2010 Midterm Election

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The one thing we never talk about when it comes to economic equality is who is making the babies. Lets face it, people who are poorer, less educated, and have less family structure are having children at a much higher rate than people who are the opposite. Could that economic divide be caused by this?

Can't feed Em? Don't Breed Em!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

Can't feed Em? Don't Breed Em!

It will continue until we wise up however.

[Rando]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

The average birth rate of American's is pretty much the same down the line, no matter the income or education level.

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/10s0092.pdf

Not sure this backs you up, but not sure I can draw any strong conclusions either.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Here is the breakdown of the education level of the Mothers.

No High School Degree - 18%
High School Degree - 27%
Some College - 20%
Associates Degree - 8%
College Degree - 17%
Graduate Degree - 10%

Like I said, lower educated people are producing more babies in this country.

Here is a study from the nineties that shows the same thing. These are people who are now entering our workforce.

NCHS Pressroom - 1997 Fact Sheet - Mothers Education and Birth Rate

Birth rate is the usually given as number of live births per 1000 persons, although in the case of the Census Bureau CPS numbers used in the both reports linked to above I believe they are using births in the previous 12 months per 1000 women surveyed (surveys taken in 2008 and 1994 respectively).

The numbers RainMaker gave above represent a percent of total births by education attained rather than birth rate. Those numbers show that in 2008 only 27% of mothers had earned at least a Bachelors Degree. This really isn't that surprising however, when you consider that in 2008 only 27.4% of all Americans 25 and older had earned a Bachelors degree or higher.

The overall birth rate provided in the 2008 data set was 64.2.

Among the lower educated groups of women surveyed (those with at most a high school diploma) the rate is 63.5. Among the higher educated women surveyed (those with at least a bachelors degree) the birth rate was 69.5. A difference of about 9%. Pretty close to flat, but trending slightly higher with higher education.

Although the 2008 data does suggest that lower educated people are producing more babies, it goes on to suggest it is because there are more people with lower educations.

It should be noted, however, that the 2008 numbers provide do seem to contradict SteveBollea's claim that birth rates are also flat across income;

Under $10,000 - 87.2
$10,000 to $19,000 - 79.1
$20,000 to $24,999 - 73.3
$25,000 to $29,999 - 78.6
$30,000 to $34,999 - 76.7
$35,000 to $49,000 - 60.8
$50,000 to $74,999 - 58.6
$75,000 and over - 59.3

Although, just for fun if we looked at the numbers as a percent of total births by family income;

Under $10,000 - 9%
$10,000 to $19,000 - 11%
$20,000 to $24,999 - 6%
$25,000 to $29,999 - 7%
$30,000 to $34,999 - 7%
$35,000 to $49,000 - 13%
$50,000 to $74,999 - 18%
$75,000 and over - 30%

Oh my God, the middle class and rich are going to breed poor folk out of existence!

Levity aside, the second set of data comes included in a NCHS report whose results read "Birth rates differ considerably by educational attainment." Which would seem to answer any questions about any correlation between education and birth rate, and if you look at thier specifically broken down age/education groups that certainly seems to be the case. But if you look at the broader picture, it isn't so clear.

It isn't possible to directly compare the data from these two reports directly as they use slightly different means of describing educational attainment, but they're close enough to do some general comparisons.

The overall birth rate provide in the 1994 data set was 66.7 compared to 64.2 in 2008.

Among the lower educated women (those with at most a high school diploma) the birth rate is 75.8. Among the higher educated women (those who have gone to school for at least 16 years) the birth rate is 70.9. A difference of about 7%. Pretty close to flat, but trending slightly lower with higher education.

Also, these numbers suggest that in 1994 at best 19.2% of mothers had earned a Bachelors degree or higher. This really isn't that surprising however, when you consider that in 1990 only 20.3% of all Americans 25 and older had earned a Bachelors degree or higher.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Now here's a shocker
In what has become one of the stranger twists in an already bizarre Governor's race, a bag of uncounted ballots was found in Bridgeport Thursday night.

Republican officials were approached by Democratic operatives and told about the surprise ballot bag, according to Bridgeport GOP Chairman Marc Delmonico.
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/e...106727208.html

[JPhillips]

But GOP Rep. John Kline of Minnesota, the soon-to-be-ranking member of the House’s education and labor committee, dismissed talk that the new Congress will make it a priority to dismantle the Education Department.

“In some ways, that’s sort of a talking point,” Kline told Anderson. “There will be those who campaigned on that language. I’m not sure they always know what it means.”

Care to name those too stupid to know what abolish the DOE means?

[Greyroofoo]

So what does the DoE add to the quality of education in this country anyways?

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

To an extent. I'm just saying that when you watch ads from the left, or listen to political speeches, it's almost always "these guys are trying to hurt you". That the rich is out to get them.

I would love to see these "Almost always" quotes.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Now here's a shocker
In what has become one of the stranger twists in an already bizarre Governor's race, a bag of uncounted ballots was found in Bridgeport Thursday night.

Republican officials were approached by Democratic operatives and told about the surprise ballot bag, according to Bridgeport GOP Chairman Marc Delmonico.
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/e...106727208.html

Bridgeport is an absolute joke. The box of 200 absentee ballots that was intercepted headed to an abandoned building was my favorite twist.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Here's an interesting question.
What allows you the greatest access and agency? Wealth or intelligence?

Depends entirely on your situation imho - without some wealth your options to act fully using intelligence (whether thats brain intelligence or information) will likely be somewhat limited, however if you lack intelligence chances are any wealth you have will dinimish over time (unless you're lucky enough to have good advisors).

I've always liked the quote:
Stupid people surround themselves with smart people. Smart people surround themselves with smart people who disagree with them.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

So what does the DoE add to the quality of education in this country anyways?

There's a lot of cuts in DOE that we could probably both agree on, but in general I think it's hard to argue that education would be better with sixty-four billion dollars less.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Here is the breakdown of the education level of the Mothers.

I think obsessing about the education level or income level of parents is potentially misleading imho - its not the education level which is important its how the indviduals parent and what they 'teach' their children which is the important thing.

Neither of my parents have education beyond high school level HOWEVER they were both intelligent, hardworking people and they taught me good morals and also the importance of school work and education .... that is the important thing (good parenting) rather than whether they themselves had qualifacations imho.

(same thing with regards to family income levels and number of babies being born - proves nothing, its the upbringing and values given to those babies which is important imho, not how many video games they were bought ...)

It's was just a hypothetical/talking point, largely raised by SteveBollea challenging me to answer how much I'd be willing to raise my taxes to pay for legalized gay marriage. I don't disagree with what you're saying. I don't think in terms of taxes (maybe because I'm not in a tax bracket where I pay many), but I could think about it terms of just money changing hands. Which is such an offensive proposition, apparently.

I'd have thought that it'd be a profitable change from the governments perspective surely? - not only do people (in the UK at least) get charged a fee for a marriage but when you're married if you fall unemployed then your partner will carry you upon their income rather than you get government support ... thus less gay people would require government assistance? (yes I'm aware there may well be tax breaks available to married people which might offset this - but I'd have thought it'd largely balance out).

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

So what does the DoE add to the quality of education in this country anyways?

Lots of things I'd expect ... this is off the cuff and bear in mind I'm not a 'local' so I might not be correct:

* Having a centralised body for an education system gives you standardised testing which allows employers to compare candidates logically and help them hire more reliably than just using pure guesswork.

If there wasn't a centralised body then it'd be near impossible to agree on testing standards or hold to them as each institution attempted to maximise their own performance and thus encourage more students/income for themselves.

* Regulation of outside influences in education. If education was fully privatised then I expect you'd see a heck of a lot more corporate influence within schools, Maths examples utilising McDonalds burgers etc.

* Lowering the cost of education; without a (largely) free public option forcing private schools to give quality educations (above those of the public option) and competitive prices I expect the amount charged to people for their education would be much higher.

[SportsDino]

I know this is hardly worth posting because people like playing the random statistic game over thinking about how the numbers actually work, but I'm feeling bored at the moment so here we go.

We should tax the rich more... with the ultimate goal of taxing them less. It is not a question of pulling everyone down to some ugly status quo, the idea of a progressive tax bracket over a flat tax or sales tax is that it has the least impact on overall standard of living, and in my opinion, growth rate of the economy.

1) It is easier for a billionaire to pay ten million dollars than it is for 1,000 poverty line (lets call it 20K) to pay 10,000 dollars. Being revenue neutral, in one case you tax one person 1% of their wealth, in the other you tax 1,000 people 50% of their wealth.

2) The goal should be getting a certain allotment of money for needed services, not punishing any particular group over another.

3) You could get similar numbers from a flat tax, say our population is 1,001 people as described above it works out to a 0.98% tax rate.

4) To get the same from a sales tax is far different, how many billionaires spend a lot of their money in the average year? Not many, a lot of that income is they are being a good rich person is going into investments which will escape the sales tax. Say we have a big spender though, and he spends 100,000,000 on a splurge of houses/planes/junk. On the other hand we have our poverty liners spending say 15,000 because they magically manage to put back 5K for retirement (ha!). This works out to an 8.6% sales tax, obviously the major term is our big spender so if he acts more like a normal billionaire that sales tax skyrockets (for instance only 10,000,000 in spending by him is a sales tax of 40%... this is why you see numbers like 20+% floating around out there by the sales taxers).

5) Lets just throw away the sales tax argument, nothing is fair about that and trivial mathematics can show that, not to mention it taxes a good deal of business activity adding transaction costs and probably speeding price inflation along as well.

6) What is wrong with the fair tax? Well, ultimately you need to make the income numbers make sense, to get a billion in income you need a billion in gross spending. Currently our little toy economy only has $115 million in spending, assuming the government spends its full 10 million, make it $125 million.

7) The point is that ultimately consumption and income are related, when we simulate a more and more realistic economy as the flat tax raises the poverty line group must reduce spending in order to pay their taxes, however, the rich person has $900 million in the bank, so their spending doesn't have to change. This is a very simplified example of marginal value, not from the usual perspective of 'oh poor people, it is so hard for them to pay that extra dollar'... this is from an angle that impacts the rich person as well, if spending falls their expected income falls.

8) Lets break out of the toy example and think about the real world, our demographics are different, despite the growing disparity gap a large pool of the taxable income still is in the group where taxes directly impacts their ability to spend. Capital is not a problem, we all know the cash balances of some companies are surging, the Fed is printing dumptrucks full of money, and the stock market managed to bounce back over 50% somehow. Spending, corporate and personal, is the number needed for growth, especially as inventories have started to deplete.

9) Assume we can't control employment, do we want a fair tax or a progressive tax? Well everyone should want a progressive tax (but individuals are self-maximizing greed machines of course so the rich want the flat tax and the poor want the tax subsidy loopholes, both not realizing its screwing them up the ass, but I digress). We want spending to grow so that incomes grow (at all tiers) and demand for government services decreases.

10) Taxing the marginal stockpiles of the rich and giving a tax cut to the lower classes is the fastest way to do this. Instead of spending the bump in tax revenue, or making a class warfare argument about income distribution, the goal should be to use that money to shrink future government expenditure and boost useful spending.

11) Once the taxes are more closely linked to the rich, make the argument that massive government subsidies to big businesses is like taking money from yourself to pay yourself (currently they take money from everyone and debt, shrinking the economy, to pay themselves, so they don't feel its a bad idea yet until the collapse comes). Use this to spur a massive program to cut the corporate pork, pass this money on to the lower class tax cut to boost their spending.

12) As consumer spending increases, jobs are formed and more people get off government dependence.

13) Stop tax subsidies, yes this includes your big mortgage write off and clunker car program and filling out lots of paperwork so you get a refund check. Don't tax people in the first place, and don't encourage them to spend, let them decide for themselves where the money will go. Maybe, just maybe, this will help slow down the creep in housing prices (people making suboptimal decisions about loans because of the tax write-off). For those of you who jump to the argument that not writing off mortgages will keep people from buying houses... yep, that lowers prices and decreases personal debt in the economy.

14) Cut other tax loopholes that let people shelter their money, simplify the tax code so its obvious when people are cheating it.

15) The above should increase tax revenues yet again.

16) Pay down the government debt in a way to reduce debt service costs.

17) Once the government budget is in a halfway recognizable shape and smaller, despite no change in services at this point, start cutting stuff the doesn't belong at the federal level and useless programs.

18) The budget is shrunk down by a decent amount, revenues have increased and tax rates on the lower classes should already be lower. Go ahead and pass on the savings by cutting the rich tax rates to. Position the rich so that the smaller the government is the more they get to keep and they will lobby for the irradication of any government spending they can.

19) Profit!

My pipe dream may not fit particular ideological factions very well, but it is an example of thinking without having the stupid us versus them battles that are paralyzing everyone. The fight should be about anyone having to pay lots in taxes, instead of constantly growing the pool of money required and fighting over how the pain is distributed. Shrink the pain or ultimately everyone is paying a lot more than they want to, poor or rich.

You won't get as far with a flat tax, you'll have opened a pool of money at the top and put a burden on the massive population on the bottom, the spending won't grow as quickly as it could, and all we'll get is a self deluded wealthy class that is happy they are billionaires but are slowly being inflated into millionaires. I'd rather see a growing economy which spurs on technological development so I can take my millions of dollars and buy myself a hovercar, or we finally have enough money to cure cancer and people can actually pay for the treatment. You can be cash hording king of the neanderthals or even richer leader of a technical utopia with new luxuries to buy, I want the second, that is the nature of my personal greed. Sadly it is easy to be a rich neanderthal, especially with all these suckers pouring their money into 'investments' they don't understand (my winnings need to be coming from somewhere after all).

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by molson

Can you articulate it anymore than "it's stupid" or "it's absurd". Those aren't really points. The only thing stevebollea could come up with was "a charity government would not work". No shit. Not the point. I was just curious, if you believe the government is an amazing humanitarian vehicle, why not throw them a few extra bucks? More of a talking point than anything else, sure, but it's at least less absurd than the common refrain here that 55-year old Congressmen should actually enlist in the army if they're going to support a war.

I can actually tell you why I don't give the government a penny more than I have to. Because I know the'll waste the money and a fraction of every penny they get from me goes to anything worthwhile. If you DON'T believe that - what reason is left to pinch pennies when it comes to funding the government?

I suspect, of course, that the real, soul-based desire behind all this is just that "people who have more than me should have less", and the government taking it is one way to get there (even though a lot of that tax money of course just beneifts the rich anyway). Because there's no compassion, zero, none, to a belief that other people should pay more money. People walk around like their shit don't stink and think they're god's gift to the world because they think a rich guy should pay more in taxes, but they get downright OFFENDED if you suggest that they do anything individually to help anyone (or the government) themselves.

Somehow, the I doubt the fastest path to reform, and justice, and equality, is these deep-rooted beliefs that other people should be doing more to help. That will go NOWHERE. And it's really all the mainstream Democratic party preaches. Vote every year in meaningless elections and you're a GOOD person who can act all douchey to anyone with different views. And that's IT. That's a compelling product, I understand why it sells so well. The partisian douchebaggery has really set our decency back as a people quite a bit.

I think I'm with you, molson. It comes down to individual rights, and this works on both sides. Just like it's annoying when religious types want government to decide what to do with our lives, it's annoying when charitable types want government to decide what to do with our money? If you want to live a pious life, go for it -- just don't force others to. And if you want to live a charitable life, go for it, but again, don't force others to.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I think I'm with you, molson. It comes down to individual rights, and this works on both sides. Just like it's annoying when religious types want government to decide what to do with our lives, it's annoying when charitable types want government to decide what to do with our money? If you want to live a pious life, go for it -- just don't force others to. And if you want to live a charitable life, go for it, but again, don't force others to.

+1

[DaddyTorgo]

How about we cut some fucking defense spending. Until one party or the other seriously gets into the cutting the defense budget they're all just blowing smoke and they can go fuck themselves.

[Coffee Warlord]

17) Start cutting stuff the doesn't belong at the federal level and useless programs.

13) Stop tax subsidies, yes this includes your big mortgage write off and clunker car program and filling out lots of paperwork so you get a refund check. Don't tax people in the first place, and don't encourage them to spend, let them decide for themselves where the money will go. Maybe, just maybe, this will help slow down the creep in housing prices (people making suboptimal decisions about loans because of the tax write-off). For those of you who jump to the argument that not writing off mortgages will keep people from buying houses... yep, that lowers prices and decreases personal debt in the economy.

14) Cut other tax loopholes that let people shelter their money, simplify the tax code so its obvious when people are cheating it.

15) The above should increase tax revenues yet again.

16) Pay down the government debt in a way to reduce debt service costs.

How about we just do this instead? These steps alone will put us in better shape.

[DaddyTorgo]

The problem is that (17) is so vague and open to interpertation. Other than that...sure.

But you can't have a meaningful impact on spending until you tackle defense spending.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

But you can't have a meaningful impact on spending until you tackle defense spending.

Which is the very last thing that should be touched.

Better or more efficient spending on defense is a different matter afaic, but it is far & away the single more worthwhile function of our tax dollars.

[stevew]

I totally think we should stop the resource wars that are going on, but I do think that having a healthy national defense is worth the cost.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Which is the very last thing that should be touched.

Better or more efficient spending on defense is a different matter afaic, but it is far & away the single more worthwhile function of our tax dollars.

I definitely agree -- although I'm sure we have widely different ideas of what "defense" means.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Which is the very last thing that should be touched.

Better or more efficient spending on defense is a different matter afaic, but it is far & away the single more worthwhile function of our tax dollars.

But that's kind of the whole point, Jon. Nobody who advocates cutting defense spending is saying "just whack it 25% across the board."

There's really a two-fold thing going on there.

1) Every time the Pentagon comes back and says "We don't need this particular weapon or program" when they submit a budget, Congresscritters freak out because if that program is shut down, jobs will be lost and they might lose in the next election.

So they pass the spending anyway, even though it's spending the Pentagon says it neither wants nor needs, to bring pork home to the district and look good for re-election.

Surely that sort of spending can be trimmed without harming the efficiency or operation of our military.

2) The European societies who have universal health care, etc. You know why they can afford that? Because the US spends about as much on military endeavors as the next ten countries combined.



I'm not saying whack it by 90%, but we're so far ahead of the rest of the world in terms of that sort of spending that our allies have the luxury of relying on us to be the bulwark of their national defense.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I definitely agree -- although I'm sure we have widely different ideas of what "defense" means.

Well, the best defense is ...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I'm not saying whack it by 90%, but we're so far ahead of the rest of the world in terms of that sort of spending that our allies have the luxury of relying on us to be the bulwark of their national defense.

If you'd like to suggest that make better/more beneficial decisions in regard to how we benefit from that role, you'll get little argument from me.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If you'd like to suggest that make better/more beneficial decisions in regard to how we benefit from that role, you'll get little argument from me.

That's pretty much what everybody, even the evil liberals, who advocates looking at defense spending has been saying.

For goodness sake, it's the same argument those dastardly conservatives make about educational spending, only with the shoe on the other foot.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

But that's kind of the whole point, Jon. Nobody who advocates cutting defense spending is saying "just whack it 25% across the board."

There's really a two-fold thing going on there.

1) Every time the Pentagon comes back and says "We don't need this particular weapon or program" when they submit a budget, Congresscritters freak out because if that program is shut down, jobs will be lost and they might lose in the next election.

So they pass the spending anyway, even though it's spending the Pentagon says it neither wants nor needs, to bring pork home to the district and look good for re-election.

Surely that sort of spending can be trimmed without harming the efficiency or operation of our military.

2) The European societies who have universal health care, etc. You know why they can afford that? Because the US spends about as much on military endeavors as the next ten countries combined.



I'm not saying whack it by 90%, but we're so far ahead of the rest of the world in terms of that sort of spending that our allies have the luxury of relying on us to be the bulwark of their national defense.

Those numbers are old. If you add in Iraq and Afghanistan we spend more on the military than the rest of the world combined.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Which is the very last thing that should be touched.

Better or more efficient spending on defense is a different matter afaic, but it is far & away the single more worthwhile function of our tax dollars.

If only it were our tax dollars being used instead of money borrowed from China and other nations.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Those numbers are old. If you add in Iraq and Afghanistan we spend more on the military than the rest of the world combined.

And basically we fund China's defense spending with our debt payments to them.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

That's pretty much what everybody, even the evil liberals, who advocates looking at defense spending has been saying.

Umm ... unless I've missed a lot of discussions somewhere, I believe I was being a good bit more mercenary in my meaning than the typical conversation.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

How about we just do this instead? These steps alone will put us in better shape.

It won't really do much if we're talking about lowering the deficit. You have to cut Social Security, Medicare, Defense, or Veteran's Benefits to put a dent into it. No politician will touch those, thus no politician wants to cut our deficit.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It won't really do much if we're talking about lowering the deficit. You have to cut Social Security, Medicare, Defense, or Veteran's Benefits to put a dent into it. No politician will touch those, thus no politician wants to cut our deficit.

Which is why the rich continually get shafted. Until the well dries up, it's not political suicide.

[Greyroofoo]

Won't someone PLEASE care about the rich!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Coffee Warlord]

Yessss, so let's continue to be politically expedient and tax away, instead of actually fixing our fucked up, wasteful government.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Yes, the poor rich. Their income has only exploded by millions in the past 30 years while the average American's income has gone up a total of...wait for it...drum roll please...three hundred dollars.

You know if you spent as much time trying to grow your income as you do bitching on this forum you might be on the other side of the argument.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

You know if you spent as much time trying to grow your income as you do bitching on this forum you might be on the other side of the argument.

EDIT: Never mind, but, c'mon, *tweet* personal foul. I think there's a difference between arguing a point and going after "the rich" as opposed to going after individuals.

But, to a broader point, I do love the lottery ticket (and social darwinistic) mentality that we seem to have so prevalent in this country. If you're not among, say, the 0.3% of Americans not making $1M or more per year, clearly it's your fault and you're not trying hard enough. Oh, and it should be your goal among everything. And, if you don't think that money should be the be all, end all of your existence, then there but by the grace of the rich are you there scraping by.

SI

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Yessss, so let's continue to be politically expedient and tax away, instead of actually fixing our fucked up, wasteful government.

Federal taxes as a percentage of GDP are at the lowest levels in decades.

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Which is why the rich continually get shafted.

hahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahaha


WHAT?!?!?

[Karlifornia]

My grandma had to drink out of a separate drinking fountain, and this fuckin guy is talking about how "the rich continually get shafted"???

You gotta be joking. That kind of shit makes me want to punch walls.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Which is why the rich continually get shafted. Until the well dries up, it's not political suicide.

How is it that the rich continually get shafted? I mean, I know that they get beaten up on the income tax, as the highest bracket is 35% compared to 25% or lower*. But I'm having a hard time finding the numbers when you include all taxes- property, sales, etc- as a portion of income. For instance, I was seeing average numbers for one state where people making under, it was either $10K or $20K were paying over 20% of their income towards excise, sales taxes, and government fees while those making over $100K were only paying 5%. So, while, yes, the rich pay more in income tax percentage, it's not the only tax paid. When you add up all the other much more regressive taxes, that difference is not nearly as pronounced as these bogus claims about "50% of Americans pay no taxes". It's more like

Anyone have any numbers handy as I've given up on the Google-fu for tonight?

SI

*Never mind that many with higher incomes incorporate and pay less taxes, percentage-wise, than you and I so they're not even really paying that higher rate or anywhere even close

[JPhillips]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/blo...All_Income.jpg



These numbers are old, but should be pretty close to accurate.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

My grandma had to drink out of a separate drinking fountain, and this fuckin guy is talking about how "the rich continually get shafted"???

...really? We're gonna go that way? C'mon.

I'll concede my choice of words may have been less than ideal. My point, however, is quite simple: Trying to pay for failed policies, bullshit wars, corporate bailouts, pork, pork, and more pork by piling more taxes onto the highest tax bracket (which, I will also note, lumping in people making 250k/yr with people pulling in millions is also insane), is Not A Sustainable Or Desirable Situation.

And it pisses me off that it is the politically expedient means of sustaining a busted financial system. I don't give a shit if "they can afford it". It is not the sovereign duty of the wealthy to subsidize the country, especially when it's a government who is incapable of managing money and services with anything resembling efficiency.

And it pisses me off that no politician can hope to make big cuts into the federal government and survive politically, which really makes this entire discussion moot.

[ISiddiqui]

Consider it is the rich that benefit MOST from the government's spending (think they'd be that rich if money wasn't outlaid for the legal system, infrastructure, education spending, etc), why shouldn't help "subsidize" the rest of the country, considering everyone already subsidizes them.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

(...lumping in people making 250k/yr with people pulling in millions is also insane)

not really a fair statement. someone making $250K has a very small percentage of their earnings taxed at a higher rate, as compared to people pulling in millions. therefore they should be largely lumped in with the middle class, at least from a tax burden perspective

...is Not A Sustainable Or Desirable Situation

(1) compared to the alternative (growing inequality of wealth leading eventually to rioting/revolution violent overthrow of power), this is a more sustainable solution
(2) it certainly is more desireable (at least to the wallets; or at least from a self-serving perspective) for the vast majority of us who make <$250K

[ISiddiqui]

"Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual," - Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784.

Communist!

[stevew]

Why are we even talking about people making 250k, when hedgefund guys pay like 15% or less in taxation.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

...really? We're gonna go that way? C'mon.

I'll concede my choice of words may have been less than ideal. My point, however, is quite simple: Trying to pay for failed policies, bullshit wars, corporate bailouts, pork, pork, and more pork by piling more taxes onto the highest tax bracket (which, I will also note, lumping in people making 250k/yr with people pulling in millions is also insane), is Not A Sustainable Or Desirable Situation.

And it pisses me off that it is the politically expedient means of sustaining a busted financial system. I don't give a shit if "they can afford it". It is not the sovereign duty of the wealthy to subsidize the country, especially when it's a government who is incapable of managing money and services with anything resembling efficiency.

And it pisses me off that no politician can hope to make big cuts into the federal government and survive politically, which really makes this entire discussion moot.

But it's not like the rich are voting for the guy that loses in elections. In fact, I believe the rich have been on the winning side of the last 3 Presidential elections. I would side with you more if the rich were voting heavily for one side and losing in the election. But the guys the rich want in power are winning, so they only have themselves to blame if they don't like the results.

And as someone else mentioned, the wealthier you are the more valuable stability is to your assets. Government functioning is much more valuable to a person who is wealthy than someone with nothing. And there is a difference in what you get with wealth. I'm by no means rich but I feel I do well enough to live in a nice neighborhood of Chicago. When we had some muggings last Summer they practically sent in the National Guard. Yet kids get shot on a daily basis on the South Side and we barely hear a peep.

[lynchjm24]

It really isn't that complicated. The problem really isn't tax theory. There really aren't that many 'rich' people who would spend a lot of time debating that the income tax should be progressive.

It's a spending issue. At the local, state and federal issue the problems are the same. Bloated governments with employee unions that choke the taxpayer into submission.

The income tax in Connecticut is extremely regressive. Something like 6 towns provide 75% of the state tax receipts (and those towns get something like $1 back of every $100 they send to Hartford (oh how Steve would hate the Gold Coast). It doesn't change the fact that our inept state is pretty much run by the state employees union.

Local governments are just as ineffective. I pay over $1k a month in property taxes to a town of 13,000 people. I have to drive down roads that a moon rover would struggle to navigate.

I'm sure that Steve B would consider me 'rich', I pay much more in taxes in a year (federal, state, & local - ignoring transactional taxes) then the median income in one of the richest states in the country. I'm not looking for a tax cut, just for the love of god no more increases.

[lungs]

The nice thing about being a farmer is they can't tax you when you don't make any money!

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

It really isn't that complicated. The problem really isn't tax theory. There really aren't that many 'rich' people who would spend a lot of time debating that the income tax should be progressive.

It's a spending issue. At the local, state and federal issue the problems are the same. Bloated governments with employee unions that choke the taxpayer into submission.

The income tax in Connecticut is extremely regressive. Something like 6 towns provide 75% of the state tax receipts (and those towns get something like $1 back of every $100 they send to Hartford (oh how Steve would hate the Gold Coast). It doesn't change the fact that our inept state is pretty much run by the state employees union.

Local governments are just as ineffective. I pay over $1k a month in property taxes to a town of 13,000 people. I have to drive down roads that a moon rover would struggle to navigate.

I'm sure that Steve B would consider me 'rich', I pay much more in taxes in a year (federal, state, & local - ignoring transactional taxes) then the median income in one of the richest states in the country. I'm not looking for a tax cut, just for the love of god no more increases.

How is the CT income tax extremely regressive?

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

It really isn't that complicated. The problem really isn't tax theory. There really aren't that many 'rich' people who would spend a lot of time debating that the income tax should be progressive.

It's a spending issue.

They really are two separate issues that you are choosing to lump together. Many on here would probably agree that overall government spending should be reigned in, but that doesn't mean the allocation of tax burden shouldn't change.

The solution is very obvious and I'm upset that others don't draw the same conclusion as me:
Step 1. Determine lighthousekeepers annual income
Step 2. Create 2 tax brackets: A. all income < lighthousekeeper's income
B. all income > lighthousekeeper's income
Step 3. Tax bracket A at 0% and tax bracket B at 100%

It's a very simple solution.