarcasm by the way.)

This graph show how the share of wealth amongst classes has changed.

Income Growth by Quintile

Quintile 1950-1978 1979-1993
Lowest 20% 138% -15%
2nd 20% 98 -7
3rd 20% 106 -3
4th 20% 111 5
Highest 20% 99 18
( U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Survey. )

So from 50-78 the incomes of the third quartile (40-60% the middle classes) increased 106% whilst from 79-93 it droped -3%. This trend has acclerated hyper rapidly under Bush.

In 1980 the average CEO earned x30 the wage of an average factory worker, now it is X150.

But what is most intresting is the wages of all people who earned less than $50,000 a year -- about 85 percent of all Americans -- increased an average of 2 percent a year from 1980 to 1989, which did not even keep pace with inflation. By contrast, the total wages of all millionaires shot up 243 percent a year.

So the middle classes have in real terms grown poorer whilst the upper classes have seen an increase in income of 243% per annum.

This means that the average American worker is working harder, producing more, and creating overall growth, but is not seeing any of the rewards. And this largely explains why middle class anxiety, voter anger and economic uncertainty are gripping the nation today.

Not that this will change any of the turkeys minds about anything, what a bunch of suckers. The super rich are arse raping you and you juat want to bend over and touch your toes.

MMMMMM

06-25-2005, 09:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Favoring tax cuts for ALL (which is what happened under Bush cuts) is not damaging to the middle class"

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it is. If they cut the wealthy's taxes by 90% of what they did, they would have been able to cut the less wealthy's by a greater % of what they did.

[/ QUOTE ]

How exactly is a tax cut for the middle class damaging to the middle class? They have more money left over for investment or discretionary spending so how is it damaging?

If you go to the Commerce and astoundingly find that the time collection charges have been reduced across the board, and the very highest games received the highest time charge reductions, but your ($40-80?) game still received a dollar time reduction--that isn't damaging to you is it?

MMMMMM

06-25-2005, 09:59 AM

King, you and most who seem to share your perspective on this appear to take the view that it is the relative status or richness that matters most.

I take another view. I think that it is richness or prosperity in absolute terms that matters most.

If my lifestyle improves; if I have more free time or more discretionary income; if I am better off; if I own a home instead of renting: then I don't really CARE if the rich or super-rich recently acquired a fleet of Bentleys to replace their aging BMWs.

Why the heck should I care? There will always be some who are richer than I am.

What matters in the real world is that I am better off.

So, if the middle class in America today own more homes than ever before (which they do), and are better off in some other measures of real prosperity--what does it matter if the very rich just became the super-rich? Who really gives a flying fork?

trippin bily

06-25-2005, 10:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

When you reduce the tax burden of the rich (particularly while increasing spending/debt), the money has to come from somewhere... the burden is shifted to the middle class.

I think you're looking at it backwards... its not taxing the wealthy to make them less wealthy, its shifting the tax burden away from the middle class. It has shown that the middle class, when they have more money, are more likely to pump it back into the market thereby stimulating the economy.

Its also harder for a middle class to grow when a disproportiate amount of their money must be earmarked for debt/tax burden/cost of living, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
The parrot strikes again with bs.
The burden was not shifted.
That means we would have to raise taxes on the middle class
while cutting taxes on the rich.
Didn't happen that way parrot.
Taxes were cut across the board.
Seriously do you read anything but cereal boxes ?
You blue state people are depressing.
But amusing.

kurto

06-25-2005, 10:51 AM

I haven't yet read a response to this so I'm just going to give what is usually the token response...

The Wealthy get more because they're more productive. The people who don't need to work harder and get better jobs.

[ QUOTE ]
In 1980 the average CEO earned x30 the wage of an average factory worker, now it is X150.

[/ QUOTE ] Clearly, since 1980, an average CEO increased his productivity 500%. And, your average (lazy) factory worker is only 1/150 as productive. If these lazy factory workers would just get off their lazy tufts and work a little harder then they would reap the rewards. You'd think they'd be inspired when they their CEOs doing the work of 150 of them.

[ QUOTE ]
But what is most intresting is the wages of all people who earned less than $50,000 a year -- about 85 percent of all Americans -- increased an average of 2 percent a year from 1980 to 1989, which did not even keep pace with inflation. By contrast, the total wages of all millionaires shot up 243 percent a year.

[/ QUOTE ] Don't the millionaires deserve this? Is it too much to ask for these millionaires who are doing the work of 150 people to more then double their wages each year? Meanwhile, if you're making a wage of $48K, you're part of the 'lazy' class and you're clearly being less productive each year... if you worked a little harder, then perhaps your wage increases would match inflation. Again, these $48,000-Slackers should take their example from the people making millions... they're working their *sses off. Through their hard work (with their 4000 man hours of productivity per week) they have increased their wages 75x faster then yours.

Clearly, you can see why we need to shift the tax burden aware from these hard workers. They're already working 4000 man hours a week, what more do you want? Let these under appreciated supermen keep a little of their money.

kurto

06-25-2005, 10:54 AM

Hey, ignorant lying moron is back! I hope all is well with you.

Honestly, I'm trying to chat with the adults on the board. Seriously, though you're 14 year old intelligence is sometimes amusing, it really contributes nothing.

I suggest you order Highlights magazine. It would keep you challenged for hours!

kurto

06-25-2005, 10:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The short version – He wants to pay higher taxes? Then pay ‘em. No law says you have to take every deduction. Be the first, be bold: Write that check from your account.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently, Warren Buffet doesn't use all the tax shelters available because he's principled.

The debate is how we as a society believe the burden of our countries costs should be paid. Our forefathers believed in a progressive tax system.

The debate is not about his individual responsibility, its about how our nation does it.

MMMMMM

06-25-2005, 11:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Our forefathers believed in a progressive tax system.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which "forefathers" might those be? The 20th century "forefathers" (har har), or those who actually founded this country and built it up from scratch?

Can you give any example of a "progressive" tax system in this country from, say, the 1700s or 1800s? Now I'm curious.

kurto

06-25-2005, 11:18 AM

Here's some quickies...

[ QUOTE ]
Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.
--Thomas Jefferson

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One of the tenets of Smith's economic philosophy was the idea of fairness in taxation. In his most famous work, The Wealth of Nations, Smith wrote:

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities..."

In the post-revolutionary era, with the American economy being largely agricultural, tariffs were viewed largely as a tax on the rich. In 1811, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"We are all the more reconciled to the tax on importation, because it falls exclusively on the rich...In fact, the poor man in this country who uses nothing but what is made within his own farm or family, or within the United States, pays not a farthing of tax to the general government...the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone..."

Continued use of tariffs as the primary source of Federal revenues was to prove impractical as the nature of the economy changed. After the Civil War, as the shift from an agricultural to a manufacturing economy accelerated, the large tariffs that were imposed to provide funding for the Federal government became an increasing burden on the poor and middle class. Although tariffs were designed to protect American jobs as well as raise revenue to operate the government, the nearly 50 percent tariff on imported goods enabled American manufacturers to raise their prices abnormally high. American producers profited hansomely at the expense of the poor and working class, who had to pay much more for everything they purchased.

The Federal government's answer to the tariff dilemma was the income tax. In 1894, under President Grover Cleveland's Democratic administration, an individual and corporate income tax was introduced, aimed primarily at the wealthy. But in 1895, the Supreme Court declared the newly adopted income tax unconstitutional.

After the turn of the century, however, the emergence of the Progressive movement, whose driving force was directed at fighting poverty and political corruption, provided a major impetus toward the implementation of a permanent income tax. In 1909, the Republicans, feeling pressure from the Progressives, agreed to a constitutional amendment to establish a Federal income tax, believing that it would never be ratified by the States. In the 1912 elections, however, Progressive Republicans and Democrats gained control of a sufficient number of legislatures to enable subsequent ratification of the amendment to the Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment).

True to the Jeffersonian ideal of limiting taxes to the wealthy, the new income tax had progressive rates between 1 and 6 percent on incomes of $4000 (the equivalent of more than $70,000 today) or more for both individuals and corporations.

[/ QUOTE ]

MMMMMM

06-25-2005, 11:36 AM

The first is an acceptable example, though you will note that it refers to taxing property not income.

The second refers to a time period which was not that which I presumed when reading the phrase "our forefathers".

It also includes this little gem:

"True to the Jeffersonian ideal of limiting taxes to the wealthy, the new income tax had progressive rates between 1 and 6 percent on incomes of $4000 (the equivalent of more than $70,000 today) or more for both individuals and corporations.

I think that sounds about reasonable: perhaps we should slash the crap out of the budget (as in a prior example by Natedogg), and cap the income tax rate at 6%. You could still have your "progressive" system as taxes would range from 1%-6%.

If that's not quite feasible today then make it 1%-10%. The highest income earners would be paying TEN TIMES as much, as a percentage of their income, as the lowest income earners--which certainly ought to be enough of a spread to satisfy you, and Howard Dean, and the Andy Foxes of the world.

kurto

06-25-2005, 12:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The first is an acceptable example, though you will note that it refers to taxing property not income.

[/ QUOTE ] True. But it set the notion that the wealthy would pay taxes for the benefit of all. At the time, NO income was taxed. And the amount of revenue the govt. needed to collect was significantly smaller.

At the time, income wasn't taxed at all. It wasn't until after income started being taxed that the idea of progressive taxation (which goes back to people like Jefferson) could be applied in this context.

[ QUOTE ]
The second refers to a time period which was not that which I presumed when reading the phrase "our forefathers".

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. It was later. But it was a continuation of that Jeffersonian Ideal.

[ QUOTE ]
perhaps we should slash the crap out of the budget

[/ QUOTE ]

I think everyone agrees that spending needs to be reduced. And let's face it, neither party does it. (the disagreements between the parties usually come as to what needs to be cut... which is really moot because it seems no matter who promises what, the spending increases. /images/graemlins/confused.gif)

Zeno

06-25-2005, 12:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Funny, I'm 52 and I'm not worried about either.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /images/graemlins/laugh.gif /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Good one.

I hope in subsequent posts in this thread you proved that point.

There is, in general, too much worrying. So your point is well made.

-Zeno

lehighguy

06-25-2005, 12:59 PM

Please read the following sources. It's about ten pages, mostly graphs and tables.

http://www.house.gov/jec/tax/familyincome.pdf
(the graph showing income tax share of typical family)

http://www.house.gov/jec/press/2002/irs2.pdf
(the whole thing is worthwhile)

Now I offer teh following conclusions from that data:

1) Tax cuts for the wealthy do not lower thier overall tax burden.

The tax share of the wealthy (the % of federal revenue provided by them) has increased almost unabated since the 1980's. Thier share of federal taxes increased under president Bush's presidency despite lower tax rates. A similair effect occured during the Reagan administration.

2) The "Income Gap" is not a result of tax policy.

The share of national income brought home by the wealthy has increased almost unabated for the last 20 years. Even when tax rates on them were raised by Clinton they continued to bring home a larger share of national income. Thier share of national income is mainly tied to the health of the economy, not tax policy. Indeed, when the fortunes of the wealthy and the vitality of the countries economy are indeed highly correlated.

3) The "Income Gap" is due mainly to worldwide economic forces, the emergence of new technology, and globalization.

The share of income brought in by the wealthy has increased nearly unabated. This is a multi-boom/multi-bust trend that has continued no matter what economic policies have been implemented. All signs point to it continuing in the future.

4) Maintaining the Status Quo is Impossible

The economic world we live in changes. Democrats seem to be stuck in the 1950's economy. They worship it. Politicians throughout the industrialized world have all taken to promising a return to an economic past that is not feasible. This inability to adapt has hindered developed economies throughout the world. Japan has been unwilling to forclose on failing business's, write of bad loans, or deal with it's national debt. They are living in the 1980's still. The EU has double digit unemployment, huge government debt obligations, and low GDP growth. France just voted down the EU constitution because they are afraid they can't compete in the free market. They are still living in the 60's. Throughout the industrialized world politicians are selling people an economy that doesn't work in today's world.

5) The left's War on Responsibility and Change are destroying the middle class.

One of the strengths of capitalism is that it is very adaptive. American capitalism has always been especially adaptive over the years. However, the left is so intent on a return to the past; on a return to factories, big steel mills, and shipyards, that they are killing the adaptability of the American working class. They have steadily beat into them that they don't need to adapt and become more productive because they "deserve" things. You've made the working class into a bunch of whiny little bitches who believe they can get more out of whining then actually improving themselves. You blame the foriegner, but the foriegner is just trying to make a life for himself and he works damn hard to do it. Instead of telling people how sorry you are for them, tell them to get a damn education. Tell them that 50-60 hour minimum weeks are gonna start to be the norm. Tell them that only the strong survive in this world. Tell them that it doesn't matter why they lose thier job, all that matters is they did, and they need to do whatever it takes to keep that from happening. People need to be responsible for themselves, something you've beaten right out of them. If they don't have a job, you'll give them unemployment and welfare. If they take bad care of themselves you'll pick up thier medical tab, if they don't get disaster insurance you'll provide relief, if they don't save for retirement you'll lie about have money put away in SS so they at least feel better about being unprepared.

Change is hard. Change is someone no one wants to do and it's a lot of work. But we need to change. The world we live in demands change. If the politicians throughout the industrialized world, on the right and the left, continue to peddle the past we will get crushed by the emerging powers that fully embrace the new changes, because they have no happy past to look back at.

MMMMMM

06-25-2005, 01:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There is, in general, too much worrying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very true.

Moreover, what's generally worse than worrying, are the baskets of harebrained plans humankind concocts in order to deal with these bugaboos.

MMMMMM

06-25-2005, 01:05 PM

lehighguy

06-25-2005, 01:06 PM

Our forfathers didn't believe in income taxes at all.

lehighguy

06-25-2005, 01:09 PM

Can spending be reduced so long as tax revenues keep comming in? What incentives do politicians have not to spend when they already have our money.

Zeno

06-25-2005, 01:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Our forfathers didn't believe in income taxes at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed.

Sixteenth amendment (ratified in 1913) Income tax (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am16.html)

-Zeno

andyfox

06-25-2005, 03:00 PM

In poker, even a bad plan is often better than no plan at all. Not so in real life, I agree.

wacki

06-25-2005, 05:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Being 52, I am much more worried about my shrinking penis than about the shrinking middle class.

As you become older, the order of your priorites naturally shift.

Don't worry, be Happy. Everything is 'upbeat'.

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.vimaxextender.com/

Zeno

06-25-2005, 07:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.vimaxextender.com/

[/ QUOTE ]

I just don't know how I can thank you enough Wacki.

-Zeno

TomCollins

06-25-2005, 10:55 PM

The problem with this is many people that were in the bottom quartile move up. This isn't Caste India. This is the USA, where people will often move between income quartiles throughout their life.

shots

06-25-2005, 10:57 PM

I think that a large part of the problem is societal. So many people overextend themselves so badly these days that as soon as they make enough money to be middle class they spend there way back out of the middle class again by living beyond there means. This is much more prevalent today then it used to be.

kurto

06-25-2005, 11:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Can spending be reduced so long as tax revenues keep comming in? What incentives do politicians have not to spend when they already have our money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can it be reduced? Yes. Is it likely? No.

As it is, we're spending more then what's taken in. Hard to imagine enough good tough leaders getting in with a plan to reduce spending, pay off the debt and eventually reduce revenue collected.

I would say its possible but implausible. (I always liked that distinction.)

kurto

06-25-2005, 11:20 PM

I'm lucky in that I was raised to be a cheap skate. For so many years I was afraid to spend money. Over the years as my income has grown, my spending habits haven't caught up. (it helps that my wife has our bank automatically place money in savings... its gone from my checking account before I even know its there.) Suddenly, I have savings.

Perhaps the problem with our government is we don't elect enough habitual penny pinchers?

shots

06-25-2005, 11:24 PM

I agree that government is not exempt from living beyond there means. I'm a huge Bush fan but I'm a conservative first, and I was very unhappy at the increase in the size of the government under what should be a conservative adminastration.

lehighguy

06-25-2005, 11:49 PM

If you had to lay down poker odds on wether or not government spending will rise faster then GDP over the next 50 years what would they be.

shots

06-25-2005, 11:58 PM

I'd say the GDP is drawing to an open ender. Roughly a 3 to one dog.

kurto

06-26-2005, 12:09 AM

something terrible like 20:1 that it will continue to grow.

I have this fantasy where there's a non-violent revolution in the US where suddenly people take an interest in their government... research what's going on (not by watching political spin artists, but by actually reading about a subject). People begin to demand accountability from their politicians and watch what they're doing. People debate individual issues as opposed to a 'party line'.

In this utopian fantasy of mine, people elect people who lay out concrete plans on what needs to be cut, how it will happen and lays out what will be difficult in the process. And then, the people actually watch to see that its implemented.

Of course this is unlikely to ever happen... though one day if things get bad enough, you never know.

I have to say... like Clinton or not, he did actually start to make larger payments on our debt. I never thought I'd see that happen.

shots

06-26-2005, 12:23 AM

I'm not 100% sure but I don't recall Clinton actually paying down the debt that much. I thaught that was what he said we'd do with the projected surplus but then when the surplus never actually happend we weren't able to pay it down by the large amount he had talked about. Even so I think he did pay it down like 100 billion or so before that (which is a drop in the bucket in terms of the total national debt). The way in which he paid it down is a subject for another thread

lehighguy

06-26-2005, 12:29 AM

Clinton was one of the better Democrats. But his wisdom is lost on these wackos. And he had his own problems.

lehighguy

06-26-2005, 12:30 AM

The budget did go surplus for like a year or two.

lehighguy

06-26-2005, 12:34 AM

For your fantasy I will give 1,000 to one odds on a 20 year span. I will cover any bet up to $1,000.

The only forseeable situation I see for this is when SS goes negative. As natedogg once said: "the legislation congress will pass to fix this will be the stupidest of all time" or something to that effect.

I would still give odds that instead of fixing the problem it becomes an old fashioned young versus old political battle.

andyfox

06-26-2005, 12:38 AM

A tax cut for the middle class is not damaging to the middle class. A tax cut for the upper class is damaging to the middle class. Because the choice was not between a tax cut for everybody and a tax cut for nobody. The choice was between a bigger tax cut for the middle class and a smaller one for the upper class and the same tax cut for both. Thus your Commerce example is inapt. The choice wasn't between an across the board reduction and no reduction at all, but rather between different reduction rates for different games/income levels. So favoring equal tax cuts for all is indeed harmful to the middle class compared to the alternative that was proposed by the Democrats.

The rich play by one set of rules, which is filled with opportunities to hide income, fabricate deductions, and reduce taxes. Congress requires wage earners, on the other hand, to operate under another, much harsher set of rules in which every dollar of income from a job, a savings account, or a stock dividend is reported to the government and taxes are withheld from each paycheck. However, the superrich have an underground economy that lets them understate their true income and overstate their tax deducitons As a result, the rich are taxed more lightly than the middle class.

andyfox

06-26-2005, 12:41 AM

"What I was referring to was if the rich recieved a tax cut of x, and the middle class a tax cut of x-b (assuming b is positive of course) then while the middle class pay an higher share of the gross tax collected both classes now pay a lessor amount of tax. Thus I do not see how a tax reduction for the wealthy hurts the middle class as long as their taxes are not raised. All that has happened is a reduction in the gross tax collected. Where do you disagree?"

The choice was either Bush's tax cut of an equal rate across the board (because, as the president put it, a woman making $200,000/year deserved the same rate reduction as a woman making $20,000/year) or a larger tax cut for the middle class and a smaller tax cut for the upper class. By passing a bill mandating the same reduction for all, the middle class was hurt.

[censored]

06-26-2005, 12:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"What I was referring to was if the rich recieved a tax cut of x, and the middle class a tax cut of x-b (assuming b is positive of course) then while the middle class pay an higher share of the gross tax collected both classes now pay a lessor amount of tax. Thus I do not see how a tax reduction for the wealthy hurts the middle class as long as their taxes are not raised. All that has happened is a reduction in the gross tax collected. Where do you disagree?"

The choice was either Bush's tax cut of an equal rate across the board (because, as the president put it, a woman making $200,000/year deserved the same rate reduction as a woman making $20,000/year) or a larger tax cut for the middle class and a smaller tax cut for the upper class. By passing a bill mandating the same reduction for all, the middle class was hurt.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand thanks for clarifying. So in general you are not against tax cuts for the rich and middle class, but rather the Bush tax cuts specifically, atleast how it relates to the conversation?

MMMMMM

06-26-2005, 01:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
A tax cut for the middle class is not damaging to the middle class. A tax cut for the upper class is damaging to the middle class. Because the choice was not between a tax cut for everybody and a tax cut for nobody. The choice was between a bigger tax cut for the middle class and a smaller one for the upper class and the same tax cut for both. Thus your Commerce example is inapt. The choice wasn't between an across the board reduction and no reduction at all, but rather between different reduction rates for different games/income levels. So favoring equal tax cuts for all is indeed harmful to the middle class compared to the alternative that was proposed by the Democrats.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that's the most essential or pivotal thing, Andy.

If Commerce cut time charges by either a flat amount, or by a progressive amount, or by a very progressive amount: it would still all be beneficial to the middle-limit players. Not as beneficial perhaps as it might otherwise have been had another option been selected, but still beneficial. And definitely not damaging to the middle-limit players.

Note that there is no option listed above for no cut at all. And ALL of the above options for cuts would benefit middle-limit players. I don't see how you could, for instance, claim a flat-cut across the board to be "damaging" to middle-limit players, merely because it isn't as beneficial as another scenario might have been.

The Dems' alternate proposal may indeed have been even better for the middle class. But that doesn't mean that the Repub's proposal was harmful to the middle class. You are using the Dems' proposal as a basis for measuring against, but the more basic basis is the previous state of affairs before ANY of these cuts were enacted.

If you can use the Dems' propsal as a basis for measuring against, so too can someone else use the Repubs' proposal as a basis for measuring against. Or even yet a third or fourth propsal--say the third is communistic and the fourth is pure unfettered laissez-faire capitalism. Anyone can assert their preferred basis as the standard against which things should be compared, and may claim something else is harmful if it does not benefit a target group as much as their proposal would have benefitted that group. But this is mostly just a palette-shifting of sorts.

Heck a Socialist might claim the Dems' proposed tax plan would have been "damaging" to the middle-class because it didn't go as far as their own plan would have gone in soaking the rich. But this is largely an example of palette-based perspective rather than an objective basis for measurement (objective being more in keeping with real world results, which did benefit the middle-class rather than damage them).

It is more logical to use the previous state of affairs as a basis for measuring against. By this more objective standard, it cannot be rightly asserted that the tax cuts for the middle-class were damaging to the middle-class. Comparing it to other preferred standards can work both ways and is too subjective to provide a good frame of reference.

I don't think the frame of reference I'm suggesting is ideal--just better and somewhat more objective for the purposes of what we seem to be discussing.

natedogg

06-26-2005, 06:17 AM

Explain to me, if you will, how exactly it hurts the middle class to cut their taxes? Please, expain it to me.

natedogg

natedogg

06-26-2005, 06:38 AM

MMMMMM

06-26-2005, 09:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The choice was either Bush's tax cut of an equal rate across the board (because, as the president put it, a woman making $200,000/year deserved the same rate reduction as a woman making $20,000/year) or a larger tax cut for the middle class and a smaller tax cut for the upper class. By passing a bill mandating the same reduction for all, the middle class was hurt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone getting help, albeit less help than they might otherwise have received, does not constitute harm or damage. Getting helped is not getting harmed.

As I pointed out below, you are (bizarrely and somewhat fallaciously) measuring this against an arbitrarily assigned standard (the Dems' proposal) instead of against a real-world standard, in your assigninment of "damage".

Heck by your logic on this, if your grandparents decide to leave you money, and Tilly wants to leave you $100,000 but Jethro wants to leave you only $50,000, giving the other $50,000 to a distant cousin: you have been "damaged" or "harmed" if your grandparents decide to go with Jethro's plan. WTF?

Moreover, the Dems' proposal would likely have helped the middle class considerably less than, say, the Green's proposal or Ralph Nader's proposal. Therefore, the Dems' proposal would have "harmed" the middle-class. Say what?

Also, just a sidenote for the socialists out there, regarding the above Tilly and Jethro illustration: the government does not "give" you anything when it comes to tax cuts. Remember, it was your money in the first place.

andyfox

06-26-2005, 12:02 PM

I would have preferred tax cuts that were not the same across the board because I don't agree with Bush's contention that a $200,000/year earned deserved the same percentage tax cut as a $20,000/year earner.

andyfox

06-26-2005, 12:11 PM

The likelihood of you winning the lottery is infinitesmal. The president could have compromised with his democratic critics and reduced the tax cut on the rich and raised it for the middle class.

All appearance to the contrary, the federal government does not have an unlimited budget. As you and I have pointed out numerous times on this forum, between 1983 and 2003, the government spent $5,400,000,000,000 more than it took in from income, estate, gift, and excise taxes. But the debt grew by "only" $3,600,000,000,000 because excess Social Security taxes were used to make up the difference. That money came largely from the middle class. The government could have decided to tax the upper class sufficiently to cover some portion of the $1,800,000,000,000 that was stolen from the Social Security tax. That it chose not to meant that lower income, estate, gift and excise taxes meant higher Social Security taxes.

[Sometimes I think that if the government would be forced to write out $5,400,000,000,000, rather than just say "5.4 trillion dollars," it would hit home harder just how much money is involved and make it more difficult for the government to spend so much money.]

slamdunkpro

06-26-2005, 12:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The likelihood of you winning the lottery is infinitesmal. The president could have compromised with his democratic critics and reduced the tax cut on the rich and raised it for the middle class.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jeeze, you just don't get it do you? The reason that most of the tax cuts go to the upper income groups is because the top 20% of the wage earners pay 78% of the taxes (Congressional Budget Office Report from this year). If you have a tax cut of course it’s going to mostly go to the wealthy since they pay most of the taxes.

MMMMMM

06-26-2005, 01:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The president could have compromised with his democratic critics and reduced the tax cut on the rich and raised it for the middle class.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even had he done so, the resultant tax plan could still have been criticized by those who would claim that it didn't go far enough in that direction.

If the Dems' plan had been adopted in its entirety, far-leftists could still have criticized it by saying it didn't go far enough in their preferred direction. And Andy Fox (or someone else;-)) could have claimed that the Dems' plan actually "hurt" the middle class for this very reason.

See how there is no end to it? That is why the real measure is this: is the middle class better off in the real world by virtue of the tax cut--or not? And measuring it against no cut at all is indeed the most rational base point--as illustrated by the folly of the above hypothetical far-leftist assertion about even the Dems' plan "hurting" the middle class.

There is no end to the possible "plans" one plan may be compared against, or the potential extremity of such plans. This is why comparing against another "plan", instead of measuring by real-world effects, is a misleading baseline for claiming that it helps or harms.

I think I've made this point in various forms in several places throughout this thread, so in the continued absence of a reply from you addressing this point, I will now desist.

natedogg

06-26-2005, 11:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
All appearance to the contrary, the federal government does not have an unlimited budget. As you and I have pointed out numerous times on this forum, between 1983 and 2003, the government spent $5,400,000,000,000 more than it took in from income, estate, gift, and excise taxes. But the debt grew by "only" $3,600,000,000,000 because excess Social Security taxes were used to make up the difference. That money came largely from the middle class. The government could have decided to tax the upper class sufficiently to cover some portion of the $1,800,000,000,000 that was stolen from the Social Security tax. That it chose not to meant that lower income, estate, gift and excise taxes meant higher Social Security taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nevertheless, easing the burden on the middle class by lowering their taxes, albeit not enough, can hardly be construed as "harming" the middle class.

I just don't follow your reasoning. On one hand I agree with you completely that the middle class tax cuts should be bigger, but it's not logical to therefore argue that the tax cuts they *did* get were harmful, merely because they weren't big enough.

natedogg

The once and future king

06-28-2005, 07:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Explain to me, if you will, how exactly it hurts the middle class to cut their taxes? Please, expain it to me.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice strawman. Where did I ever assert the above. Im talking about tax cuts that primarily benefit the upper classes. The vast majority of the revenues saved by Bush's tax cuts went to the top 20% of american citizens.

All the relaible objective historical economic data is that tax cuts that benefit the upper classes harm the middle classes.

Why is this? We all know that tax cuts are meant to redistribute wealth. They do this, but do they transfer wealth from the Upper classes to the poor, hell no. The transfer is this Upper classes----->Middle Classes.

This is why with every signiifcant tax cuts the objective data shows a polariazation between rich and poor, or in other words a shrinkage in the middle classes. The data shows that you cut taxes the middle classes become poorer. This is because the Middle classes gain the most economic utility out of taxes. Taxes benefit the middle classes more than any other group in society.

The reason for this should be intuitive, but to help you on your way think public sector employment.

natedogg

06-28-2005, 11:21 AM

Wow.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Explain to me, if you will, how exactly it hurts the middle class to cut their taxes? Please, expain it to me.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice strawman. Where did I ever assert the above. Im talking about tax cuts that primarily benefit the upper classes. The vast majority of the revenues saved by Bush's tax cuts went to the top 20% of american citizens.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bush tax cuts reduced tax burden for thd middle class did they not? Lots of posts in this thread state that the middle class is hurt by the Bush Tax cuts. I'd like to know how. Assertions from left field notwithstanding, can you explain *how* the tax cuts hurt the middle class.

Andy has put for the argument that they hurt the middle class because they could have been bigger. You seem to be making the argument that they hurt the middle class because govt sector jobs are funded by taxes and those go to the middle class. I think that's what you're implying when you say:

[ QUOTE ]
The reason for this should be intuitive, but to help you on your way think public sector employment.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, this, like the rest of your post, is an assertion from leftfield that actually contradicts "the objective data".

Public sector job growth was the biggest sector during the Bush first term. I don't know the numbers for this term but his first term's public sector job growht is one reason why many economists worried that we were undergoing a false job recovery, and there was much verbal sparring during the election because Kerry's job numbers ignored the public sector growth, and Bush's job numbers claims included it.

So, are you just making stuff up as you go along?

Once again, if tax cuts hurt the middle class, can you explain why? (without using spurious "facts")?

So far you have not.

natedogg

The once and future king

06-28-2005, 12:23 PM

You are ignoring what I am putting in front of you.

None of my facts are spurious.

ALL OF THE HISTORICAL DATA points to the fact that when the rich have there taxes cut, regardless of any savings passed onto the middles classes there is still a polaziration of rich and poor or a shrinkage in the middle classes.

You speak of Tax as though it dissapears into a vacuum. It dosnt it gets spent. When it gets spent it benefits the middle classes more than any other group.

Here it is as simple as I can put it. TAX= A TRANSFER OF WEALTH FROM THE UPPER CLASSES TO THE MIDDLE CLASSES.

Again all of the historical economic data supports this assertation.

If the Bush tax cut had targeted purely the middle class then we would be having an other conversation, but it didnt.
56% of the revenuse saved went to the top 10%. Revenues that otherwise would have been passed onto the middle class.

johnc

06-28-2005, 12:58 PM

johnc

06-28-2005, 01:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Favoring tax cuts for ALL (which is what happened under Bush cuts) is not damaging to the middle class, which is the class I am in.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think it is just coincendetal that under Bush the share of the wealth amongst the Middle classes has diminished and the share of the wealth of the super rich has increased. Though it has to be said it this has been happening since 1980.

Its allways amusing to watch turkeys voting for christmas.

In the 50s and 60s the super rich had an income tax of 88%. We all know how poorely the American economy performed in that period. (That was sarcasm by the way.)

This graph show how the share of wealth amongst classes has changed.

Income Growth by Quintile

Quintile 1950-1978 1979-1993
Lowest 20% 138% -15%
2nd 20% 98 -7
3rd 20% 106 -3
4th 20% 111 5
Highest 20% 99 18
( U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Survey. )

So from 50-78 the incomes of the third quartile (40-60% the middle classes) increased 106% whilst from 79-93 it droped -3%. This trend has acclerated hyper rapidly under Bush.

In 1980 the average CEO earned x30 the wage of an average factory worker, now it is X150.

But what is most intresting is the wages of all people who earned less than $50,000 a year -- about 85 percent of all Americans -- increased an average of 2 percent a year from 1980 to 1989, which did not even keep pace with inflation. By contrast, the total wages of all millionaires shot up 243 percent a year.

So the middle classes have in real terms grown poorer whilst the upper classes have seen an increase in income of 243% per annum.

This means that the average American worker is working harder, producing more, and creating overall growth, but is not seeing any of the rewards. And this largely explains why middle class anxiety, voter anger and economic uncertainty are gripping the nation today.

Not that this will change any of the turkeys minds about anything, what a bunch of suckers. The super rich are arse raping you and you juat want to bend over and touch your toes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do I detect a little class envy?

johnc

06-28-2005, 01:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Explain to me, if you will, how exactly it hurts the middle class to cut their taxes? Please, expain it to me.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice strawman. Where did I ever assert the above. Im talking about tax cuts that primarily benefit the upper classes. The vast majority of the revenues saved by Bush's tax cuts went to the top 20% of american citizens.

All the relaible objective historical economic data is that tax cuts that benefit the upper classes harm the middle classes.

Why is this? We all know that tax cuts are meant to redistribute wealth. They do this, but do they transfer wealth from the Upper classes to the poor, hell no. The transfer is this Upper classes----->Middle Classes.

This is why with every signiifcant tax cuts the objective data shows a polariazation between rich and poor, or in other words a shrinkage in the middle classes. The data shows that you cut taxes the middle classes become poorer. This is because the Middle classes gain the most economic utility out of taxes. Taxes benefit the middle classes more than any other group in society.

The reason for this should be intuitive, but to help you on your way think public sector employment.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the middle class bears the tax burden of America, would it make sense that they also posses the most spending power thus making tax cuts to this class the most powerful tool in stimulating the nation's economy (due to freed up discretionary income)?

The once and future king

06-28-2005, 01:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If the middle class bears the tax burden of America,

[/ QUOTE ]

They dont not on aggregate per capita, and I never said they did.

As for class envy, sure im envious that some are now able to work LESS for a Bigger slice of the pie were as I as a member of the middle classes have to work harder for less of the pie. However class anger is more appropriate. Assuming you are middle class are you not angry that the rich are arse rapping you.

However I ahve allready taken you much to seriously as you have posted something as utterly wrong as this:

[ QUOTE ]
The overall lump sum of taxes collected from the "rich" (that depends upon your opinion of who's rich) is for sure much lower in proportion to the lump sum collected from the middle class.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. The top 5% wealthiest citizens own over half of the wealth in the USA. The Middle classes own a paltry amount of the Nations wealth when compared to the top 20%. Thus even though they outnumber them massively they pay less tax as individuals and collectively.

The average wealth of someone in the middle or the median is 62K the average wealth of someone in the top 1% is 12.5 million. Also The richest 10 percent of families own about 85 percent of all outstanding stocks. They own about 85 percent of all financial securities, 90 percent of all business assets.

andyfox

06-28-2005, 02:12 PM

I'm not advocating taxing the wealthy to death. Nobody I've heard in the congress is advocating it either. There is absolutely no evidence that the economy does better when the marginal tax rate on the highest incomes is high; in fact, there is some evidence of just the opposite.

My point is that the middle class gets screwed by the tax system for the reasons I indicated in my second paragraph of your quote.

shots

06-28-2005, 02:19 PM

I'm right in that middle class range and I've been saving a ton of money since Bush was elected.

johnc

06-28-2005, 02:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the middle class bears the tax burden of America,

[/ QUOTE ]

They dont not on aggregate per capita, and I never said they did.

As for class envy, sure im envious that some are now able to work LESS for a Bigger slice of the pie were as I as a member of the middle classes have to work harder for less of the pie. However class anger is more appropriate. Assuming you are middle class are you not angry that the rich are arse rapping you.

However I ahve allready taken you much to seriously as you have posted something as utterly wrong as this:

[ QUOTE ]
The overall lump sum of taxes collected from the "rich" (that depends upon your opinion of who's rich) is for sure much lower in proportion to the lump sum collected from the middle class.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. The top 5% wealthiest citizens own over half of the wealth in the USA. The Middle classes own a paltry amount of the Nations wealth when compared to the top 20%. Thus even though they outnumber them massively they pay less tax as individuals and collectively.

The average wealth of someone in the middle or the median is 62K the average wealth of someone in the top 1% is 12.5 million. Also The richest 10 percent of families own about 85 percent of all outstanding stocks. They own about 85 percent of all financial securities, 90 percent of all business assets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not neccessarily disputing your #s but are you're bringing up "wealthiest 5%", "top 1%", "richest 10%" in your arguement which seriously smacks of Clinton's efforts to expand the upper classes by lowering the income levels which represent these classes in order to expand the tax bases the Dems wanted to target for tax increases. With all due respect, there is a huge difference bewtwen the top 1% and the top 20%.
Keep in mind that a huge driving forces behind the stock market, financial securities, as well as businesses is consumer spending with housing being a big one that comes to mind and is a valuable indicator of national economic growth - the middle class being the largest block of homeowners in terms of units owned.

The once and future king

06-28-2005, 03:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm right in that middle class range and I've been saving a ton of money since Bush was elected.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sample size to small.

shots

06-28-2005, 03:42 PM

Or maybe your generalizations about the tax cuts are too big.

The once and future king

06-28-2005, 03:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Or maybe your generalizations about the tax cuts are too big.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am refering to objective historical data with suffecient sample size.

shots

06-28-2005, 03:52 PM

I haven't seen you post any data that proves tax cuts for the wealthy hurt the middle class. Even if the tax cut was just for the wealthy it wouldn't neccerally hurt the middle class especially if income to the treasury went up as happend when Reagen cut taxes dramatically for the rich. But to say that an across the board tax cut hurts the middle class is just ridiculous. I find your statements in regard to the redistribution of wealth to be disturbing.
I'm honestly not trying to insult you here but I feel I must ask the question are you a socialist?

slamdunkpro

06-28-2005, 04:14 PM

Sample size just grew by 100% - I'm in the same situation as Shots

The once and future king

06-28-2005, 06:57 PM

Im not a socialist but am trained in economics.

Go back to my first post in this thread. I post conclusive proof via statistics gathered by the American census beruau that tax cuts polarize wealth between rich and poor. This is immpossible without shrinkage in the wealth of the middle class.

Since the Bush tax cuts all tha data shows that the top 10% now own a greater share of the total wealth of America. Where do you think this wealth came from? It came from the middle classes.

Also again, please feel free to look online but it allmost undisputed amongst economists that tax = A transfer of wealth from the upper classes to the middle classes.

As I have said previously, if you are a member of the middle classes voting for tax cuts is akin to turkeys voting for christmas.

Not that telling you this will make any diffrerance. Your masters say jump and you say how high.

shots

06-28-2005, 08:02 PM

I never said that taxes weren't the redistrabution of wealth only that they shouldn't be. The rest of your statement is typical brainwashed liberal nonsense. Even though I run a successfull buisiness and am saving thousands of dollars a year because of Bush's tax you know better then me how the tax cuts affected me because Howard Dean told you so.

natedogg

06-28-2005, 08:55 PM

You still have not shown how it hurts me to pay $1000 less in taxes this year. How? Please explain it.

Also, to give me some reference, how old are you and do you have a job?

natedogg

MMMMMM

06-28-2005, 10:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Go back to my first post in this thread. I post conclusive proof via statistics gathered by the American census beruau that tax cuts polarize wealth between rich and poor. This is immpossible without shrinkage in the wealth of the middle class.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it is necessarily impossible. For instance, if the wealth of both middle and upper classes grows (perhaps due to tax cuts;-)), the wealth of thge upper class would likely grow more but the wealth of the middle class could easily grow as well.

[ QUOTE ]
Since the Bush tax cuts all tha data shows that the top 10% now own a greater share of the total wealth of America. Where do you think this wealth came from? It came from the middle classes.

[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds like you are viewing this through a lens of a zero-sum game, which it isn't. You know that a growing economy can increase the wealth of both the middle and upper classes (and probably all classes).

Just because the upper class may end up, after tax cuts, owning a bigger slice of the pie, DOES NOT imply that others own less wealth--only that they own a smaller slice of the pie. But if the overall pie is bigger they too can own more and be richer.

Also, if you cut the taxes of someone earning a middle-class income, they will have more money to save, invest, buy a nicer car or vacation on. I just don't see how this hurts them--and neither you nor anyone else in this thread has yet really shown that, to my recollection. You guys come up with zero-sum notions and implications, but I don't think you can show in practical terms that a guy making 40-60K per year will be harmed by tax cuts. He just won't be harmed, he will be helped (and all the more so since so much of the budget goes to waste and nonsense anyway).

One other thing: the rich are NOT raping the middle-class in America. I find that notion rather absurd. The rich do better, obviously, but rather than hurt the middle-class, they generally help them: by employing them, contributing investment capital, and buying their goods and professional services. Your seeming zero-sum picture is very off from reality, in my opinion--although of course some things are zero-sum. The whole thing isn't, though.

shots

06-28-2005, 10:23 PM

Exactly if you let people keep more of their ownmoney it's always a good thing. I've hired 2 new employees this year I know I couldn't have done this without the Bush tax plan. I know other people in my field who do better then me and would probably be considered rich they've hired tons of new employees with the extra money they had left at the end of the year.

The once and future king

06-29-2005, 06:17 AM

The once and future king

06-29-2005, 06:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Just because the upper class may end up, after tax cuts, owning a bigger slice of the pie, DOES NOT imply that others own less wealth--only that they own a smaller slice of the pie. But if the overall pie is bigger they too can own more and be richer.

[/ QUOTE ]

This idea is a fallacy. The pie is bigger because middle class make it bigger. They make it bigger but own a smaller share of it. Thats fair.

Also you must misunderstand what polarization means. It means concentration at the extremes. Or in another words a movement away from the middle. Again I reitereate, all objective data shows that tax cuts that even if they benefit the middle classes in the short term but benefit the rich more lead to this movement to the extremes and shrinkage of the middle. A few in the middle move upto the top but a far greater number fall down the economic ladder.

Edited to add. Intrestestingly, the time when the cake grew fastest was a time of massive taxation on the rich e.g. the 50s and 60s.

The once and future king

06-29-2005, 07:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]

You still have not shown how it hurts me to pay $1000 less in taxes this year. How? Please explain it.

Also, to give me some reference, how old are you and do you have a job?

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

Nate. I cant explain how tax cuts hurt or benefit you as as individual but can explain how they effect your class.

I can only present the objective historical economic data data associated with tax cuts for the rich which is what in effect Bush's tax cut was.

As no one defending these cuts seems to have engaged in the slightest with the facts/evidence/proof, here it is again.

Income Growth by Quintile

Quintile 1950-1978 1979-1993
Lowest 20% 138% -15%
2nd 20% 98 -7
3rd 20% 106 -3
4th 20% 111 5
Highest 20% 99 18
( U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Survey. )

So from 50-78 the incomes of the third quartile (40-60% the middle classes) increased 106% whilst from 79-93 it droped -3%. This trend has acclerated hyper rapidly under Bush.

In 1980 the average CEO earned x30 the wage of an average factory worker, now it is X150.

But what is most intresting is the wages of all people who earned less than $50,000 a year -- about 85 percent of all Americans -- increased an average of 2 percent a year from 1980 to 1989, which did not even keep pace with inflation. By contrast, the total wages of all millionaires shot up 243 percent a year.

So the middle classes have in real terms grown poorer whilst the upper classes have seen an increase in income of 243% per annum.

This means that the average American worker is working harder, producing more, and creating overall growth, but is not seeing any of the rewards. And this largely explains why middle class anxiety, voter anger and economic uncertainty are gripping the nation today.

kurto

06-29-2005, 10:52 AM

It seems people who like Bush's policies, don't think the big picture is very meaningful.

They get their small taxcut, they don't care that others are getting a much larger benefit... nor do they care that the debt is skyrocketing which WILL have to be paid down, and their percentage of paying the burden of the debt has increased.

Not their concern. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

shots

06-29-2005, 12:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]

They get their small taxcut, they don't care that others are getting a much larger benefit...

[/ QUOTE ]

No I don't care if others are doing better then me if I'm still doing very well, that's the problem with many on the left they're so blinded by class envy that it doesn't matter how good they're doing if someone else is doing better they're mad.

kurto

06-29-2005, 01:07 PM

Ahhh... right on cue, my perfect example responds!

Before you made your nonsensical response, let's note the majority of my post you missed:
"It seems people who like Bush's policies, don't think the big picture is very meaningful ."

This is all about you, Shots.

"nor do they care that the debt is skyrocketing which WILL have to be paid down, and their percentage of paying the burden of the debt has increased."

This is all about you, Shots.

[ QUOTE ]
they're so blinded by class envy that it doesn't matter how good they're doing if someone else is doing better they're mad.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's weird... who expected the classic, verbatim "class envy" response? Is there anyone out there who hasn't see this same response by limbaugh/freeper parroting types?

It is not class envy to think that one section of society shouldn't benefit more then another segment. Nor is it class envy to realize that our country does better with a thriving middle class.

Mostly, as expected, the poster I was responding to posted historical data to show the inequities, which I predicted would be meaningless to the likes of you.

I expect nothing better from you then a kneejerk, 'class envy' argument that you repeat that you got from one of your peers or your favorite talk radio host.

Later, Jax.

shots

06-29-2005, 02:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Before you made your nonsensical response, let's note the majority of my post you missed:
"It seems people who like Bush's policies, don't think the big picture is very meaningful ."

This is all about you, Shots.

"nor do they care that the debt is skyrocketing which WILL have to be paid down, and their percentage of paying the burden of the debt has increased."

[/ QUOTE ]

Typical Liberal only knows what micheal moore or howard dean tells them. Just because your puppet masters say my overall debt will increase doesn't make it true. If you want to look at the big picture I'll save enough money from the Bush tax cuts over his 8 year term to pay down my entire share of the national debt. I'll say it again so maybe it'll sink in the my entire share not just the increase since Bush took office. I don't really expect you to think about this or about how Bush's tax cuts kept us from going into a depression by allowing companys to keep some of there own money and hire more employees because it probably doesn't say anything about that at moveon.org. It sadens me that some people can be so closed minded that they can say my situation as a member of the middle class must be worse when they know nothing of what my situation is or how the Bush tax cuts have helped me and many many other members of the middle class.

kurto

06-29-2005, 04:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Typical Liberal only knows what micheal moore or howard dean tells them.

[/ QUOTE ] Ummm, moron, neither Moore or Dean is a factor in this. The information referred to was based on our Census Bureau statistics. I don't believe Moore has had anything out for a coupe of years now so it would be kind of difficult for someone to be 'listening' to him. I'm not aware that Dean has had a forum to discuss this issue recently either.

Please stop sounding like a typical rush-limbaugh lite wannabe.

[ QUOTE ]
Just because your puppet masters say my overall debt will increase doesn't make it true.

[/ QUOTE ] Hmmm, how unextpected from you... more arbitrary statements. Your saying 'it doesn't make it true' does nothing to prove otherwise. Our nation's debt grows about 1.6 billion every day. Since our spending has increased and the government is reducing for the short term how much it takes in, that debt will continue to grow. At some point, this will have to be addressed... and since the taxcuts disproportionately favor the higher income brackets, the burden is shifting. So, your share is increasing. And as the research showed, the income of the middle class did not keep pace with inflation. And now the dollar is being devalued even more while increases in fuel costs are expected to drive inflation. (I believe there was an article that the added cost for fuel over the winter for heating homes and driving your car was already higher then the average person's tax break... but again, if this is true, this is BIG picture and wouldn't concern you.) The end result being, the gains you think you have are not real due to the added costs you've incurred and the taxes that you will have to pay.

[ QUOTE ]
I'll save enough money from the Bush tax cuts over his 8 year term to pay down my entire share of the national debt.

[/ QUOTE ] First off... talking about what YOU save is not looking at the big picture, my pea brained friend. You're reinforcing again that my point was accurate. You do not understand that this discussion is about the macro effects of the taxcuts. Not what the effect has been for one person, for example, how it effected 'Shots the jabbering idiot'. You are an individual, we're discussing the 'middle class' as CLASS. Showing once again that you, "don't think the big picture is very meaningful"

[ QUOTE ]
Bush's tax cuts kept us from going into a depression by allowing companys to keep some of there own money and hire more employees because it probably doesn't say anything about that at moveon.org.

[/ QUOTE ] Typical garbage. Trickle down was a failure. The tax cuts in the 90s were successful because they were largely targeted at the Middle class. Mid Class taxcuts work because the Middle Class spends the money on and puts it back into the economy. If I thought it'd do any good, I would look up some articles that support this model... but we know how pointless that would be. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

By the way.. I've never been to Moveon.org so I wouldn't know what Moveon.org says. But, If I know you like I think I do, you have no idea if Moveon says anything one way or another. Your fondness of making up stuff is well noted.

[ QUOTE ]
It sadens me that some people can be so closed minded that they can say my situation as a member of the middle class must be worse when they know nothing of what my situation is or how the Bush tax cuts have helped me and many many other members of the middle class.

[/ QUOTE ] Once again, you don't understand 'big picture' proving you don't understand that the concept of looking at the 'big picture.'

Boy, am I ever curious what kind of business you own. I'm picturing freelance septic tank cleaning or folding pizza boxes...

BTW... we would probably both spare the board a lot of uneccessary battling if you just did what another person asked you to do for them; feel free to put me on ignore. Though I enjoy mocking your ridiculous statements like when you say China will take over the world if we cut our defense budgets and if you live in a larger country you have to commute further to work, etc... I also don't think you'd be missed.

Later, jax.

slamdunkpro

06-29-2005, 05:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Please stop sounding like a typical rush-limbaugh lite wannabe

[/ QUOTE ]

Limbaugh is actually funny.

But if you're calling shots Limbaughlite then can we refer to you as Al Franklin Jr.? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif /images/graemlins/tongue.gif /images/graemlins/tongue.gif /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

kurto

06-29-2005, 05:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Limbaugh is actually funny.

[/ QUOTE ] Funny because he's famously inaccurate and hypocritical? Many years ago when he had a show on TV I tried to watch him. I've listened to his broadcast a few times here and there and even tried to read one of his books. One didn't have to look hard to some much crap being shoveled that I lost interest pretty quickly. (And I'm not talking about politics... I'm talking about things like basic history.) And of course so much demonizing that even before I had a concept of 'feminism', I already found his misogynism somewhat repugnant.

I'm not really sure what you find funny about him, but to each his own.

[ QUOTE ]
then can we refer to you as Al Franklin Jr.?

[/ QUOTE ] Sure. From what I can tell, Franklin actually researches his work, seems more accurate and insightful. (though I've listened to his radio show and don't find him all that funny either. I thought his books were funny, but the radio show is a little dull.)

shots

06-29-2005, 06:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Ummm, moron, neither Moore or Dean is a factor in this. The information referred to was based on our Census Bureau statistics. I don't believe Moore has had anything out for a coupe of years now so it would be kind of difficult for someone to be 'listening' to him. I'm not aware that Dean has had a forum to discuss this issue recently either.
Please stop sounding like a typical rush-limbaugh lite wannabe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahahaha the irony of criticizing me for compareing you to a Moore or Dean style democrat and then accusing me of being Limbaugh-lite is clearly lost on you but it's not lost on me.

I won't respond to the rest of your post line by line since it's clearly a waste of time but I will say this. You say that I'm personally being hurt by the tax cuts but am just to stupid to know it. Then when I prove you wrong and you seek to change the argument. You constantly accuse me of parroting right wing talking points when I do nothing of the sort and disagree with many republicans on many issues. Meanwhile you give little to no independant thought to anything, and only take standered liberal positions on every subject. You clearly are disconnected from the real world and are of below average intelligence. Everytime you are proved wrong about something you said, you seek to change the argument or go on personal attacks, you're a worthless waste of space who's likely mad at republican policies because they've cut your welfare benefits.

By the way I'm a general contractor and a very successfull one at that, I'm 22 years old and have owned my own company since I was 19. As a liberal I know it probably bothers you that a 22 year old is successfull because of hard work and planning, seeing as how you're an all knowing eliteist and you probably think that if I have more money then the average person I must be evil and the government should take it away and give it to people who don't work half as hard as I do, so that's why I thaught I'd mention it.

kurto

06-29-2005, 10:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Hahahaha the irony of criticizing me for compareing you to a Moore or Dean style democrat and then accusing me of being Limbaugh-lite is clearly lost on you but it's not lost on me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Considering the babble you post, you clearly have a lot going on in your head that only you get. And that's fine. It means you supply a lot of amusing nonsense.

[ QUOTE ]
I won't respond to the rest of your post line by line since it's clearly a waste of time

[/ QUOTE ] Depends on what you mean by 'waste of time'. I usually find your responses amusing.

[ QUOTE ]
You clearly are disconnected from the real world and are of below average intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ] You caught me. Maybe if I'm a little smarter I'll realize things like the size of your country determines your commuting distance and that our defense spending is the only thing keeping China from taking over the whole world. One day me hopes too bee as smurt as yu!

[ QUOTE ]
you're a worthless waste of space who's likely mad at republican policies because they've cut your welfare benefits.

[/ QUOTE ] LOL How witty and original. Another rw parrot accusing people who disagree with them of being on welfare. Ho ho. Very clever. That's not at all another mindless cliched sheepy remark. You are truly a unique wit! I stand humbled.

[ QUOTE ]
As a liberal I know it probably bothers you that a 22 year old is successfull because of hard work and planning, seeing as how you're an all knowing eliteist and you probably think that if I have more money then the average person I must be evil and the government should take it away and give it to people who don't work half as hard as I do, so that's why I thaught I'd mention it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I congratulate you for running a successful business. A moronic right wing moron would think that it would bother me that you could have a successful business, but that's just more of the typical partisan nonsense that you hear from the dumber partisans like yourself. I'm not bothered at all by your hard work and success. I'm just bothered that you seem ignorant and moronic in many other areas. Seems like you're more successful with physical work then using head. And that's fine; you should accentuate the positive! Kudos to you.

[ QUOTE ]
and you probably think that if I have more money then the average person I must be evil

[/ QUOTE ] Never suggested such a thing. This is just more of your bigotry showing. I just think if you have all this extra money, spend some money on yourself and take some adult education courses. Improve yourself!

[ QUOTE ]
and the government should take it away and give it to people who don't work half as hard as I do

[/ QUOTE ] Another self flattering arrogant comment... you assume everyone who isn't as financially successful doesn't work as hard as you. And the discussion here was never about taking money away from you, you illiterate. If you're in the middle class as you claim, then the argument was that we wanted the taxcuts to be equally beneficial to your economic class as those above it. Only a complete moron like yourself would argue that someone trying to make things more fair FOR YOU is trying to take your money away. But then, you're fond of nonsense.

I'll say again; I think its great for you that you have a successful business. Contrary to your bigotted stereotypes, no liberals are wishing you failure. Just because I think you're foolish doesn't mean I wish you failure. Kudos to you!

shots

06-29-2005, 10:43 PM

I'll just touch on a couple points. First I don't really do physical work I manage all my jobs. Secondly you keep repeating that your anti Bush tax cut stance is hurting me while I'm rallying for it but I've already demonstrated that I've benefited from them. You should go back to your stance that I'm the only person in the middle class range that's benefiting from them, all though it's equally ridiculous, at least you haven't been proven incontrovertibly wrong on it yet.As for me working harder then most people I work about 65 hours a week on average I'm quite sure that's more then most people work and It's not arrogent to point that out. It's just a fact that a large part of my success is due to working hard, and the vast majority of people could move up in financial class if they worked harder and where disciplined about their spending.

slamdunkpro

06-29-2005, 10:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Funny because he's famously inaccurate and hypocritical?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me make a correction. Limbaugh used to be funny way back when (80’s). I don’t listen to him much anymore because I find his never ending self promotion and self elevation too much. But he was entertaining.

I put Franklin in the same category as Sean Hannity they’re both just rude and mean. Hannity’s religious bit is over the top for me and from what I’ve read and seen of Franklin he’s just a total ass.

shots

06-29-2005, 10:58 PM

I listen to Limbaugh occasionally and I still find him funny. Just the other day I heard him say that Tom Cruise was tortured by Nazis after water was squirted in his face by a gag microphone. After that he read a story about 24 murders occurring during a two day period in Chicago and suggested that Chicago was a quagmire and we should pull out. Not terribly informative but definitely funny.

slamdunkpro

06-29-2005, 11:00 PM

I like Limbaugh like I like Pink Floyd - In small doses over long periods of time.

kurto

06-30-2005, 12:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly you keep repeating that your anti Bush tax cut stance is hurting me while I'm rallying for it but I've already demonstrated that I've benefited from them.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I pointed out repeatedly when you jumped into this thread is that the OP I responded to was talking about the macro picture. No matter how many times you keep talking about yourself, you are not the middle class. You keep stating how you make more money then average so you are not representative of the middle class. As I pointed out, you are missing the macro picture. Everytime I pointed out the discussion was about the BIG PICTURE, you keep talking about yourself. Granted, you seem self centered so I shouldn't be surprised.

Furthermore, you haven't proven you've gained that much since you haven't done anything to show how what you've saved in taxcuts is balanced against inflation, the devaluation of the American dollar, what the future effects of the escalating debt will be on you, etc. I'm sure as a savvy businessman, you can understand the concept that your immediate cash gains can be wiped out by rising debts and future costs.

But again... your unique example is NOT at all meaningful. An isolated example is meaningless when discussing the effects on an entire class of millions of people. The OP posted gains and losses over multiple years by measuring the population as a whole. Your example has NO bearing on the discussion of the macro situation.

Which shows again... the post of mine which you originally responded to was that I said people like you wouldn't get or care about the big picture. And now after multiple posts by you, you've still never addressed the figures posted by the OP that I responded to or even acknowledged the big picture. Thanks for making my point.

[ QUOTE ]
You should go back to your stance that I'm the only person in the middle class range that's benefiting from them, all though it's equally ridiculous

[/ QUOTE ] Of course I've never said you were the only person benefitting from it... so you're just making yourself look stupid again. It comes so easy to you.

[ QUOTE ]
As for me working harder then most people I work about 65 hours a week on average I'm quite sure that's more then most people work and It's not arrogent to point that out.

[/ QUOTE ] So... there aren't people who work more then 65 hours a week who do worse then you? Your arrogant statement was that the government is taking money away from you and giving it to people who don't work as hard as you. For starters, the government isn't taking money away from you to give to others... government assistance is just one segment of where taxes are going and its not where Bush has been doing his deficit spending. People have to pay for Bush's war. Furthermore, people living in depressed areas may work 2 jobs, more hours then you but earn a fraction of your earnings and need assistance. People who receive government aid are not necessarily NOT working as hard as you. But its typical of your garbage to assume your taxes are going to pay for people not working hard. You support a war costing billions a month in deficit spending and you pretend that your taxes are all going to welfare.

[ QUOTE ]
and the vast majority of people could move up in financial class if they worked harder and where disciplined about their spending.

[/ QUOTE ] This is naive. As usual. There are so many factors which determine financial success only of which is hard work and discipline.

I'll give you a simple analogy which I'm sure you'll aribitrarily dismiss, but I'll try anyways just for fun.

In the company I work for, there is a limited amount of money budgeted for salary increases which is doled out dept. by dept. The amount budgeted is based on the number of people in the department earning an average increase based on company performance. Let's say 5% per employee. People are reviewed based on their performances and recommendations are made on who should recieve extra based on exemplory effort. But, since the budgets are fixed, for one person to be rewarded an extra increase, another employee must get less. Here's the problem- what if everyone puts in 150%? It doesn't matter. Everyone would get the same amount. If you are in a department of over-achievers, no one gets ahead, no one gets rewarded. Though this is specific to one company, this concept applies to many. There are limited resources available and hard work alone does not guarantee rewards.

All people who work hard are not guaranteed financial success. There are many factors- when we had a recession earlier and unemployment was high, it wasn't that these people lost their jobs and sources of income because they were lazy. Recent studies have shown that people in general are working more hours and making less real income. Certainly there are individual success stories. But its just overly simplistic to assume that people who are not getting ahead are not working hard.

My Father, after retiring from the Air Force, worked in the defense industry for a decade and a half. At that point he was 'upper middle class.' In the earlier 90s, the defense industry took great hits and layoffs were rampant. He moved three times taking jobs in companies in his high tech field and each company suffered layoffs. Though he had years of experience, he experience problems with his age and people thought they couldn't pay him what his experience should entitle him. Luckily, he wasn't in dire straight because he no longer had to support his children and he had a lot of equity in his home; they moved somewhere cheaper and he now works for a fraction of his former earnings as a substitute teacher. This story is not atypical; the difference is my father was lucky enough that it happened at a point in his life when it didn't cripple him. That's not the case for younger people who worked very hard and found there was no longer any need for their expertise... and they have a family they're raising and no income. If we can draw an example from the 30 days show, 2 people can work very hard in low paying jobs and NOT get ahead. Some people are victims of circumstance.

Enough of this. What do I know? I'm just a welfare collecting liberal who lives in his own reality.

natedogg

06-30-2005, 01:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Nate. I cant explain how tax cuts hurt or benefit you as as individual but can explain how they effect your class.

[/ QUOTE ]

NO. You presented some stats over some time periods, but you did not even attempt to explain *how* the supposed lower tax rate will be harmful to middle class earners.

Anyone can slice and dice stats to support a given conclusion but you need to back it up. Can you explain how the low tax rate actually accomplishes what you are saying?

I'll put it very clearly: Please explain the mechanism by which low tax rates create economic harm to the middle class.

And surely you aren't actually suggesting we return to an 88% marginal tax rate? Surely not. If so, no wonder I feel like I've been talking to a rubber chicken.

I have two questions for you which you failed to answer:

1. How old are you?

2. Do you have a job?

[ QUOTE ]

I can only present the objective historical economic data data associated with tax cuts for the rich which is what in effect Bush's tax cut was.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aha! I see now. Your normative description of the tax cuts reveals your clouded judgment (they were tax cuts for the rich AND EVERYONE ELSE TOO). During those periods you cited, did the middle class experience a tax reduction or an *increase* in their tax burden? (hint: payroll tax counts too!)

(as an aside, you are apparently so concerned about the middle class, but I'd be curious as to your view of the payroll tax. Should we lift the cap so that all earned income is taxed by it, or should we lower the rate if not remove it entirely? Careful, you'll be graded on your answer.)

So, given tax cuts SOLELY to the rich may indeed be a problem (although even of that I am not convinced because as a trained economist you should know that low marginal tax rates spur investment and capital and jobs, which is good for the middle class, in fact low marginal rates are doing this in other countries as we speak), but we are not talking about a tax cut SOLELY to the rich. Have you not even been listening?

The middle class received a fairly substantial tax cut under Bush. All of use, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US, are taking home more money for ourselves than before and somehow you expect your little chart to convince me I am worse off with more money?

Yeah, I should give it to the government to protect by wage growth. Once again, can you even begin to explain the *mechanism* by which having the governmetn take more money from me will preserve a better wage growth for me?

[ QUOTE ]

In 1980 the average CEO earned x30 the wage of an average factory worker, now it is X150.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good lord, stop reading Alternet and DemocraticUnderground and start thinking with your brain for a change.

[ QUOTE ]
And this largely explains why middle class anxiety, voter anger and economic uncertainty are gripping the nation today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah I see again, your political biases are now causing you to project your own issues on to the "nation". Have you read much news about investor and consumer confidence lately? As a trained economist you shoudl be aware of these things and while they are fluctuating a bit, they are fairly strong.

"Voter anger"? What the hell is that? And how does that even relate to the topic at hand?

natedogg

shots

06-30-2005, 01:21 AM

First of all you did state severall times that I wasn't doing better under the Bush tax plan because of the raising debt, which has little to do with the tax cut in the first place, but i digress. Anyway since I've already proved you wrong on that I'll move on to the population as a whole. The numbers below are from a Congresional Budget Office Report.

For 2003, the estimated share of total individual income taxes paid by:

Wealthiest 1%: 33.6%
Wealthiest 5%: 55.1%
Wealthiest 10%: 67.9%
Wealthiest 20%: 83.0%
Wealthiest 40%: 97.8%
Wealthiest 60%: 103.0%

The way to read this is that the wealthiest 10% of taxpayers pay 67.9% of the country's individual income taxes. And yes, that 103% is true the bottom 40% in income as a group pay negative personal income taxes (because of the EITC).

This leads to the following fascinating conclusion: Half of the people in this country pay more than 100% of the personal income taxes. The other half get, as a group, a free ride (though there are individuals in this group that pay taxes, net, as a group, they do not). We are basically at the point in this country where 51% of voters could vote themselves all kinds of new programs and benefits knowing that the other 49% have to pay for them.

Given the numbers above, and all the talk about "tax cuts for the rich", craft an income tax cut that does not disproportionately benefit the top half of the income spectrum.

Hard, huh? The same CBO report had an interesting comparison. They estimated what these same numbers would have been without the recent tax cuts. Without the "George Bush tax cuts that unjustly benefit the rich" these same numbers in 2003 would have been:

Wealthiest 1%: 31.9%
Wealthiest 5%: 51.8%
Wealthiest 10%: 63.9%

But wait that can't be right? That means that the wealthiest people pay a higher share of income taxes after the Bush tax cuts. That must mean that the tax cuts disproportionately helped the lower income brackets? Can that be right?

Yes, thats right. Without the Bush tax cut, the top 60% would have paid 99.9% of all individual income taxes. Now, after the tax cut, they pay 103%, meaning the bottom 40% have gone from paying about 0% to actually getting a bunch of money in net EITC.Interestingly, John Kerry used this same report to say that these tax cuts shifted the burden of taxation to the middle class.

As far as the examples in reference to people working hard and not getting ahead I never said that this doesn't happen just that this is only true for the vast minority of people.
If you're working at a company that's not paying you what you're worth get a new job or go out there and start your own company. That's what I did when I felt I wasn't getting paid enough. That's the beuty of living in a free country. Many people work hard and don't get ahead because they spend more then they make but this is a personal decision no one's keeping them from moving up but themselves. If someone has a large family that they need to support is this not also a resault of personal choice? If someone gets laid off and there are no jobs available in their field can they not use the time they have on unimployment to learn a new skill and work there way up in a new field? Sure they'll start at a lower pay but sometimes you have to bite that bullet in order to move up in the long run. The first year I was in buisiness for myself I made about $20,000 it was a tough year but sometimes you gotta pay your dues.

natedogg

06-30-2005, 01:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]

1. How old are you?

2. Do you have a job?

[/ QUOTE ]

Never mind. I see from your status message that you are in grad school, so you are in your early 20's and you do not have a job.

Be sure to request your professors to give a lesson on the difference between correllation and causation.

And when you come out and join us in the real world, I have no doubts you will learn that saving your money is better than giving it away.

natedogg

kurto

06-30-2005, 02:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
First of all you did state severall times that I wasn't doing better under the Bush tax plan because of the raising debt, which has little to do with the tax cut in the first place,

[/ QUOTE ] The debt is relevent because there are costs which we will have to pay. If you borrow money on your credit card and have more cash, you're not really ahead. Furthermore, the escalating oustanding debt is devaluing the dollar so you may have more cash but it will not go as far. I have merely suggested that you have not shown that in the long run, you have gained anything. It would take someone as naive as you to assume we can continue to go deeper and deeper into debt without it hurting us financially at some point.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway since I've already proved you wrong on that

[/ QUOTE ] Its cute how you think you've proven things when you rarely say anything.

Your number still haven't addressed the OPs statistics over time. Nor do you address the statistics of money payed compared to financial gain.

[ QUOTE ]
I never said that this doesn't happen just that this is only true for the vast minority of people.

[/ QUOTE ] Weird... once again you're making unproven assertions about the situation of the majority of people. Typical for you.

[ QUOTE ]
If you're working at a company that's not paying you what you're worth get a new job or go out there and start your own company.

[/ QUOTE ] Once again, you pretend that what you did, and the situation you were in, is the same for everyone. Only a moron would assume that what he was able to do is possible for everyone else. Oh, but then, it was you who made that assumption.

[ QUOTE ]
Many people work hard and don't get ahead because they spend more then they make but this is a personal decision no one's keeping them from moving up but themselves.

[/ QUOTE ] Sure, many people do that. But that's the problem of some people. Many is not "most". Why do you insist on making simplistic and stupid assumptions?

I can be forgiving for you numerous illogical and uproven assumptions. You're young, possibly undereducated, illogical, prone to terrible generalizations amongst other possible deficiencies.

shots

06-30-2005, 03:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The debt is relevent because there are costs which we will have to pay. If you borrow money on your credit card and have more cash, you're not really ahead. Furthermore, the escalating oustanding debt is devaluing the dollar so you may have more cash but it will not go as far. I have merely suggested that you have not shown that in the long run, you have gained anything. It would take someone as naive as you to assume we can continue to go deeper and deeper into debt without it hurting us financially at some point.

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed my point which is not surprising. The reasons for the increasing national debt are numerous. To say that the tax cuts don't benefit people because of the rise in the national debt is to say that the tax cuts are the sole reason for the increase in the national debt. Since this is not the case the national debt numbers have little relevence to the tax discussion.

[ QUOTE ]
Its cute how you think you've proven things when you rarely say anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a buisinessman I know how to calculate real profit, the Bush tax cuts have definetly been a net gain for me I don't want to post all my personal financial information on a website so I won't get into all the numbers but when I say that I'll save enough to pay off my entire share of the national debt over Bush's term this proves your argument that I'm actually not saving money from the Bush tax cuts because of the raising national to be a falicy. If you choose to not believe my statement then that's your perogative but I wouldn't make up a lie about my tax savings to prove a point to someone I don't even know it is a fact.

[ QUOTE ]
Your number still haven't addressed the OPs statistics over time. Nor do you address the statistics of money payed compared to financial gain.

[/ QUOTE ]

My numbers are specific to the Bush tax cuts which is the issue at hand. Instead of making over generalizations in my numbers I choose to be specific and look at the real resaults of the Bush tax cuts. This is the more accurate way to look at the resaults of these particular tax cuts. What the numbers show is pure and simple how much precentage of incomes tax do the rich pay today vs. if the Bush tax cuts had never happend and the resaults are clear.

[ QUOTE ]
Weird... once again you're making unproven assertions about the situation of the majority of people. Typical for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes the majority of people in America have no ability to better their personal financial situation. This is the kind thing that can't be proven with statistics but only requires a little bit of common sense. A concept clearly foreign to you.

[ QUOTE ]
Once again, you pretend that what you did, and the situation you were in, is the same for everyone. Only a moron would assume that what he was able to do is possible for everyone else. Oh, but then, it was you who made that assumption.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said my exact situation was the same for everyone, only that people have options and that their fate is in their own hands. It's typical of a liberal to dismiss the role of personal responsibility in peoples financial situation, or in anything else for that matter.

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, many people do that. But that's the problem of some people. Many is not "most". Why do you insist on making simplistic and stupid assumptions?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't think that the majority of people have the ability to change their financial situation then I might as well be having this conversation with my dog as he probably has more common sense then you do. Perhaps if you thaught about what I post instead of just trying to argue against it because I posted it, you wouldn't find yourself defending ridiculous positions like that most americans are completely unable to change their financial situation. On the other hand maybe you really believe this tripe, that wouldn't surprise me that much either.

The once and future king

06-30-2005, 08:09 AM

Its non of your business, but I am in fact 32 and work as a freelance consultant to private businesses attempting to gain grant funding. I am also english, this means I dont know what the payroll tax is.

I am gaining my PHD on a part time basis.

Basicaly, I might as well be arguing with a creationist. You have no intrest in unbiased objective data and hold onto your position with deep irrationality despite all the evidence you are confronted with to the contrary.

As to the mechanism. I have mentioned it till I am blue in the face. Middle class utility gained via high govt spending (hence taxation)> middle class utility gained via lower income tax. All the evidence supports this assertation. Nate if this wasnt true we wouldnt currently be seeing a new polarization of wealth. Polarization isnt possible unless the MC are becoming poorer. Polarization is the fact that proves my thesis.

Again

Taxation = a transfer of wealth from the top 20% to the 20-30% immediately below them (This is a simplification but is in the whole a true reflection of the taxations system)

Even though the American economy performed brilliantly at 88% higher margin tax rate a return to that is of course unrealistic as globalisation allows the upper classes to grab everyone else by the short and curlys and dictate terms. Tax em high, they can just take there money else where.

As for how I would tax. I am much more concerned with gaining greater utility from how tax is spent. I see how much tax revenue is wasted on a daily basis (though this waste still benefits the middle class, this waste is often a direct transfer in wealth in terms of wages etc)

Ironicaly given the above I think that certain beuracrats should be paid more. This is because they are often the gatekeepers to v.large sums of money. However because of low wages only complete jobsworth retards are put in charge of how these sums are distributed and as a result waste and lost opportunities abound. A scenario I have seen in my proffesional life a depressing number of times.

slamdunkpro

06-30-2005, 09:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I am also english, this means I dont know what the payroll tax is.

[/ QUOTE ]

So in fact you have no real world experience with the American tax system?

Another outsider throwing rocks accross the fence.

The once and future king

06-30-2005, 09:26 AM

Actualy the effects of aggregate tax levels on the income/wealth of class groups is allmost uniform accross all industrialized nations. The name the Govt uses to take your tax is irrlevant in comparison to who is paying and how much.

The fact that this is the only thing you took out of my post speaks volumes.

slamdunkpro

06-30-2005, 09:29 AM

The fact that you're dodging the question says more.

MMMMMM

06-30-2005, 09:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Polarization isnt possible unless the MC are becoming poorer.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just plain wrong.

The once and future king

06-30-2005, 09:37 AM

LOL. you have dodged every question posed in my post by choosing to concentrate on the total straw man of my englishness.

I can assure you that even as an englishman my understanding of the american economy eclipses yours utterly.

The once and future king

06-30-2005, 09:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Polarization isnt possible unless the MC are becoming poorer.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just plain wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its just plain cast iron truth.

MMMMMM

06-30-2005, 09:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Polarization isnt possible unless the MC are becoming poorer.

------------------------------------------------------------

This is just plain wrong.

------------------------------------------------------

Its just plain cast iron truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Elsewhere in this thread, I outlined specifically why that zero-sum game view is not accurate. I don't recall you responding to my arguments.

edited: Maybe it was another thread? Not sure. At any rate I don't think you responded.

Simply put, greater polarization can occur even whilst both groups are getting richer.

slamdunkpro

06-30-2005, 09:43 AM

Whatever. Go back to reading The Sun.

P.S. Enjoy your 40% tax rate

The once and future king

06-30-2005, 09:45 AM

I responded in full.

Im sorry mmmm but the Census data clearly show a rising share of income going to the top 20 percent of families, and within that top 20 percent to the top 5 percent, with a declining share going to families in the middle.

The once and future king

06-30-2005, 09:49 AM

LOL.

This just shows your ignorance. You know the same guy who owns the Sun owns Fox news. If I read the Sun I would just be another turkey voting for christmas. Murdoch of course being one of the super rich uses his media to push the intrests of his class group wihtout hesitation.

For your information, english communist pinko subversives read the Guardian.

slamdunkpro

06-30-2005, 09:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
For your information, english communist pinko subversives read the Guardian.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but I figured english communist pinko subversives perverts like you enjoyed Page 3 /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Besides, I may be ignorant of British newspapers, but at least I’m not spouting off a bunch of rhetoric and pap about a tax system that I’ve never participated in and have little working knowledge of : “ I Don’t know what the payroll tax is” – your words.

MMMMMM

06-30-2005, 09:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I responded in full.

Im sorry mmmm but the Census data clearly show a rising share of income going to the top 20 percent of families, and within that top 20 percent to the top 5 percent, with a declining share going to families in the middle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you understand that your conclusion is not ineluctable based on the above?

In a growing economy, for instance, the gap between wealthy and not-so-wealthy may continue to increase, BUT THE MIDDLE CLASS AND POOR CAN STILL BE GETTING RICHER.

A larger economic pie means that someone may get a larger actual piece of the pie, even if it is a smaller piece if measured relatively. It is still larger in the real world, and they are better off in the real world.

Similarly, if tax cuts benefit the rich most, that does not mean others are harmed. In fact others could be helped--just not as much.

Also, if tax cuts spur economic growth, that helps all.

Also, government is a notoriously wasteful dispenser of benefits. Therefore every dollar collected in taxes comes out much smaller by the time it makes its way through the government machinery and comes back out in the form of benefits of some sort.

But the main fallacy is your claim that an increasing gap implies increasing poverty on the lower-end. That isn't necessarily true, and often isn't true in practice either. As economies grow, nearly everyone does better--even if some do "more better" than others.

And tax cuts do stimulate economic growth.

slamdunkpro

06-30-2005, 10:02 AM

Why are you wasting your time?

The once and future king

06-30-2005, 10:30 AM

I have allready responded to this fallacy in this thread.

The pie is nearly allways getting bigger (See 1929 et al). However the share of the wealth generated by thew american economy enjoyed by the middle classes is getting smaller. The middle classes help make the pie bigger but see there relative share of the pie diminsh.

Why do you think it now takes on average both members of a middle class family to go out and earn a wage to buy/run a modern household? This wasnt the case 20 years ago but is becoming more common even as I type.

The once and future king

06-30-2005, 10:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
“ I Don’t know what the payroll tax is”

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats called intellectual honesty, you should try it some time. Have you acctualy contributed any ideas to this thread?

natedogg

06-30-2005, 10:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
LOL. you have dodged every question posed in my post by choosing to concentrate on the total straw man of my englishness.

I can assure you that even as an englishman my understanding of the american economy eclipses yours utterly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh... you don't even know what the payroll tax is. It's not insignificant.

natedogg

MMMMMM

06-30-2005, 10:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The pie is nearly allways getting bigger (See 1929 et al). However the share of the wealth generated by thew american economy enjoyed by the middle classes is getting smaller. The middle classes help make the pie bigger but see there relative share of the pie diminsh.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is actual wealth not relative share that matters most when evaluating wealth and standard of living. The two are NOT always the same.

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you think it now takes on average both members of a middle class family to go out and earn a wage to buy/run a modern household? This wasnt the case 20 years ago but is becoming more common even as I type.

[/ QUOTE ]

Various reasons, including perhaps increased service on overall debt. And in part including perhaps the reason you mention. However that does not mean that is is ONLY the reason you mention, or that your thesis always holds true. Yet you stated it as if always true.

kurto

06-30-2005, 10:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
To say that the tax cuts don't benefit people because of the rise in the national debt is to say that the tax cuts are the sole reason for the increase in the national debt.

[/ QUOTE ] No it nots. You really should take a logic class. Only a complete buffoon could write the sentence you did. Take some of that hard earned money you've made, go your community college and take a class in logic. If you showed your sentence to a 1st year college student taking an introduction to logic class, you'd have them rolling on the floor in laughter. Saying that the tax cuts don't benefit people (and I wouldn't say 'people'... which is too general, we're not talking about all people, we're talking specifically about people who's taxcuts are negated when you look at the combination of; their increased tax burden, the devaluation of the dollar, inflation, added fuel costs, etc.) this implies NOTHING about what is causing the debt. And nothing I said implies such a relationship. Matter of fact, I specifically said that things like the Iraq war were increasing the debt.

Take a course in basic logic. It would help you immensely. Or don't, because watching you butcher the basics of logic is really amusing.

[ QUOTE ]
Since this is not the case the national debt numbers have little relevence to the tax discussion.

[/ QUOTE ] You can't say something that has no relevence to the discussion and then say "this is not the case" and think you've made a point. Well, I suppose you can say it but it simply makes people chuckle.

[ QUOTE ]
the Bush tax cuts have definetly been a net gain for me

[/ QUOTE ] Once again.. who the hell cares if its been a gain for you because the discussion isn't about you, its about the middle class. Man, you are slow. Furthermore, I really doubt you've figured out if, simply based on Bush's taxcuts, if you are going to be ahead when you factor in what you'll have to pay in taxes in the future, if you've factored in what losses in buying power you may have if the dollar continues to devalue against the world market, if you factor in what your costs will be if oil costs continue to rise, etc. No one has debated that you can have net dollar gain in your pocket.

But, you continue to miss the point; for you are so proud of saying how you make more money then most people, then clearly you are making more then the majority of the Middle Class so you are not representative of "The Middle Class".. which is what this whole thread is about. If this was a discussion on Bush's policies in relation to the illogical and ignorant, then using you as a model example would be entirely appropriate. But in this case, you proudly proclaim you make more money then most... then want to use your situation as representative of the class. If you had an ounce of brains in you, you'd see why this is illogical.

[ QUOTE ]
My numbers are specific to the Bush tax cuts which is the issue at hand. Instead of making over generalizations in my numbers I choose to be specific and look at the real resaults of the Bush tax cuts.

[/ QUOTE ] The discussion is about the effect of things like Bush's tax cuts over time. And the discussion is about the long term effects of the tax cuts on the middle class. So his figures are appropriate while you just babble.

[ QUOTE ]
What the numbers show is pure and simple how much precentage of incomes tax do the rich pay today vs. if the Bush tax cuts had never happend and the resaults are clear.

[/ QUOTE ] Your figures do not address what is being discussed. I should have realized that you never really even understand what the discussion is about. (see all of above)

Just curious, did you finish high school?

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't think that the majority of people have the ability to change their financial situation then I might as well be having this conversation with my dog as he probably has more common sense then you do.

[/ QUOTE ] LOL You don't know what the situation is for most people so why do pretend that you can generalize about them? (We know the answer, because you're an ignorant simpleton fond of overly simplistic stereotypes and generalizations... I was asking rhetorically.) Actually, the world would be better off if you had more conversations with your dog and less with adults.

Just for laughs (ours, not yours) try to explain in detail how you came to this conclusion:
[ QUOTE ]
To say that the tax cuts don't benefit people because of the rise in the national debt is to say that the tax cuts are the sole reason for the increase in the national debt.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm just curious how in your head, this made sense to you.

natedogg

06-30-2005, 10:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Basicaly, I might as well be arguing with a creationist. You have no intrest in unbiased objective data and hold onto your position with deep irrationality despite all the evidence you are confronted with to the contrary.

As to the mechanism. I have mentioned it till I am blue in the face. Middle class utility gained via high govt spending (hence taxation)> middle class utility gained via lower income tax. [/All the evidence supports this assertation. quote]

Typical euro liberal. Lack of government largesse == poor economic results. You do realize that people can do well EVEN WITHOUT the government transferring money to them right?

Good lord your whole argument is based on the notion that reducing government giveaways is going to kill off the middle class. That's funny.

Yet that is not even what your numbers show. Your numbers show a supposed decline in wages, not a decline in government largesse. So which is it?

You are making inconsistent arguments. Are low taxes bad for the middle class because they will lose jobs, or because government giveaways will decline? And how will government giveaways decline in such a way that the middle class shrinks?

Careful, we already covered the fact that public sector jobs have skyrocketed during this period of low taxes, so it's not jobs. I am not happy about the rise of public sector jobs but it defies your thesis.

And we have already covered the fact that high marginal rates result in an increase in investment and capital, which creates jobs for the middle class. So you have a lot of work to do to show why the middle class will suffer if we lower their taxes.

You should also look up the difference between *correllation* and *causation* before continuing. It's an important concept many economists ignore.

Also, how do you measure the "harm" done to middle class earners by a drop in government giveaways? A drop in services? What is it? Be cause you most certainly have NOT shown how , but you do keep making assertions about transfers from the upper to middle class.

And you also ignored my question about the relative tax rates on the middle class during this time. Did they receive a big tax cut or not? (hint: you should really learn about the payroll tax if you want to claim you know more about the american economy than slamdunkpro. Really).

[ QUOTE ]
Nate if this wasnt true we wouldnt currently be seeing a new polarization of wealth. Polarization isnt possible unless the MC are becoming poorer. Polarization is the fact that proves my thesis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, see correllation vs. causation. If you can't explain *how* this polarization supposedly happens, y ou don't have much of a thesis.

[ QUOTE ]
Even though the American economy performed brilliantly at 88% higher margin tax rate a return to that is of course unrealistic as globalisation allows the upper classes to grab everyone else by the short and curlys and dictate terms. Tax em high, they can just take there money else where.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good lord, tell me you're not actually saying that "if only the rest of the world would tax that high then it would work". Is that seriously your claim, as a trained economist?

[ QUOTE ]

As for how I would tax. I am much more concerned with gaining greater utility from how tax is spent. I see how much tax revenue is wasted on a daily basis

[/ QUOTE ]

At last we agree.

[ QUOTE ]
Ironicaly given the above I think that certain beuracrats should be paid more. This is because they are often the gatekeepers to v.large sums of money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that didn't last. Your answer to waste and corruption is to solidify the bureaucracy? Seriously? My god, you really are a euro.

I don't think we're going to get anywhere here since you simply cannot show how me taking home more money for myself is hurting me, other than a random correllation you found.

natedogg

kurto

06-30-2005, 11:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
So in fact you have no real world experience with the American tax system?

Another outsider throwing rocks accross the fence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when has lack of experience ever stopped Americans from commenting on the affairs of other countries? How far does one have to look to see Americans criticizing other nations, other religions, etc.?

It would be the height of hypocrisy for an American to comment that people from other nations shouldn't criticize (comment on, make suggestions, or meddle in the affairs of) America.

slamdunkpro

06-30-2005, 11:11 AM

I never suggested he not or stop participating – I was just clarifying from which position he was commenting. (uninformed with no experience)

slamdunkpro

06-30-2005, 11:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Thats called intellectual honesty, you should try it some time. Have you acctualy contributed any ideas to this thread?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, no position - the insults continue.

Yes I have contributed to this thread other than to point out that you're just an uninformed outsider viewing this from an academic bubble with incomplete information.

See, I answered your direct question directly - why don't you answer mine?

(in case you forgot)

So in fact you have no real world experience with the American tax system?

The once and future king

06-30-2005, 11:20 AM

The irony. Even though I am an outsider my information is alot more complete than yours.

The differance between me and you is that I am able to interpret information collected via census of all Americans. You can only ignorantly deduce things via your own limited experience.

My being on the outside allows me to be objective and detached which is the basis of all scientific reasoning.

Not that trying to get to the truth matters to you.

kurto

06-30-2005, 11:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I never suggested he not or stop participating – I was just clarifying from which position he was commenting. (uninformed with no experience)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think one has to pay a payroll tax to be knowledgable about the american tax system. People in other countries have the same access to raw census economic data as anyone else.

People may disagree with his conclusions but he doesn't come off as being uninformed.

I've met many people from other nations who know more about areas of our culture/government/history etc. then most Americans.

If we had a game show with topics like "civics", "world politics", "economics", etc. and we could bet on this English guy or an American like "shots"... I put a huge bet on "The Once and Future King".

slamdunkpro

06-30-2005, 11:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The irony. Even though I am an outsider my information is alot more complete than yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep thinking that.

[ QUOTE ]
The differance between me and you is that I am able to interpret information collected via census of all Americans. You can only ignorantly deduce things via your own limited experience

[/ QUOTE ]

No the difference between us is you only quoting “studies” that reflect your political point of view. I’m looking at facts and basing my conclusions on A: how these polices directly affect myself, my family and my business. And B: How I view these events as affecting my country.

[ QUOTE ]
My being on the outside allows me to be objective and detached which is the basis of all scientific reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]

You’d better go back to elementary science to get a definition of “objective”. This means looking at all sides, not just the ones that support your point of view. If you looked at all the facts you’d see that your position is a house of cards.

[ QUOTE ]
Not that trying to get to the truth matters to you

[/ QUOTE ]

More insults – but no direct answer. Typical Liberal/Democrat crap.

slamdunkpro

06-30-2005, 11:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If we had a game show with topics like "civics", "world politics", "economics", etc. and we could bet on this English guy or an American like "shots"... I put a huge bet on "The Once and Future King".

[/ QUOTE ]

If it was a quiz based on facts and not rhetoric I'd take that bet. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

The once and future king

06-30-2005, 12:21 PM

You have a PHD in pot meet kettle.

You started with the insults by the way. I am also very intrested in any facts you say you have presented. I base all my conclusions on facts so I am quite genuine. So far I have not seen you present any relaible data whatsoever.

kurto

06-30-2005, 12:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If it was a quiz based on facts and not rhetoric I'd take that bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Before you make that bet, you've noticed that Shot is the one who didn't seem to know that the President signs a bill into law, thinks that the distance you commute to work is dependent on how large your country is and a few other such gems. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

shots

06-30-2005, 01:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
No it nots. You really should take a logic class. Only a complete buffoon could write the sentence you did. Take some of that hard earned money you've made, go your community college and take a class in logic. If you showed your sentence to a 1st year college student taking an introduction to logic class, you'd have them rolling on the floor in laughter. Saying that the tax cuts don't benefit people (and I wouldn't say 'people'... which is too general, we're not talking about all people, we're talking specifically about people who's taxcuts are negated when you look at the combination of; their increased tax burden, the devaluation of the dollar, inflation, added fuel costs, etc.) this implies NOTHING about what is causing the debt. And nothing I said implies such a relationship. Matter of fact, I specifically said that things like the Iraq war were increasing the debt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn you're stupid, you try to make the point that the tax cuts don't really benefit the middle class because of the raising national debt and then you concede that the national debt increase is largely not caused by the tax cuts. If the national debt increase isn't caused by the tax cuts then bringing it up isn't relevent to a discussion about the tax cuts. The logic behind this is clearly over your head. If we were having a discussion of the overall effect of all the policies of the Bush administration, then bringing up the increase in the national debt due to certain Bush policies as an argument that it cancelled out the benefit from his tax policies would be a logical albeit mistaken position but bringing up the national debt as part of the tax policy discussion and then admiting that the increase in the debt was not caused by the tax cuts makes no sense at all. I would think even someone as stupid as you would understand that when it was pointed out to him but apperantly not.

[ QUOTE ]
Take a course in basic logic. It would help you immensely. Or don't, because watching you butcher the basics of logic is really amusing.

[/ QUOTE ]

The irony is overwellming.

[ QUOTE ]
You can't say something that has no relevence to the discussion and then say "this is not the case" and think you've made a point. Well, I suppose you can say it but it simply makes people chuckle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly you have a very limited understanding of my point and of anything else for that matter.

[ QUOTE ]
Once again.. who the hell cares if its been a gain for you because the discussion isn't about you, its about the middle class. Man, you are slow. Furthermore, I really doubt you've figured out if, simply based on Bush's taxcuts, if you are going to be ahead when you factor in what you'll have to pay in taxes in the future, if you've factored in what losses in buying power you may have if the dollar continues to devalue against the world market, if you factor in what your costs will be if oil costs continue to rise, etc. No one has debated that you can have net dollar gain in your pocket.

[/ QUOTE ]

You made the discussion about me when you made the allegation that I was a neocon sheep that supported tax cuts that were against ny own best intrest, and attempted to tell me that I wasn't really benefiting from the tax cuts even though I thaught I was.

[ QUOTE ]
But, you continue to miss the point; for you are so proud of saying how you make more money then most people, then clearly you are making more then the majority of the Middle Class so you are not representative of "The Middle Class".. which is what this whole thread is about. If this was a discussion on Bush's policies in relation to the illogical and ignorant, then using you as a model example would be entirely appropriate. But in this case, you proudly proclaim you make more money then most... then want to use your situation as representative of the class. If you had an ounce of brains in you, you'd see why this is illogical.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL you actually think that someone in the mid-high range of the middle class doesn't make more money then the majority of people? You're to funny

[ QUOTE ]
The discussion is about the effect of things like Bush's tax cuts over time. And the discussion is about the long term effects of the tax cuts on the middle class. So his figures are appropriate while you just babble.

[/ QUOTE ]

His figures are a huge generalization without any proof of causation while mine are specific to the real resaults of the Bush tax cuts.

[ QUOTE ]
Just curious, did you finish high school?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you arrogent prick yes I did, I also attended some college courses.

[ QUOTE ]
LOL You don't know what the situation is for most people so why do pretend that you can generalize about them? (We know the answer, because you're an ignorant simpleton fond of overly simplistic stereotypes and generalizations... I was asking rhetorically.) Actually, the world would be better off if you had more conversations with your dog and less with adults.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can't even concede you're wrong on this point then you are clearly just another liberal who believes that no one is responsible for their own lives. What you call a generalization is just common sense and it doesn't surprise me that you don't understand that.

[ QUOTE ]
Just for laughs (ours, not yours) try to explain in detail how you came to this conclusion:
[ QUOTE ]
To say that the tax cuts don't benefit people because of the rise in the national debt is to say that the tax cuts are the sole reason for the increase in the national debt.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm just curious how in your head, this made sense to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I already explained this above if you can't understand my point then you should put on a helmat before leaving the house.

slamdunkpro

06-30-2005, 02:49 PM

Blah Blah Blah
(The only reply that's warrented)

slamdunkpro

06-30-2005, 02:52 PM

Ya know, between the two of us we could come up with a decent quiz......but I think I'd rather just go have a beer..

Happy 4th /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

kurto

06-30-2005, 04:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Damn you're stupid

[/ QUOTE ] Don't project, my ignorant friend.

[ QUOTE ]
you try to make the point that the tax cuts don't really benefit the middle class because of the raising national debt

[/ QUOTE ] I didn't make it as simple as you, but then, you're simple by nature. I said the taxcuts are not beneficial if they aren't real gains.

[ QUOTE ]
and then you concede that the national debt increase is largely not caused by the tax cuts.

[/ QUOTE ] It is certainly a factor but I've never said it is largely caused by it. Even without the taxcuts, we would still be creating debt.

Your blather that followed is you again arguing against something I never said.

I merely suggested that the money-gains by the majority of the middle class can be illusionary when one factors in the increased debt burden, the devaluing of the dollar and inflation.

[ QUOTE ]
The irony is overwellming

[/ QUOTE ] Taking a class in grammar and spelling wouldn't hurt you either.

[ QUOTE ]
You made the discussion about me when you made the allegation that I was a neocon sheep that supported tax cuts that were against ny own best intrest, and attempted to tell me that I wasn't really benefiting from the tax cuts even though I thaught I was.

[/ QUOTE ] Well, you are a sheep, that much is true. Though if you're a wealthy sheep well earning well above that of the average middle class, then you may receive financial benefits above the majority of the middle class. In which case, again, your results are invalid. Furthermore, you've still never shown that your gains aren't meaningful since you don't know the long term costs to you of Bush's tax policies.

But again... who cares. Whether you've made material gains or not is important in a discussion about the entire middle class.

[ QUOTE ]
LOL you actually think that someone in the mid-high range of the middle class doesn't make more money then the majority of people? You're to funny

[/ QUOTE ] I didn't say that. You could benefit from a reading comprehension course as well.

You know, if you tell me the name of your local community college, I think I could pick a full courseload for you. A simple 2 semesters of study for you and you can catch up with the rest of the board.

[ QUOTE ]
Well you arrogent prick yes I did, I also attended some college courses.

[/ QUOTE ] Arrogant? Its a valid question. It seems rathar clear you stopped your education early. Thanks for being honest. By the way- its not too late. Adult education could really help you out. I know you're a hard worker so I'm certain if you applied yourself you could definitely improve so that your deficiencies aren't so obvious to the casual reader.

[ QUOTE ]
If you can't even concede you're wrong on this point then you are clearly just another liberal who believes that no one is responsible for their own lives. What you call a generalization is just common sense and it doesn't surprise me that you don't understand that.

[/ QUOTE ] LOL You're cute. You even made a generalization while defending your other generalization ("just another liberal".) You're so 'Forest Gump.'

[ QUOTE ]
I already explained this above if you can't understand my point then you should put on a helmat before leaving the house.

[/ QUOTE ] And you did a marvelous job of showing your love or making fallacious connections. Though wearing a 'helmat' is probably a good idea... if you're involved in contract work in the area, its probably best people in the area wear as much protection as possible.

kurto

06-30-2005, 04:34 PM

Ummm Beer.

I just checked your location. Too far to share a beer. (I spent 4 years of my youth in Fairfax and went to George Mason University for 1 year... I know that means nothing but there's a minute VA connection.)

Enjoy.

shots

06-30-2005, 04:51 PM

I like how you pretty much addressed none of the substance of my post, any objective reader can see that you dodged all of the points I made because you've been beaten so badly on all the issues that all you can do is hurl insults. You may have gone to school longer then me but all the college courses in the world don't make someone with a room temperature IQ smarter. You can keep attempting do demean me and my work but it just proves how truely incapable of rational thaught you are. Typical eliteist liberal who talks down to others because he can't hold his own in a debate. You accuse me of generalizations because you're to stupid to read an entire sentance and figure out what the meaning is, you like to quote parts of sentences and then pretend that was the whole of my statement keep building those strawmen it's the only way you'll ever win. In case you truly are too dumb to understand I'll explain, If I say:
If you can't even concede you're wrong on this point then you are clearly just another liberal who believes that no one is responsible for their own lives. What you call a generalization is just common sense and it doesn't surprise me that you don't understand that.

What I've said is that you're just another liberal who believes this, not that all liberals believe this. Work on your basic reading comprehension skills.

kurto

06-30-2005, 05:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I like how you pretty much addressed none of the substance of my post,

[/ QUOTE ] You should look up the word 'irony.'

[ QUOTE ]
You may have gone to school longer then me but all the college courses in the world don't make someone with a room temperature IQ smarter.

[/ QUOTE ] Awww. even when you're trying to insult others, you come across as an idiot.

if being 'smart' is a measure of intelligence-
Intelligence
"1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)"

This is precisely what they teach in college. Even someone with less then an average intelligence can learn to reason, can acquire new knowledge and how to apply it.

And I'm not 100% certain, but I believe you meant to say, "doesn't make" instead of "don't make."

Though if you are right, then don't sign up for night school. Perhaps you are too dumb to get any smarter?

[ QUOTE ]
You can keep attempting do demean me and my work but it just proves how truely incapable of rational thaught you are.

[/ QUOTE ] First off, my halfwit, I haven't tried to demean your work. I've actually praised you for having a sucessful business. Its nice to see a man with such limited intellectual skills do good with what he's got.

But even your retort here is illogical. Whether or not a person demeans you has no bearing on whether or not they are capable of rational thought. A personal who is highly rational can demean you as well as a person who is isn't. One might argue that a highly rational person is MORE likely to demean you since you're fond of flaunting your ignorance. If you actually understood 'reason', you would see that this is irrational: "but it just proves how truely incapable of rational thaught you are."

Luckily, you don't understand why that's irrational so you'll keep posting more gems like that.

[ QUOTE ]
Typical eliteist liberal

[/ QUOTE ] Oooh, resorting to more of his partisan generalizations. (I could have sworn he pretends that he doesn't rely on mindless generalizations like this?) Too funny.

"You accuse me of generalizations" and "Typical eliteist liberal who talks down to others because he can't hold his own in a debate" -- if only you were bright enough to understand the irony here.

Night School! Night School! It can't hurt to try, can it?

shots

06-30-2005, 06:49 PM

Being smart is defined by what your IQ is. If you have a low IQ you can still learn new things if you try hard enough but that won't improve your IQ. Some people will always have a lower IQ then others no matter how much college they go to, you're a prime example. If you had ever taken an IQ test you would know that there's very little spelling involved or questions about your knowledge of inane trivia. Instead they try to measure things like your ability to retain information and problem solving skills.
Most people that are apt in the application of rational thaught tend to stick to the subject at hand. Those that are week in this area try to insult their opponents due to their lack of ability in debating the subject at hand. This is most likely borne out of an inferiority complex.
If only you were bright enough to understand that the way you talk in your posts is typical of an elitist liberal and that this is in no way a generalization. But alas I'm clearly wasting my time.

kurto

06-30-2005, 07:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Being smart is defined by what your IQ is. If you have a low IQ you can still learn new things if you try hard enough but that won't improve your IQ.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true, my imbecilic friend.

From Howstuffworks.com:
[ QUOTE ]
So your IQ score is relatively stable, no matter what education you acquire. This does not mean that you can't increase your intelligence. IQ tests are only one imperfect method of measuring certain aspects of intellectual ability. A lot of critics point out that IQ tests don't measure creativity, social skills, wisdom, acquired abilities or a host of other things we consider to be aspects of intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Most people that are apt in the application of rational thaught

[/ QUOTE ] Oooh, you just disqualified yourself. You don't appear to have the slightest idea that you constantly make logical fallacies. (again... its things like this that made it quite clear you didn't do much schooling.)

[ QUOTE ]
Those that are week in this area try to insult their opponents due to their lack of ability in debating the subject at hand.

[/ QUOTE ] Illogical assumption. Very rational people can simply enjoy insulting arrogant ignorant pimples like you. There's no correlation being 'insults' and ability to debate. Furthermore, you're indicting yourself here. But little pimples like you are rarely aware of their hypocrisy.

[ QUOTE ]
If only you were bright enough to understand that the way you talk in your posts is typical of an elitist liberal

[/ QUOTE ] So, how does it differ from a typical elitist conservative?

[ QUOTE ]
and that this is in no way a generalization

[/ QUOTE ] LOL You're too funny.

shots

06-30-2005, 07:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]

From Howstuffworks.com:
So your IQ score is relatively stable, no matter what education you acquire. This does not mean that you can't increase your intelligence. IQ tests are only one imperfect method of measuring certain aspects of intellectual ability. A lot of critics point out that IQ tests don't measure creativity, social skills, wisdom, acquired abilities or a host of other things we consider to be aspects of intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

IQ tests are the essentially the measure of a persons natural gifts, you can study very hard and learn new things but you're still naturally less gifted then someone with a higher IQ. Problem solving and deductive reasoning are the heart of a persons ability to not just repeat what they've heard but draw conclusions from it. These are the things measured by IQ tests. That's the difference between you and me you can repeat things others have said but you're capacity for independent thought is very limited due to your obviously limited IQ.

[ QUOTE ]
Oooh, you just disqualified yourself. You don't appear to have the slightest idea that you constantly make logical fallacies. (again... its things like this that made it quite clear you didn't do much schooling.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it's me that constantly makes logical fallacies if that's not the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is.

you didn't do much schooling Good sentence structure professor.

[ QUOTE ]
Illogical assumption. Very rational people can simply enjoy insulting arrogant ignorant pimples like you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose rational people could enjoy insulting others if they're complete pricks.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
So, how does it differ from a typical elitist conservative?

[/ QUOTE ]

When did I ever say it did? Although I've met a lot more elitist liberals then conservatives.

kurto

06-30-2005, 11:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Problem solving and deductive reasoning are the heart of a persons ability to not just repeat what they've heard but draw conclusions from it.

[/ QUOTE ] lol Believe it or not, but people can be taught to problem sove and deductive reasoning.

[ QUOTE ]
That's the difference between you and me you can repeat things others have said but you're capacity for independent thought is very limited due to your obviously limited IQ.

[/ QUOTE ] LOL I like idiots that decide they know something about people that they don't. But I'm glad for you that you think so highly of yourself. No need for you to think the same about yourself that others likely do.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes it's me that constantly makes logical fallacies if that's not the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is.

[/ QUOTE ] We agree, it is you. Try breaking that up into two sentences. /images/graemlins/smile.gif I can't help but picture you feverishly looking up 'logical fallacies' so you have an idea what people are talking about.

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose rational people could enjoy insulting others if they're complete pricks.

[/ QUOTE ] Or perhaps rational people enjoy insulting people who are complete pricks? If rational people enjoy insulting others because they're complete pricks, why do you insult people? What drives an irrational moron like yourself to insult others? Just curious.

[ QUOTE ]
When did I ever say it did? Although I've met a lot more elitist liberals then conservatives.

[/ QUOTE ] So, if there's no difference, there's no point to qualifying the person as a 'liberal.' You would simply say, 'elitist.'

And for the record, I haven't said anything elitist. I don't believe nor have I implied that I am elite. I don't for a second think I'm part of a select superior caste. On the contrary, I simply think you are below average. I wasn't the first to question your age. I'm not the only person to marvel at some of the gems you've posted. You stand out.

Anyhow... enough of this thread. I'm happy to see you maintain your self-inflated opinion of your intelligence. Its good for your ego and your lack of honest introspection will guarantee more goofy posts from you in the future. I look forward to seeing what humorous conclusions you post in the future.

Take care.

shots

07-01-2005, 02:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
lol Believe it or not, but people can be taught to problem sove and deductive reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if they're as dumb as you. Can you also teach a retard astrophysics? also what is problem soving?

[ QUOTE ]
LOL I like idiots that decide they know something about people that they don't. But I'm glad for you that you think so highly of yourself. No need for you to think the same about yourself that others likely do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that highly of myself I just happen to know what my IQ is and I have no problem reaching the conclusion that yours is lower from the way you demonstrate that you're incapable of independent thought.

[ QUOTE ]
Or perhaps rational people enjoy insulting people who are complete pricks? If rational people enjoy insulting others because they're complete pricks, why do you insult people? What drives an irrational moron like yourself to insult others? Just curious.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never once insulted you until I got fed up with your barrage of personal attacks. Having talked to you more, now I understand that you're just a mental midget with an inferiority complex. I kind of feel sorry for you.

[ QUOTE ]
So, if there's no difference, there's no point to qualifying the person as a 'liberal.' You would simply say, 'elitist.'

[/ QUOTE ]

But you're both that's why I said both.

[ QUOTE ]
And for the record, I haven't said anything elitist. I don't believe nor have I implied that I am elite. I don't for a second think I'm part of a select superior caste. On the contrary, I simply think you are below average. I wasn't the first to question your age. I'm not the only person to marvel at some of the gems you've posted. You stand out.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that you're an elitist is made obvious in the overall tone in which you post. There's no doubt in my mind that you're an elitist. Which is ironic seeing as how you clearly have no reason to consider yourself better then anyone else.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyhow... enough of this thread. I'm happy to see you maintain your self-inflated opinion of your intelligence. Its good for your ego and your lack of honest introspection will guarantee more goofy posts from you in the future. I look forward to seeing what humorous conclusions you post in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

My "Self inflated opinion" of my intelligence is neither self inflated or an opinion. I've had my IQ tested and beyond that I've had great success in life at a young age I have no idea how old you are but I'll bet by the time I'm your age that I'm retired an living on a tropical island somewhere while the great Kurto is bitching about more money not being taken away from the rich so his social security check can be bigger.