PDA

View Full Version : S&P Affirms US AAA Rating, Cuts Outlook to Negative



Eric Johnson
04-18-2011, 09:22 AM
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42643384

http://tinyurl.com/3fh6mc7

Published: Monday, 18 Apr 2011 | 9:35 AM ET

Standard & Poor's on Monday downgraded the outlook for the United States to negative, saying it believes there's a risk U.S. policymakers may not reach agreement on how to address the country's long-term fiscal pressures.

"Because the U.S. has, relative to its 'AAA' peers, what we consider to be very large budget deficits and rising government indebtedness and the path to addressing these is not clear to us, we have revised our outlook on the long-term rating to negative from stable," the agency said in a statement.

-more-

troy schwab
04-18-2011, 09:36 AM
At least one organization realizes how bad of a hole we are in..........

We cant possibly be shocked by this.....

road kill
04-18-2011, 09:40 AM
If only the "RICH" would pay more taxes!!!
This would all be solved!!


RK

Buzz
04-18-2011, 09:42 AM
That's what happens when you spend 30 years increasing spending and decreasing taxes. Democrats are tax & spend, Republicans are borrow and spend. And so the saga continues...

M&K's Retrievers
04-18-2011, 10:07 AM
That's what happens when you spend 30 years increasing spending and decreasing taxes. Democrats are tax & spend, Republicans are borrow and spend. And so the saga continues...

You are saying the Democrats don't borrow??:confused:

Buzz
04-18-2011, 10:28 AM
You are saying the Democrats don't borrow??:confused:

Nope. I'm saying that the Republicans have pretty much had their way for the last 30 years, and predictably, here we are...

troy schwab
04-18-2011, 10:31 AM
That's what happens when you spend 30 years increasing spending. Democrats are tax & spend, Republicans are borrow and spend. And so the saga continues...

There you go Buzz...... fixed it for ya.

Goose
04-18-2011, 10:34 AM
Time for Barack to start another war somewhere. Keynesians love war.

We live in Cuba now.

M&K's Retrievers
04-18-2011, 11:05 AM
Nope. I'm saying that the Republicans have pretty much had their way for the last 30 years, and predictably, here we are...

Presidency, yes. Congress, I don't think so, Tim.

Tool Time regards,

TxHillHunter
04-18-2011, 01:40 PM
Nope. I'm saying that the Republicans have pretty much had their way for the last 30 years, and predictably, here we are...

Using this logic:

If Republicans have truly "had their way for the last 30 years", a period which saw presidents and congress swing in both directions....why in the world would you vote for a democrat ever again? Not only are they not at fault, but when they are elected, they are completely incompetent!

:)

dnf777
04-18-2011, 01:54 PM
If only the "RICH" would pay more taxes!!!
This would all be solved!!


RK


That would be a start. Glad to see you agree with Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. Two men who know a little more about generating wealth than you or me. (I?)

Bush's wartime tax cuts immediately piled 1.4 trillion on the debt. And WHO got us into A-stan and Iraq with NO exit plan. Or plan period? Uhhhh....that would be everyone here's favorite recent republican president.

caryalsobrook
04-18-2011, 01:59 PM
That would be a start. Glad to see you agree with Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. Two men who know a little more about generating wealth than you or me. (I?)

Bush's wartime tax cuts immediately piled 1.4 trillion on the debt. And WHO got us into A-stan and Iraq with NO exit plan. Or plan period? Uhhhh....that would be everyone here's favorite recent republican president.

don't you realize that if they taxed all who make over $250,000 at 100%, they still can't make up the deficit and long term obligations??? You have to be nuts to believe that you can tax the wealthy and get us out of this mess PERIOD.

dnf777
04-18-2011, 02:14 PM
don't you realize that if they taxed all who make over $250,000 at 100%, they still can't make up the deficit and long term obligations??? You have to be nuts to believe that you can tax the wealthy and get us out of this mess PERIOD.

Not what I said. Not even close.
What I said was the Bush tax cuts heaped 1.4 trillion dollars onto our pile of debt. That is a fact, and it is a significant amount. We're quibbling about 30 versus 60 billion in cuts. How does that compare to 1.4 trillion?

troy schwab
04-18-2011, 02:56 PM
and what I am saying is that Obama (himself) already added 3 trillion more.........


Finger pointing regards........

road kill
04-18-2011, 02:59 PM
and what I am saying is that Obama (himself) already added 3 trillion more.........


Finger pointing regards........

Page 5 of the play book....."He started it!!!":D


RK

dnf777
04-18-2011, 03:01 PM
and what I am saying is that Obama (himself) already added 3 trillion more.........


Finger pointing regards........

He must certainly did. And I'm not one bit happy with that.


Stan: PLEASE give it a rest! Can you resist your little urges of sniping?
I'm sure I'm not the only one sick of it.

troy schwab
04-18-2011, 03:03 PM
He must certainly did. And I'm not one bit happy with that.


Stan: PLEASE give it a rest! Can you resist your little urges of sniping?
I'm sure I'm not the only one sick of it.

Ironically, he is spot on!!!!!!

Hew
04-18-2011, 03:13 PM
Bush's wartime tax cuts immediately piled 1.4 trillion on the debt.
This will be the second time you've claimed the tax cuts came after the war started and also the second time I'll point out that you're wrong and that the tax cuts preceeded even 9/11. If there's a third time I'll presume your misleading info is either intentional or that you're in the advanced stages of dementia.

dnf777
04-18-2011, 03:21 PM
This will be the second time you've claimed the tax cuts came after the war started and also the second time I'll point out that you're wrong and that the tax cuts preceeded even 9/11. If there's a third time I'll presume your misleading info is either intentional or that you're in the advanced stages of dementia.

Without getting too nit-picky, I said he did both. They were in effect at the same time. I could easily argue he was planning the Iraq war even before 9-11 (we would never agree, so I won't bother) but the fact is, we had a 1.4 trillion dollar tax cut AND a war, check, TWO wars, all going on at the same time in history. Never happened before, regardless of which event predated which. He had 5 years to realize we weren't paying for the war with oil revenues (as Wolfowitz predicted) and recind the tax cuts in order to pay for the wars, but chose not to. Just keep running up the tab...the guy at the end of the bar will pay.....

Unfortunately, that guy at the end of the bar is YOU and ME.

Goose
04-18-2011, 04:42 PM
Without getting too nit-picky, I said he did both. They were in effect at the same time. I could easily argue he was planning the Iraq war even before 9-11 (we would never agree, so I won't bother) but the fact is, we had a 1.4 trillion dollar tax cut AND a war, check, TWO wars, all going on at the same time in history. Never happened before, regardless of which event predated which. He had 5 years to realize we weren't paying for the war with oil revenues (as Wolfowitz predicted) and recind the tax cuts in order to pay for the wars, but chose not to. Just keep running up the tab...the guy at the end of the bar will pay.....

Unfortunately, that guy at the end of the bar is YOU and ME.

Please make your easy argument that Bush was busily planning the Iraq war even before 9-11. We'd all like to hear it, Sheen.

dnf777
04-18-2011, 04:47 PM
Please make your easy argument that Bush was busily planning the Iraq war even before 9-11. We'd all like to hear it, Sheen.

If you don't mind, I said I'd rather not, since we will never agree. Is it too much to ask that we may peacefully disagree on a few issues now and then without launching into name calling?

And frankly, I doubt everyone "wants to hear it". At least not the people I enjoy talking with here, who don't call names at every disagreement.

caryalsobrook
04-18-2011, 06:03 PM
Not what I said. Not even close.
What I said was the Bush tax cuts heaped 1.4 trillion dollars onto our pile of debt. That is a fact, and it is a significant amount. We're quibbling about 30 versus 60 billion in cuts. How does that compare to 1.4 trillion?

Wrong again. Even if there had been no tax cuts for ANYBODY, the tax revenue increase would not be even close to the 1.4 trillion you claim is a result of the Bush tax cuts. Furthermore the current administration wants to keep the tax cuts for those making less than $250,000. Personally, I would like to see the Fed budget cut by 40% and I don't care where they start or where they end. Don't take a meat axe to the budget, take an atom bomb to it. Cut til the budget is cut 40%. Then maybe the rest of the world will no longer see us as broke which we are. Some just don't know it.

Gerry Clinchy
04-18-2011, 06:21 PM
don't you realize that if they taxed all who make over $250,000 at 100%, they still can't make up the deficit and long term obligations??? You have to be nuts to believe that you can tax the wealthy and get us out of this mess PERIOD.

And if you took 100% of their wealth this year, what would be left for next year?

If nearly 1/2 of the population pays no taxes now, and you took 100% of the wealth of the "rich" ... then what?

dnf777
04-18-2011, 07:08 PM
Wrong again. Even if there had been no tax cuts for ANYBODY, the tax revenue increase would not be even close to the 1.4 trillion you claim is a result of the Bush tax cuts. Furthermore the current administration wants to keep the tax cuts for those making less than $250,000. Personally, I would like to see the Fed budget cut by 40% and I don't care where they start or where they end. Don't take a meat axe to the budget, take an atom bomb to it. Cut til the budget is cut 40%. Then maybe the rest of the world will no longer see us as broke which we are. Some just don't know it.

I applaud your fiscal attitude. I've been saying that for 10 years! Where were you when all this started?? Reagan tripled our national debt. Bush I added significantly. Bush II blew it through the roof. Obama (lil' Bush) is continuing down the road. You must have LOVED Clinton, eh? :rolleyes:

The numbers I quote were from the CBO, under Bush.

caryalsobrook
04-18-2011, 08:30 PM
I applaud your fiscal attitude. I've been saying that for 10 years! Where were you when all this started?? Reagan tripled our national debt. Bush I added significantly. Bush II blew it through the roof. Obama (lil' Bush) is continuing down the road. You must have LOVED Clinton, eh? :rolleyes:

The numbers I quote were from the CBO, under Bush.

I am today where I was 10 years ago. You have never heard me say a word about Clinton except the healthcare fiasco his 1st year. In fact the combination of Clinton as president and a Republican house and Senate is probably the best combination since Eisenhower. Who do I blame the most for the situation we are in today?? It is the Republicans. they campained on the contract with America and when they failed to keep their word, we wound up with what we have today. I care nothing about the past but that which history teaches us. I care only about today and the prospect of a healthy future. Never have I seen a President pass virtually every piece of legislation in his first 2 years with the exception of that portion of the bush tax cuts affecting the rich, blame the Tea Party(Tea Baggers for some idiots), the Republicans, GWB, Wall Street, the insurance companies, the banks, the corporations, and the rich, for his obvious failure of his policies.
I fear for this contry more than I have ever in my lifetime. i fear a revolution and as a result a dictatatorship as a possible future. I have always felt the most important freedom is freedom itself even above that of life. Reading these posts freedom seems to me to be far down the list in importance, far below entitlements, so called share of the pie, and "rights". I see envy, jealosy, and the so called "fairness" properganda. The pie has to be devided. Making your own pie is not the issue to some. I have read Obama's own words and they scare me. "When in college, I chose my friends carefully. I chose militant blacks, hispanics, AND MARXIST LININESTS." The marxist linnenists are my mafor concern, not the militant blacks or hispanics. So don't think my comment racist. That is just one of many statements he has made that cause me great concern.

The question is "will the people realize that we are broke, dead broke, and no amount of taxation or income redistribution will solve the problem. We can't save the world and will be lucky to save ourselves. If we are to survive, we will turn isolationist and return to the principle that if you don't work you don't eat. Charity starts at home not with the government.

So talk about taxes. Talk about fairness. Talk about rights. Envy your neighbor and refuse to defend his freedoms. These qualities and a few more will keep us on the path to destruction of the greatest country in history.

dnf777
04-19-2011, 04:44 AM
The question is "will the people realize that we are broke, dead broke, and no amount of taxation or income redistribution will solve the problem. We can't save the world and will be lucky to save ourselves.

.

Some of us already realize that. For many years. Some of us realize also that when your broke, the first thing you do is stop spending. The BIGGEST expenditures as of late are: the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war, the drug prescription plan, stimulus package.

Also, taxes are near all-time historic lows for the richest among us. It ain't workin'!

I'm tired of when asking everyone to pay their fair share, that is called class warfare, just as Buzz pointed out. I'm beginning to think many here are closet CEOs with billions in Swiss bank accounts??

troy schwab
04-19-2011, 07:26 AM
I'm tired of when asking everyone to pay their fair share, that is called class warfare, just as Buzz pointed out. I'm beginning to think many here are closet CEOs with billions in Swiss bank accounts??

Not so true DNF...... what about the lower percentile that pays NO taxes, actually they get paid by the government...... You have specifically chosen to go after the successful business people of this country. You cant talk out both sides of your mouth..... WHICH IS IT?

dnf777
04-19-2011, 08:36 AM
Not so true DNF...... what about the lower percentile that pays NO taxes, actually they get paid by the government...... You have specifically chosen to go after the successful business people of this country. You cant talk out both sides of your mouth..... WHICH IS IT?

Again, maybe folks here in that category. Young, several kids, middle to low income job.....

Fine, go ahead and tax them. I agree with a flat rate....so long as everyone pays, not just the working class, while the megamillionaires get off free.

huntinman
04-19-2011, 09:07 AM
Again, maybe folks here in that category. Young, several kids, middle to low income job.....

Fine, go ahead and tax them. I agree with a flat rate....so long as everyone pays, not just the working class, while the megamillionaires get off free.

Those mega-millionaires you claim are getting off free create a lot of jobs. For every yacht they buy or 12 homes they buy who do you think builds them? Working people. Get a grip man. People with money create jobs for others. Run those people off and they take the jobs with them.

dnf777
04-19-2011, 09:28 AM
Those mega-millionaires you claim are getting off free create a lot of jobs. For every yacht they buy or 12 homes they buy who do you think builds them? Working people. Get a grip man. People with money create jobs for others. Run those people off and they take the jobs with them.

I'm not wanting to run them off, or take thier first born child....just that they pay at least what you and I do. No more, no less. Is that too much to ask?

Oh, and hate to burst your "made in America" bubble, buy John Kerry's yacht was built in New Zealand. Very few mega-yachts are built in America anymore. Norway, England, Japan, NZ have staked their claim.

Buzz
04-19-2011, 10:15 AM
I'm not wanting to run them off, or take thier first born child....just that they pay at least what you and I do. No more, no less. Is that too much to ask?

Oh, and hate to burst your "made in America" bubble, buy John Kerry's yacht was built in New Zealand. Very few mega-yachts are built in America anymore. Norway, England, Japan, NZ have staked their claim.

That's what I'm trying to say too.

road kill
04-19-2011, 10:20 AM
Palmer Johnson, Sturgeon Bay WI-USA (http://www.palmerjohnson.com/)

Seem pretty nice.
I think we are still in the union.:cool:


RK

Buzz
04-19-2011, 10:25 AM
Palmer Johnson, Sturgeon Bay WI-USA (http://www.palmerjohnson.com/)

Seem pretty nice.
I think we are still in the union.:cool:


RK

I would not want to fuel one of those. :p

My dad has a little 42 footer and right now it cost over $750 to fill her up.

road kill
04-19-2011, 10:28 AM
I would not want to fuel one of those. :p

My dad has a little 42 footer and right now it cost over $750 to fill her up.

I have a Sawyer canoe and can't afford to fuel it!!;-)

(duck hunting, fishing)


RK

dnf777
04-19-2011, 10:38 AM
Palmer Johnson, Sturgeon Bay WI-USA (http://www.palmerjohnson.com/)

Seem pretty nice.
I think we are still in the union.:cool:


RK

Construction continues in the Palmer Johnsonís
U.K. facility, opened in Hampshire in
2008, on the flagship of Palmer Johnsonís
sport yacht series, designed by the Italian firm
of Nuvolari & Lenard. The construction of the
first 170í Sport Yacht began in September of
2008, and delivery is expected a few months
from now, in the spring of 2010. Before
construction began, the 170 was built digitally
in a three-dimensional model. Modular
construction ensures that all sections of the
yacht progress concurrently, ensuring a quicker
delivery time. PJís modern facilities in the U.K.
include a 47,000 sq.-foot fabrication facility,
an advanced metal-cutting bay, sophisticated
material handling equipment and a floating dry
dock for controlled vessel launches.


Oops matey....the English blokes are building this one!

road kill
04-19-2011, 10:40 AM
Construction continues in the Palmer Johnsonís
U.K. facility, opened in Hampshire in
2008, on the flagship of Palmer Johnsonís
sport yacht series, designed by the Italian firm
of Nuvolari & Lenard. The construction of the
first 170í Sport Yacht began in September of
2008, and delivery is expected a few months
from now, in the spring of 2010. Before
construction began, the 170 was built digitally
in a three-dimensional model. Modular
construction ensures that all sections of the
yacht progress concurrently, ensuring a quicker
delivery time. PJís modern facilities in the U.K.
include a 47,000 sq.-foot fabrication facility,
an advanced metal-cutting bay, sophisticated
material handling equipment and a floating dry
dock for controlled vessel launches.


Oops matey....the English blokes are building this one!

Hey, Matey, Palmer Johnson builds Yachts in Sturgeon Bay wether you like it or not.

Palmer Johnson's world-renowned US shipyard is located in Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin on the shore of lake Michigan.

In 2007, the company added two new CNC routers, invested in the very latest welding technology and revamped the entire design process including the latest software and 3D modeling. Internal modifications and new construction bays accompanied improvements for building larger vessels.

Following 2007's expansion, two additional hulls can be built - two 150 footers or a 120' and a 165'. The facility uses four five-ton cranes that can be operated simultaneously to lift up to 20 tons in a single lift.

Other facilities include a fully dedicated paint facility 220' long by 58' wide with a 45'tall door opening and a 20,000sq.ft metal fabrication facility.

Sturgeon Bay is capable of building yachts in excess of 200ft. Currently the yard focuses on the construction of the 120, 135 and 150ft Sport Yachts.


Palmer Johnson
P.O. Box 109
Sturgeon Bay
WI 54235


Could you maybe just put me on ignore.
I mean I know you are desperate for an argument, but you always seem to find one, couldn't you leave me out....PLEASE??

Thanks,
RK

M&K's Retrievers
04-19-2011, 10:41 AM
Heck, I live on a lake and don't own a boat any more. My 23' fishing boat was costing nearly $300 to fill up. :(

Cattle cubes and soured corn off the bank regards,

huntinman
04-19-2011, 10:42 AM
Hey, Matey, Palmer Johnson builds Yachts in Sturgeon Bay wether you like it or not.

Could you maybe just put me on ignore.
I mean I know you are desperate for an argument, but you always seem to find one, couldn't you leave me out....PLEASE??

Thanks,
RK

You know he's gonna have the last word... no matter what you are talking about.

dnf777
04-19-2011, 11:57 AM
You know he's gonna have the last word... no matter what you are talking about.

well, its always nice to have the truth as the last word, isn't it?

I only pointed out that those yachts were being made in a brand new English shipyard, not American, no matter how much you want to believe what you see through your rose colored glasses.

Oh, and the hard part.....its pasted from their very own website! OUCH!

http://www.palmerjohnson.com/admin/documentlibrary/WorkProgressPJ170.pdf

John Conlee regards...

Stan: not looking for an argument...just keeping the facts straight. I know darn well they still build boats in WI, but the big ones like the ones I linked, are being produced by non-American workers in non-American ports. Sorry if you don't like it, and it doesn't fit your argument, but we have to be honest with ourselves if we're ever going to solve our problems.

caryalsobrook
04-19-2011, 01:41 PM
Some of us already realize that. For many years. Some of us realize also that when your broke, the first thing you do is stop spending. The BIGGEST expenditures as of late are: the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war, the drug prescription plan, stimulus package.

Also, taxes are near all-time historic lows for the richest among us. It ain't workin'!

I'm tired of when asking everyone to pay their fair share, that is called class warfare, just as Buzz pointed out. I'm beginning to think many here are closet CEOs with billions in Swiss bank accounts??
You want an answer without using the term "class warfare", then I will give you one. The top 1% wage earners(and that includes savings, investment, and entrepaneurship) pay more tax than the bottom 90%!!! The bottom 50% wage earners pay less that 3%, that's right LESS THAN 3% of the total tax burden. The rich(top 1%) pay far more of their share of the income tax burden. I suspect the many you talk of on this forum agree not because they are in this group but because they know to demonize and ridicule a minority, much less use the government to single them out and attempt to punish them for their successes only leads to them also being singled out and punished. Protecting and defending their freedoms is necessary if one is to expect others to protect and defend their own freedoms.

I said that they pay far more than their fair share and I understand that you completely disagree. Now pleas answer this question( I suspcet you won't), "If the top 1% pays more tax than the bottom 90%, THEN HOW MUCH MORE SHOULD THEY PAY??? No BS about the tax rate which means nothing considering the 70,000 pages of exemptions, JUST SAY HOW MUCH MORE THEY SHOULD PAY AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL TAX BURDEN!!

I am certainly not in the top 1% and probably not in the top 10% but I do care about everyone's freedoms, especially those in the minority.

dnf777
04-19-2011, 01:45 PM
You want an answer without using the term "class warfare", then I will give you one. The top 1% wage earners(and that includes savings, investment, and entrepaneurship) pay more tax than the bottom 90%!!! The bottom 50% wage earners pay less that 3%, that's right LESS THAN 3% of the total tax burden. The rich(top 1%) pay far more of their share of the income tax burden. I suspect the many you talk of on this forum agree not because they are in this group but because they know to demonize and ridicule a minority, much less use the government to single them out and attempt to punish them for their successes only leads to them also being singled out and punished. Protecting and defending their freedoms is necessary if one is to expect others to protect and defend their own freedoms.

I said that they pay far more than their fair share and I understand that you completely disagree. Now pleas answer this question( I suspcet you won't), "If the top 1% pays more tax than the bottom 90%, THEN HOW MUCH MORE SHOULD THEY PAY??? No BS about the tax rate which means nothing considering the 70,000 pages of exemptions, JUST SAY HOW MUCH MORE THEY SHOULD PAY AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL TAX BURDEN!!

I am certainly not in the top 1% and probably not in the top 10% but I do care about everyone's freedoms, especially those in the minority.

I don't look at it in terms of total tax burden. All I can do is pay my part, and ask that each individual does the same. Those numbers you quote are not as shocking as their face value, considering the large population of unemployed the Bush era economy has created.....and the billionaires it also created. It doesn't take many Donal Trumps to surpass an entire blighted neighborhood in Detroit, where factories are boarded up.

So what was I supposed to answer? How much should the rich pay?

Answer: 37% of their gross income. Or let ME pay 17%. and screw the economy.

now don't say I didn't answer.

caryalsobrook
04-19-2011, 02:08 PM
I don't look at it in terms of total tax burden. All I can do is pay my part, and ask that each individual does the same. Those numbers you quote are not as shocking as their face value, considering the large population of unemployed the Bush era economy has created.....and the billionaires it also created. It doesn't take many Donal Trumps to surpass an entire blighted neighborhood in Detroit, where factories are boarded up.

So what was I supposed to answer? How much should the rich pay?

Answer: 37% of their gross income. Or let ME pay 17%. and screw the economy.

now don't say I didn't answer.

i figured you wouldn't give a direct answer to the question you never do and that is why there is so much animosity from some toward you.

dnf777
04-19-2011, 02:12 PM
i figured you wouldn't give a direct answer to the question you never do and that is why there is so much animosity from some toward you.

WHAT???

You must have a comprehension disorder.

I even put the answer in bold.

THEY SHOULD PAY 37% OF THEIR GROSS INCOME.

If you can't see that, get some bifocals man!

huntinman
04-19-2011, 02:21 PM
WHAT???

You must have a comprehension disorder.

I even put the answer in bold.

THEY SHOULD PAY 37% OF THEIR GROSS INCOME.

If you can't see that, get some bifocals man!

Do you pay 37% of your gross doc? if you say yes... I'll know you are a little fat troll in your mothers basement!

luvmylabs23139
04-19-2011, 02:48 PM
WHAT???

You must have a comprehension disorder.

I even put the answer in bold.

THEY SHOULD PAY 37% OF THEIR GROSS INCOME.

If you can't see that, get some bifocals man!

NOBODY pays 37% of their gross income in federal income taxes!

caryalsobrook
04-19-2011, 03:00 PM
WHAT???

You must have a comprehension disorder.

I even put the answer in bold.

THEY SHOULD PAY 37% OF THEIR GROSS INCOME.

If you can't see that, get some bifocals man!

I saw what you wrote but you must not have seen where i said "DON'T LOOK AT THE PERCENTAGE TAX BECAUSE 70,000 PAGES OF TAX CODE MODIFIES IT" LOOKING AT THE PERCENTAGE IS JUST SO MUCH BS!!! THE RAW DATA SHOWS HOW MUCH TAX EACH GROUP PAYS. NOT THE PERCENTAGE OF TAXABLE INCOME. IF YOU THINK THAT PERCENTAGE MEANS ANYTHING THEN YOU JUST BELIEVE IN SO MUCH BSSSSSSS

Buzz
04-19-2011, 03:16 PM
You want an answer without using the term "class warfare", then I will give you one. The top 1% wage earners(and that includes savings, investment, and entrepaneurship) pay more tax than the bottom 90%!!!

I don't believe that's correct. I have heard some pretty outrageous statements about this so a hunting I went. And low and behold the CBO publishes numbers like that. Click on my link below and you'll find the information tabulated for the years 1979 through 2007.

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/tax_liability_shares.pdf

The charts are pretty informative... ;-)

To save you the trouble if you refuse to look, the top 1% paid about 28.1% of total federal tax liabilities. What goes unsaid often is that the top 1% earns nearly 25% of the total income now (I'll find a source from that when I have time.). So I'm having trouble feeling sorry for them.

I would like to see your source. When I have time I'd like to dig into it and see how they are able to massage the numbers to have them come out so much different than what the CBO reports. Please don't tell me that the CBO is lying... My guess is, your sources are experts at twisting statistics to make them say what their target audience is predisposed to believe.

dnf777
04-19-2011, 03:41 PM
I saw what you wrote but you must not have seen where i said "DON'T LOOK AT THE PERCENTAGE TAX BECAUSE 70,000 PAGES OF TAX CODE MODIFIES IT" LOOKING AT THE PERCENTAGE IS JUST SO MUCH BS!!! THE RAW DATA SHOWS HOW MUCH TAX EACH GROUP PAYS. NOT THE PERCENTAGE OF TAXABLE INCOME. IF YOU THINK THAT PERCENTAGE MEANS ANYTHING THEN YOU JUST BELIEVE IN SO MUCH BSSSSSSS

Uuhhhh.......ok.

caryalsobrook
04-19-2011, 03:50 PM
I don't believe that's correct. I have heard some pretty outrageous statements about this so a hunting I went. And low and behold the CBO publishes numbers like that. Click on my link below and you'll find the information tabulated for the years 1979 through 2007.

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/tax_liability_shares.pdf

The charts are pretty informative... ;-)

To save you the trouble if you refuse to look, the top 1% paid about 28.1% of total federal tax liabilities. What goes unsaid often is that the top 1% earns nearly 25% of the total income now (I'll find a source from that when I have time.). So I'm having trouble feeling sorry for them.

I would like to see your source. When I have time I'd like to dig into it and see how they are able to massage the numbers to have them come out so much different than what the CBO reports. Please don't tell me that the CBO is lying... My guess is, your sources are experts at twisting statistics to make them say what their target audience is predisposed to believe.

I wish you would read your own referenced charts. The top 1% paid 28.1% of the TOTAL TAX LIABILITY OF THE FED GOV. the top 1% paid 39.5% of the INDIVIDUAL FED. TAX LIABILITY. The first takes into account corp. income tax, estate taxes among other fed. taxes. You as well as dnf keep talking about how unfair the tax is on the rich as compared to the tax on the rest of us not corp tax.

dnf777
04-19-2011, 03:55 PM
You can twist numbers until they are incomprehensible, but I stand by this:

If Joe the CEO pays an effective tax rate of 17% on $300,000,000, and Bob the Pro Dog Trainer pays 36%, SOMETHING IS WRONG.

Please notice, I'm not asking that they pay more than you or I, JUST THAT THEY PAY THE SAME!

I'm trying to use the KISS principle here, and not get into fuzzy math.

caryalsobrook
04-19-2011, 03:57 PM
I don't believe that's correct. I have heard some pretty outrageous statements about this so a hunting I went. And low and behold the CBO publishes numbers like that. Click on my link below and you'll find the information tabulated for the years 1979 through 2007.

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/tax_liability_shares.pdf

The charts are pretty informative... ;-)

To save you the trouble if you refuse to look, the top 1% paid about 28.1% of total federal tax liabilities. What goes unsaid often is that the top 1% earns nearly 25% of the total income now (I'll find a source from that when I have time.). So I'm having trouble feeling sorry for them.

I would like to see your source. When I have time I'd like to dig into it and see how they are able to massage the numbers to have them come out so much different than what the CBO reports. Please don't tell me that the CBO is lying... My guess is, your sources are experts at twisting statistics to make them say what their target audience is predisposed to believe.

If you look at your own figures carefully you will see that the share of total individual income tax for every quintile (and I am assuming each quintile is 20% of the population) has gone down for each and every one of the 4 lower quintiles that being the lower 80% of the population and the percent of the total share has gone up drastically for the highest quintile that being the top 20%. Thanks for making my point so plainly for everyone to see.

Buzz
04-19-2011, 03:59 PM
I wish you would read your own referenced charts. The top 1% paid 28.1% of the TOTAL TAX LIABILITY OF THE FED GOV. the top 1% paid 39.5% of the INDIVIDUAL FED. TAX LIABILITY. The first takes into account corp. income tax, estate taxes among other fed. taxes. You as well as dnf keep talking about how unfair the tax is on the rich as compared to the tax on the rest of us not corp tax.

Believe me, I read them and I understood them completely.

caryalsobrook
04-19-2011, 04:02 PM
You can twist numbers until they are incomprehensible, but I stand by this:

If Joe the CEO pays an effective tax rate of 17% on $300,000,000, and Bob the Pro Dog Trainer pays 36%, SOMETHING IS WRONG.

Please notice, I'm not asking that they pay more than you or I, JUST THAT THEY PAY THE SAME!

I'm trying to use the KISS principle here, and not get into fuzzy math.

You think my math is fuzzy then look at Buzz's. His is in chart form and makes esactly the same point I made. By the way, I thought I did make it "keep it simple" stupid.

Buzz
04-19-2011, 04:05 PM
If you look at your own figures carefully you will see that the share of total individual income tax for every quintile (and I am assuming each quintile is 20% of the population) has gone down for each and every one of the 4 lower quintiles that being the lower 80% of the population and the percent of the total share has gone up drastically for the highest quintile that being the top 20%. Thanks for making my point so plainly for everyone to see.

You're forgetting something. That little something is going to be key to the argument.

You need to consider what share of total income that the top 1% took home over the period. Without taking that into consideration, just saying that their total share of total tax liabilities has gone up means nothing to me. ;)

When I find an "official source" for the income data I'll make us some pictures to look at.

road kill
04-19-2011, 04:09 PM
well, its always nice to have the truth as the last word, isn't it?

I only pointed out that those yachts were being made in a brand new English shipyard, not American, no matter how much you want to believe what you see through your rose colored glasses.

Oh, and the hard part.....its pasted from their very own website! OUCH!

http://www.palmerjohnson.com/admin/documentlibrary/WorkProgressPJ170.pdf

John Conlee regards...

Stan: not looking for an argument...just keeping the facts straight. I know darn well they still build boats in WI, but the big ones like the ones I linked, are being produced by non-American workers in non-American ports. Sorry if you don't like it, and it doesn't fit your argument, but we have to be honest with ourselves if we're ever going to solve our problems.

I said that they make yachts there, they do.
You make an argument that a particular model is mnade elsewhere.

Somehow in your mind validateing your superiority.

You have called me out several times since I backed off dealing with you.

1 more time, all bets are off.

Bon Mallari...can I get a ruling here??

I will ask 1 more time, please leave me out of your world.
You will be glad you did.


RK

caryalsobrook
04-19-2011, 04:16 PM
You're forgetting something. That little something is going to be key to the argument.

You need to consider what share of total income that the top 1% took home over the peirod. Without taking that into consideration, just saying that their total share of total tax liabilities has gone up means nothing to me. ;)

When I find an "official source" for the income data I'll make us some pictures to look at.

You are the one who said my numbers were outragious. You are the one who suplied the charts to show my numbers outragious. You are the one who either didn't even read your charts with a minimum of understanding or just hoped I also would not read them with a minimum of understanding or maybe there is also another explanation which I won't say but leave for all to figure out for themselves.

In any case, I stand by the numbers I gave as correct and refute your claim that they were false.

Buzz
04-19-2011, 04:16 PM
I said that they make yachts there, they do.
You make an argument that a particular model is mnade elsewhere.

Somehow in your mind validateing your superiority.

You have called me out several times since I backed off dealing with you.

1 more time, all bets are off.

Bon Mallari...can I get a ruling here??

I will ask 1 more time, please leave me out of your world.
You will be glad you did.


RK

Sensitive I guess. :confused:

road kill
04-19-2011, 04:18 PM
Sensitive I guess. :confused:

It's growing tedious.
I have done what I said I would do.
There is a line.

stan b

Buzz
04-19-2011, 04:19 PM
You are the one who said my numbers were outragious. You are the one who suplied the charts to show my numbers outragious. You are the one who either didn't even read your charts with a minimum of understanding or just hoped I also would not read them with a minimum of understanding or maybe there is also another explanation which I won't say but leave for all to figure out for themselves.

In any case, I stand by the numbers I gave as correct and refute your claim that they were false.


I understood them completely. And I'm pretty confident that I'll be able to show that as their share of total federal liabilities went up, they went up hand-in-hand with their total share of income. :p

Sorry, I have several hours of work to do yet today. I'll have to take this up again later.

road kill
04-19-2011, 04:22 PM
I understood them completely. And I'm pretty confident that I'll be able to show that as their share of total federal liabilities went up, they went up hand-in-hand with their total share of income. :p

Sorry, I have several hours of work to do yet today. I'll have to take this up again later.

Me too, but it is SNOWING outside, so I will probably stay in and do it instead of training with the AKC club I belong to.
This weather is NUTZ!!!


RK

Uncle Bill
04-19-2011, 04:30 PM
From "Redstate" comes this analysis. UB

If you have been away for the past twenty-four hours, you missed that for the first time since its founding in 1941, Standards and Poor downgraded our nationís credit outlook. S&P believes there is a 33% change it will downgrade the nationís AAA credit rating in the next two years.

For the past year, Democrats have spent freely arguing that their free spending ways did not matter. In fact, Barack Obamaís proposed budget for 2012 increases the national debt to 116% of gross domestic product, even while adding $2 trillion in tax increases.

It is not that budget proposal that became the straw to break the camelís back.

It was not even his trillion dollar stimulus plan or his multi-trillion dollar stimulus plan than became the straw to break the camelís back.

In fact, it was Barack Obamaís disastrous speech last week that broke the camelís back.

As James Pethokoukis noted (http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2011/04/18/the-politics-of-sps-u-s-debt-warning/), Obamaís muddled plan to solve the crisis was ďfastened together by the chewing gum and sticky tape of rosy economic assumptions and fiscal opacity.Ē But more so, it was Barack Obamaís angry words and denunciation of Paul Ryanís own plan that drove S&P to its conclusion.
S&P said

We view President Obamaís and Congressman Ryanís proposals as the starting point of a process aimed at broader engagement, which could result in substantial and lasting U.S. government fiscal consolidation. That said, we see the path to agreement as challenging because the gap between the parties remains wide. We believe there is a significant risk that Congressional negotiations could result in no agreement on a medium-term fiscal strategy until after the fall 2012 Congressional and Presidential elections. If so, the first budget proposal that could include related measures would be Budget 2014 (for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, 2013), and we believe a delay beyond that time is possible.
Remember, up until the Presidentís attack, even Democrats on the Deficit Commission were praising Paul Ryanís willingness to engage the issue ďat an adult level.Ē Everyone expects congressional partisans to take pot shots, but for the President of the United States to have a temper tantrum over it akin to a three year old denied a lollipop? Thatís unheard of.


The Presidentís open hostility to an adult plan while offering no substantive plan of his own was the straw that broke the camelís back. And because Mr. Obama still cannot deal with the issue as an adult, we will keep heading down this treacherous road.

caryalsobrook
04-19-2011, 04:50 PM
You're forgetting something. That little something is going to be key to the argument.

You need to consider what share of total income that the top 1% took home over the period. Without taking that into consideration, just saying that their total share of total tax liabilities has gone up means nothing to me. ;)

When I find an "official source" for the income data I'll make us some pictures to look at.

You said you read the charts and understood them fully. I'll take your word for that. I'll also let people figure out for themselves why you claimed the numbers I gave were outrageous, citing a chart that very clearly supported my numbers. Personally, I believe that you DID read the chart and clearly understood its meaning. I don't understand why yoou thought you could get away with using such a supportive chart of my figures to claim that my figures were outrageous.

dnf777
04-19-2011, 05:05 PM
I said that they make yachts there, they do.
You make an argument that a particular model is mnade elsewhere.

Somehow in your mind validateing your superiority.

You have called me out several times since I backed off dealing with you.

1 more time, all bets are off.

Bon Mallari...can I get a ruling here??

I will ask 1 more time, please leave me out of your world.
You will be glad you did.


RK

What the Sam Hell are you talking about???

Can't have a disagreement without crying to mommy?

Red triangle me if you want. Geez! I pointed out that many megayachts are made overseas. You countered with a particular brand. I showed, (from your link) that even THEY make big boats overseas.

What is too difficult for you to handle? That you may be wrong once in a while. I never said they didn't make boats in WI. I just said they make some overseas, too.

And what's that last line? A threat? I don't think that's smiled upon here.

Keep it civil. You remember anyone making that plea?

road kill
04-19-2011, 05:07 PM
What the Sam Hell are you talking about???

Can't have a disagreement without crying to mommy?

Red triangle me if you want. Geez! I pointed out that many megayachts are made overseas. You countered with a particular brand. I showed, (from your link) that even THEY make big boats overseas.

What is too difficult for you to handle? That you may be wrong once in a while. I never said they didn't make boats in WI. I just said they make some overseas, too.

And what's that last line? A threat? I don't think that's smiled upon here.

Keep it civil. You remember anyone making that plea?

Are YOU ever wrong??
Does Palmer Johnson make yachts in Sturgeon Bay WI??
What is a red triangle?
Who is "mommy??"


RK

dnf777
04-19-2011, 05:11 PM
You think my math is fuzzy then look at Buzz's. His is in chart form and makes esactly the same point I made. By the way, I thought I did make it "keep it simple" stupid.

You lost me. My idea of simple is that everyone pays a flat rate. Period.

dnf777
04-19-2011, 05:16 PM
Are YOU ever wrong?? Yes, often.
Does Palmer Johnson make yachts in Sturgeon Bay WI?? Yes, some of them.
What is a red triangle? One method that you may use to report to Chris, as you have many times in the past.
Who is "mommy??" Bon Mallari...can I get a ruling here??

RK


Enough is enough Stan. You made an argument, I countered with data from a web site that you linked, pointing out that PJ makes a 170 foot megayacht in England. Thats all I did. Why do you fly off the handle? Can't you ever be shown data contrary to your belief without going ballistic? Get a grip.

road kill
04-19-2011, 05:18 PM
Enough is enough Stan. You made an argument, I countered with data from a web site that you linked, pointing out that PJ makes a 170 foot megayacht in England. Thats all I did. Why do you fly off the handle? Can't you ever be shown data contrary to your belief without going ballistic? Get a grip.

I have never reported a single post, ever.

Have you??


RK

dnf777
04-19-2011, 05:27 PM
I have never reported a single post, ever.

Have you??


RK

yep, I just did. And don't even pretend to say you haven't reported folks. That is so false, I think you must be joking!

there was no need to make theats and go off like that.

Look around, there's lots of disagreement going on in civil tones, with no animosity. you always have to take it a level higher when you feel you've been wronged.

huntinman
04-19-2011, 05:34 PM
yep, I just did. And don't even pretend to say you haven't reported folks. That is so false, I think you must be joking!

there was no need to make theats and go off like that.

Look around, there's lots of disagreement going on in civil tones, with no animosity. you always have to take it a level higher when you feel you've been wronged.

One thing for sure, whether its RK, Gibson, me or whoever on this side of the forum... there is one common denominator when disputes arise...DNF

You always have to be the smartest one in the room. Problem is, you are the only one that feels that way.

caryalsobrook
04-19-2011, 05:45 PM
You lost me. My idea of simple is that everyone pays a flat rate. Period.

I'm not surprised that I lost you.

M&K's Retrievers
04-19-2011, 06:23 PM
What the Sam Hill are you talking about??? Fixed that one for you.

Can't have a disagreement without crying to mommy? I thought that was your job.:confused:

Red triangle me if you want. Geez! I pointed out that many megayachts are made overseas. You countered with a particular brand. I showed, (from your link) that even THEY make big boats overseas.

What is too difficult for you to handle? That you may be wrong once in a while. I never said they didn't make boats in WI. I just said they make some overseas, too. No, it sounded to me that Stan was wrong and that they only made them abroad. You were correcting him.

And what's that last line? A threat? I don't think that's smiled upon here. You made a threat recently to stay on the main forum but apparently no can do.


Keep it civil. You remember anyone making that plea?

Just give it a rest for a while.

Wishing and hoping regards, :razz:

dnf777
04-19-2011, 06:36 PM
Just give it a rest for a while.



yes ma'am....:oops:

Buzz
04-19-2011, 11:06 PM
You said you read the charts and understood them fully. I'll take your word for that. I'll also let people figure out for themselves why you claimed the numbers I gave were outrageous, citing a chart that very clearly supported my numbers. Personally, I believe that you DID read the chart and clearly understood its meaning. I don't understand why yoou thought you could get away with using such a supportive chart of my figures to claim that my figures were outrageous.


Lets go back to the original statement that I was discussing.


Originally Posted by caryalsobrook
You want an answer without using the term "class warfare", then I will give you one. The top 1% wage earners(and that includes savings, investment, and entrepaneurship) pay more tax than the bottom 90%!!!


So, I posted a table that indicated the following:

Total Federal Tax Liability

Top 1% = 28.1%
Top 10% = 55%

Bottom 90% = 100% - 55% = 45%

Last time I checked, the following was true:

45% > 28.1%

So the statement that the top 1% pays more than the bottom 90% is not proved out by these numbers. It does have the makings of an excellent political talking point though.

I have some great data on the percent of total income that the top 1% takes home. It is just as I thought. But I'm going to go get my beauty sleep. :) My wife thinks I really need it.

caryalsobrook
04-20-2011, 01:43 AM
Lets go back to the original statement that I was discussing.




So, I posted a table that indicated the following:

Total Federal Tax Liability

Top 1% = 28.1%
Top 10% = 55%

Bottom 90% = 100% - 55% = 45%

Last time I checked, the following was true:

45% > 28.1%

So the statement that the top 1% pays more than the bottom 90% is not proved out by these numbers. It does have the makings of an excellent political talking point though.

I have some great data on the percent of total income that the top 1% takes home. It is just as I thought. But I'm going to go get my beauty sleep. :) My wife thinks I really need it.

Cant you get it through your head that the total tax liability includes corporate tax liability??? The last time I looked, the bottom 90% didn't pay the corp tax. For whatever reasons you spew out such false numbers, it matters not to me. But I will call you out when you try to convince people on this forum that they are anything other than distortions or lies.

Buzz
04-20-2011, 09:18 AM
Cant you get it through your head that the total tax liability includes corporate tax liability??? The last time I looked, the bottom 90% didn't pay the corp tax. For whatever reasons you spew out such false numbers, it matters not to me. But I will call you out when you try to convince people on this forum that they are anything other than distortions or lies.

Pertaining to the bolded text, thanks for implying that you're dealing with a moron who does not understand what you're saying. I'm not trying to put out distortions and lies. I'm trying to enlighten people on the distortions and lies that folks on the right are spreading. When I see numbers getting thrown around, I have this awful habit of going, hmmm, I wonder how they arrived at that?

Rather than looking at the whole federal tax picture, you insist on presenting the numbers in such a way that wealthier Americans would look more heavily taxed than they are. You want to point to the fact that they pay 57% of the corporate tax and ignore that corporate tax makes up a small portion of total federal revenue. To put what I'm saying into an example...

This is how each tax shakes out as a portion of total federal revenue:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/images/Numbers_Figure-1_What-are-fed-govts-sources-of-revenue_3.gif

I don't have the numbers from 2007, but to demonstrate how you figure out what portion of total federal revenue that the top 1% pays I'll use the 2008 numbers from the pie chart with the numbers from the table I linked to.

This is the share of each tax the top 1% paid in 2007:
Federal income taxes: 39.5 percent share
Federal payroll taxes: 4.1 percent share
Federal corporate taxes: 57.0 percent share
Federal excise taxes: 4.7 percent share

From the pie chart we know what percentage each category contributed to total federal revenue in 2008:
Individual income tax: 45 percent share
Payroll tax: 36 percent share
Corporate tax: 12 percent share
Excise tax: 3 percent share

So, using these numbers, how do we figure the share that the top 1% contributes toward the total federal revenue???

.395(45) + .041(36) + .57(12) + .047(3) = 17.775 + 1.476 + 6.84 + .141 = 26.232%

Hmmm, not too far off from the CBO number showing that they paid a 28.1% share of total revenue in 2007.

And you want to ignore the fact that the percentage of total taxes that they pay is not too far off from the portion of total income that they receive, as shown by the graph below. I got it from:

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2008.pdf

You want to point your finger at the fact that the share of total federal revenue they pay has been increasing steadily since 1979. Well look at what their share of the total earnings did. Have you considered that the share of revenue that the lower income folks pay is dropping because their share of the total income is dropping too?

This is becoming boring. You keep trying to show that I'm wrong. Hope you don't mind if I just chuckle and ignore it. :-P
(Just kidding. I at least appreciate that you address the substance of my posts instead of throwing sand in the sandbox!)

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n3/davebezesky/Percent-of-income.gif

caryalsobrook
04-20-2011, 09:42 AM
Pertaining to the bolded text, thanks for implying that you're dealing with a moron who does not understand what you're saying. I'm not trying to put out distortions and lies. I'm trying to enlighten people on the distortions and lies that folks on the right are spreading. When I see numbers getting thrown around, I have this awful habit of going, hmmm, I wonder how they arrived at that?

Rather than looking at the whole federal tax picture, you insist on presenting the numbers in such a way that wealthier Americans would look more heavily taxed than they are. You want to point to the fact that they pay 57% of the corporate tax and ignore that corporate tax makes up a small portion of total federal revenue. To put what I'm saying into an example...

This is how each tax shakes out as a portion of total federal revenue:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/images/Numbers_Figure-1_What-are-fed-govts-sources-of-revenue_3.gif

I don't have the numbers from 2007, but to demonstrate how you figure out what portion of total federal revenue that the top 1% pays I'll use the 2008 numbers from the pie chart with the numbers from the table I linked to.

This is the share of each tax the top 1% paid in 2007:
Federal income taxes: 39.5 percent share
Federal payroll taxes: 4.1 percent share
Federal corporate taxes: 57.0 percent share
Federal excise taxes: 4.7 percent share

From the pie chart we know what percentage each category contributed to total federal revenue in 2008:
Individual income tax: 45 percent share
Payroll tax: 36 percent share
Corporate tax: 12 percent share
Excise tax: 3 percent share

So, using these numbers, how do we figure the share that the top 1% contributes toward the total federal revenue???

.395(45) + .041(36) + .57(12) + .047(3) = 17.775 + 1.476 + 6.84 + .141 = 26.232%

Hmmm, not too far off from the CBO number showing that they paid a 28.1% share of total revenue in 2007.

And you want to ignore the fact that the percentage of total taxes that they pay is not too far off from the portion of total income that they receive, as shown by the graph below. I got it from:

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2008.pdf

You want to point your finger at the fact that the share of total federal revenue they pay has been increasing steadily since 1979. Well look at what their share of the total earnings did. Have you considered that the share of revenue that the lower income folks pay is dropping because their share of the total income is dropping too?

This is becoming boring. You keep trying to show that I'm wrong. Hope you don't mind if I just chuckle and ignore it. :-P
(Just kidding. I at least appreciate that you address the substance of my posts instead of throwing sand in the sandbox!)

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n3/davebezesky/Percent-of-income.gif

No you said my figures were false and you were then and still are wrong.
Go back to the post immediately before this one. You will see that you said

"Bottom 90%= 100%-55%=45%" I am assuming the 45% is the share you are claiming that the bottom 90% pays of the total tax bill. Again so much BS. Look at the charts you originally cited to show my figures wrong . LOOK AT THE INCOME TAX BURDEN SHOWINT THE TOTAL OF ALL INCOME TAXES. You are right to say that the share of all income tax paid by the top 1% is a litt over 28%, but as usual your attempt to compute the share of the bottom 90% as paying 45% is rediculous and is such a mathematical error such that an 8th grader should know better. LOOK AT THE TABLES!!! the share of total tax paid by the bottom 89% is EXACTLY 14.4%, half of what the top 1% pays.
Again, I will let those on this forum who read these posts decide the reason you give such false figures. And again I will point out that I am using the figures that you originally stated as showing my figures to be wrong.

caryalsobrook
04-20-2011, 09:52 AM
Pertaining to the bolded text, thanks for implying that you're dealing with a moron who does not understand what you're saying. I'm not trying to put out distortions and lies. I'm trying to enlighten people on the distortions and lies that folks on the right are spreading. When I see numbers getting thrown around, I have this awful habit of going, hmmm, I wonder how they arrived at that?

Rather than looking at the whole federal tax picture, you insist on presenting the numbers in such a way that wealthier Americans would look more heavily taxed than they are. You want to point to the fact that they pay 57% of the corporate tax and ignore that corporate tax makes up a small portion of total federal revenue. To put what I'm saying into an example...

This is how each tax shakes out as a portion of total federal revenue:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/images/Numbers_Figure-1_What-are-fed-govts-sources-of-revenue_3.gif

I don't have the numbers from 2007, but to demonstrate how you figure out what portion of total federal revenue that the top 1% pays I'll use the 2008 numbers from the pie chart with the numbers from the table I linked to.

This is the share of each tax the top 1% paid in 2007:
Federal income taxes: 39.5 percent share
Federal payroll taxes: 4.1 percent share
Federal corporate taxes: 57.0 percent share
Federal excise taxes: 4.7 percent share

From the pie chart we know what percentage each category contributed to total federal revenue in 2008:
Individual income tax: 45 percent share
Payroll tax: 36 percent share
Corporate tax: 12 percent share
Excise tax: 3 percent share

So, using these numbers, how do we figure the share that the top 1% contributes toward the total federal revenue???

.395(45) + .041(36) + .57(12) + .047(3) = 17.775 + 1.476 + 6.84 + .141 = 26.232%

Hmmm, not too far off from the CBO number showing that they paid a 28.1% share of total revenue in 2007.

And you want to ignore the fact that the percentage of total taxes that they pay is not too far off from the portion of total income that they receive, as shown by the graph below. I got it from:

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2008.pdf

You want to point your finger at the fact that the share of total federal revenue they pay has been increasing steadily since 1979. Well look at what their share of the total earnings did. Have you considered that the share of revenue that the lower income folks pay is dropping because their share of the total income is dropping too?

This is becoming boring. You keep trying to show that I'm wrong. Hope you don't mind if I just chuckle and ignore it. :-P
(Just kidding. I at least appreciate that you address the substance of my posts instead of throwing sand in the sandbox!)

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n3/davebezesky/Percent-of-income.gif

I know of no other way to explain simpler the facts, so you can have the last word and those who read these posts can decide who distorted the facts.

Franco
04-20-2011, 12:45 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama_administration_officials_tried_to_keep_sandp _rating_at_stable/2011/04/19/AFfAeO8D_story.html

Rest easy, the politicians have a plan!

"
Treasury officials told S&P analysts that they were underestimating the ability of politicians in Washington to fashion a compromise to curb deficits, a Treasury official said. They argued a change in ratings was not needed at this time because the debt was manageable and the administration had a viable plan in the works, the official said."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The only plan they have is in trying to get reelected!

Buzz
04-20-2011, 01:19 PM
No you said my figures were false and you were then and still are wrong.
Go back to the post immediately before this one. You will see that you said

"Bottom 90%= 100%-55%=45%" I am assuming the 45% is the share you are claiming that the bottom 90% pays of the total tax bill. Again so much BS. Look at the charts you originally cited to show my figures wrong . LOOK AT THE INCOME TAX BURDEN SHOWINT THE TOTAL OF ALL INCOME TAXES. You are right to say that the share of all income tax paid by the top 1% is a litt over 28%, but as usual your attempt to compute the share of the bottom 90% as paying 45% is rediculous and is such a mathematical error such that an 8th grader should know better. LOOK AT THE TABLES!!! the share of total tax paid by the bottom 89% is EXACTLY 14.4%, half of what the top 1% pays.
Again, I will let those on this forum who read these posts decide the reason you give such false figures. And again I will point out that I am using the figures that you originally stated as showing my figures to be wrong.


When I look at the tables, I see that the bottom 3 quintiles pay 14.4%. (at least they did in 2007)

Bottom quintile = 0.8%
Second quintile = 4.4%
Third quintile = 9.2%

Sum of bottom 3 quintiles = 0.8 + 4.4 + 9.2 = 14.4%

When I get home I'll have my 6th grader check my work. She's advanced for her age so she might be up to snuff with the average 8th grader! :p

Gerry Clinchy
04-20-2011, 01:24 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama_administration_officials_tried_to_keep_sandp _rating_at_stable/2011/04/19/AFfAeO8D_story.html

Rest easy, the politicians have a plan!

"
Treasury officials told S&P analysts that they were underestimating the ability of politicians in Washington to fashion a compromise to curb deficits, a Treasury official said. They argued a change in ratings was not needed at this time because the debt was manageable and the administration had a viable plan in the works, the official said."

Isn't that just a hoot! If anything S&P is OVER-estimating the politicans :-)

Gee, think it was Treasury who was saying "OMG! OMG!"

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The only plan they have is in trying to get reelected!

Got that one right! And now O has called together the heavy hitters to get working on that immigration reform.

That ought to keep them all busy so that around this time next year they'll be debating about funding the 2012 budget ... as last year when they spent valuable time with the health care bill and just "overlooked" funding the budget. Deja vu?

Franco
04-20-2011, 01:30 PM
Got that one right! And now O has called together the heavy hitters to get working on that immigration reform.

That ought to keep them all busy so that around this time next year they'll be debating about funding the 2012 budget ... as last year when they spent valuable time with the health care bill and just "overlooked" funding the budget. Deja vu?

They should call it what it will really be...Amnesty part2!

Hew
04-20-2011, 02:09 PM
They should call it what it will really be...Amnesty part2!
Isn't that what you want, you being a newly minted Libertarian and all. You may want to check into the immigration policies of your new party. I'm just sayin'. ;-)

Franco
04-20-2011, 03:18 PM
Isn't that what you want, you being a newly minted Libertarian and all. You may want to check into the immigration policies of your new party. I'm just sayin'. ;-)

Now Hew, why would you fabricate this myth about the Libetarian Party?

I suggest you go to lp.org and read the Platform. There is a section covering "migration". Nowhere is Amnesty supported.

But, like most major political parties there is some disagreement on issues. For instance, the two most visable Libetarians, Judge Napolitano and John Stossel disagree on Abortion Rights. The party stance is that it is an individual's decision. However, what we do agree on is a limited Federal Government and a balanced budget among other issues!

Hew
04-21-2011, 02:45 AM
My comments are in bold....


Now Hew, why would you fabricate this myth about the Libetarian Party? For starters, a myth is a long-held yet incorrect belief that some people have. Thanks for the influence you think I have, but I am certainly not the first person to write that Libertarians are soft on immigration or that they support amnesty. Secondly, "fabricate" implies an untruth. Before you call someone a liar, you should really make sure the facts are on your side . And with respect to the Libertarian's bonafides regarding immigration....well, you just don't have the facts on your side.

I suggest you go to lp.org and read the Platform. There is a section covering "migration". Nowhere is Amnesty supported. Per your suggestion, let's just look at the Libertarian Party platform on "Free Trade and Migration"....here it is in its entirety:



3.4 Free Trade and Migration
We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

No wonder you didn't link it or post it. It's friggin' laughable. Moreover, it does not say, imply, or given its context, even HINT that it is against amnesty for illegals. Hell, until 2004 the official Libertarian Party platform called for an OPEN BORDER AND ABOLISHMENT OF THE INS. Their current platform, as noted above, calls for "unrestricted movement across national borders." That's the party who you want us to believe is tough on illegal immigration? Really?

In the last presidential campaign, the Libertarian Party candidate, Bob Barr was grilled on fellow Libertarian Neil Boortz' show re: amnesty:



Said Boortz:
ďIt sounds to me that youíre saying, if you find an illegal immigrant in this country, and theyíre willing to submit to a background check, that that could open the door to them staying here.Ē

Said Barr:
ďI think as a practical matter, that makes a lot of sense. Iím not sure how you would go about rounding up millions of people and trying to deport them. The key here is securityÖ.Ē


But, like most major political parties there is some disagreement on issues. For instance, the two most visable Libetarians, Judge Napolitano and John Stossel disagree on Abortion Rights. Really? One of the most visable Libertarians is a 9/11 Truther like Napolitano? Ya'll should keep Napolitiano hidden in the woodpile unless you guys are intentionally shooting to be the Party of the Crackpots. The party stance is that it is an individual's decision. However, what we do agree on is a limited Federal Government and a balanced budget among other issues!

Franco
04-21-2011, 08:05 AM
3.4 Free Trade and Migration
We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Hew, you are dodging the issue of Amnesty!

Again, nowhere does the Libertarian Party support Amnesty. Amnesty for millions of illegals is what the Dems are getting ready to present in thier bill. Amnesty would make them citizens of the USA with full benefits. We are against this!

Also, note the part about Free Trade. If the Libertarians get thier way, we won't be paying people to sit on thier poarches doing nothing. That woud drastically cut the number of illegals entering the country for work. If the illegals are willing to work for less, that would be a part of Free Trade. It would make our mfg. more competitve globally.

You have to look at the big picture!

We have an estimated 12million illegals here now. Tell me where the status quo of Bush's or Obama's policy has worked?