10 myths

[BishopMVP]

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/..._040123-1.html

Apparently this was on 20/20 last night. Not sure if he's supposed to 'reveal' #1 tonight or if he has already done so, but some of the things are interesting.

[sabotai]

Myth #7 is definatly wrong. Money would definatly buy me happiness.

The rest seem to be generally correct.

[Maple Leafs]

It was on last night. Myth #1 was that things are worse now than they used to be. Went on to show several reasons why virtually everything -- crime, pollution, work, income, etc -- is better now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. Mostly a summary of Myths 10 thru 2.

[miami_fan]

That was hilarious

[Senator]

No Myths already set the bar for this kind of thing.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Myth #7 is definatly wrong. Money would definatly buy me happiness.

The rest seem to be generally correct.

You'd think so, but everything I've read indicates that increased choices don't make people happier and if anything, make people less unhappy becuase they are always comparing what they did to what they could have been doing. TMQ (and others) have recently put out books on this.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

You'd think so, but everything I've read indicates that increased choices don't make people happier and if anything, make people less unhappy becuase they are always comparing what they did to what they could have been doing. TMQ (and others) have recently put out books on this.

Give me more money and I will give you a definitive answer

[kcchief19]

This is a pretty accurate example of why I believe John Stossel is among the worst and most overrated reporters working in network news today. He is infamous for presenting one side of the story and leaving out anything that refutes his point. Read the story -- finde one mention of anyone refuting what he says.

For instance, he says that attributes excesses in consumer shopping to choice, not need, and mentions that homes have more than double in square footage in the last 50 years. That has little to do with consumer choice and more than local governments use exclusionary zoning to promote larger homes that generate more income in property taxes and attracts more affluent homeowners who will pay more sales and income taxes. If John wanted, there is a great story in how Americans are being told by local governments that we want you to come flip our burgers and bag our groceries, but we'd prefer you live 30 minutes away because we don't want your kind hanging around.

Can money buy hapiness? I don't know, but I'm a hell of a lot happier now than when I was making $15,000 a year, and I'd be a hell of a lot happier if I were making any more. What John has missed is perspective. If Russell Simmons and his millionaire friends are unhappy, what are they unhappy about? Is he unhappy that Donald Trump bought the penthouse that we was looking at? Or is he unhappy because the kids at school made fun of his kid because he doesn't have enough money to buy him new jeans? I'll agree that money won't solve your love life or let you play catch with your dead father, so in that sense money can't buy happiness. But since research indicates that the primary problem facing the typical American family is money, it seems that having more of it would make you better off than most, and if doesn't then that's because you're freakin' asshole.

I also always like the argument about how the top 1 percent pays 34 percent of the income taxes, and that's not "fair." But the top 1 percent control 40 percent of the wealth, so in that sense, the rich actually pay less than their fair share. I'm not arguing which approach is right -- I actually think both formulas are flawed -- but it shows once again John just wanted to get on his soapbox and prove his point, facts be damned.

OK, now I'll get off MY soapbox.

[miami_fan]

Seriously I also do not believe that money in and of itself will make buy you happiness. I think the perspective of this is very important but I know at least in my neck of the woods, I am considered "happier" than many friends that make more money.

[chinaski]

I dont get #5. It makes no sense at all.

But let's remember the facts: the top 1 percent of Americans — those who earn more than about $300,000 a year — pay 34 percent, more than a third of all income taxes, and the top 5 percent, those making over $125,000, pay more than half.

So what? That has nothing to do with the TAX RATE of these people. Im sure what they pay is 34% of the total tax collected in america, but it doesnt mean they are paying 34% of their wealth in taxes.

All i know, the more money ive made over the years, the less federal income tax ive had to pay. It aint right.

[Draft Dodger]

#11) Calling a timeout before a field goal attempt "ices" the kicker.

[sabotai]

Federal tax rates: http://taxes.yahoo.com/rates.html

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

This is a pretty accurate example of why I believe John Stossel is among the worst and most overrated reporters working in network news today. He is infamous for presenting one side of the story and leaving out anything that refutes his point. Read the story -- finde one mention of anyone refuting what he says.

The reason he doesn't have people refuting him is that he is trying to disprove myths - generally accepted truths. He also has a book that probably goes into much more detail.

For instance, he says that attributes excesses in consumer shopping to choice, not need, and mentions that homes have more than double in square footage in the last 50 years. That has little to do with consumer choice and more than local governments use exclusionary zoning to promote larger homes that generate more income in property taxes and attracts more affluent homeowners who will pay more sales and income taxes. If John wanted, there is a great story in how Americans are being told by local governments that we want you to come flip our burgers and bag our groceries, but we'd prefer you live 30 minutes away because we don't want your kind hanging around.

Who exactly are the people behind that 'don't want your kind hanging around' insinuation? It is not Spanish Dons, it is other Americans. The argument that there is income inequality has been presented quite a few times, and it was even 1/3 of my Sociology class this fall, but as long as all Americans lives are being improved, it doesn't matter too much to me, and besides that, it is not the point of this part of the article.

Can money buy hapiness? I don't know, but I'm a hell of a lot happier now than when I was making $15,000 a year, and I'd be a hell of a lot happier if I were making any more.

He presents 2 cut-off's of $30,000 and $50,000 respectively.

What John has missed is perspective. If Russell Simmons and his millionaire friends are unhappy, what are they unhappy about? Is he unhappy that Donald Trump bought the penthouse that we was looking at? Or is he unhappy because the kids at school made fun of his kid because he doesn't have enough money to buy him new jeans?

You are also guilty of a lack of perspective. How would someone who is in real poverty and doesn't have the ability to put food on the table will look at the fact you are complaining because you can't buy newer clothes? Probably the same as someone complaining they couldn't get the penthouse apartment they wanted.

I'll agree that money won't solve your love life or let you play catch with your dead father, so in that sense money can't buy happiness. But since research indicates that the primary problem facing the typical American family is money, it seems that having more of it would make you better off than most, and if doesn't then that's because you're freakin' asshole.

I believe any research you show will prove that most Americans believe the problem preventing them from being happy is more money, but whether or not this is actually the case is debatable. And I believe the word you are looking for is ungrateful, not freakin' asshole.

I also always like the argument about how the top 1 percent pays 34 percent of the income taxes, and that's not "fair." But the top 1 percent control 40 percent of the wealth, so in that sense, the rich actually pay less than their fair share. I'm not arguing which approach is right -- I actually think both formulas are flawed -- but it shows once again John just wanted to get on his soapbox and prove his point, facts be damned.

Here is the article on it

Originally Posted by John Stossel

Myth No. 5 — The Rich Don't Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes
We've all heard this one during the presidential campaign. When it comes to income taxes, the Democratic presidential candidates keep telling us, the rich don't pay enough.

That's a widespread belief, but do the politicians even know how much of the income tax burden the rich pay now?


According to presidential candidate Al Sharpton, "The top one percent in this country pays very much less than ten percent, very much less than five percent."

Sharpton said he thinks the wealthy should pay "somewhere around 15 percent."

But that's so silly because — and I bet most of you don't know this — the IRS says the richest 1 percent of taxpayers already pay 34 percent of all income taxes. Twice what Sharpton wanted them to pay.

Still you may feel the rich should pay even more. It's a tempting thought, since they have so much. But let's remember the facts: the top 1 percent of Americans — those who earn more than about $300,000 a year — pay 34 percent, more than a third of all income taxes, and the top 5 percent, those making over $125,000, pay more than half.

There are 2 points here you could get from reading that passage. The overt intent is that most politicians (and thus people in general) underestimate how much rich people pay. You could also read it to mean he's arguing that rich people already do pay enough in taxes. Both arguments are probably valid.

[Primal]

Originally Posted by chinaski

I dont get #5. It makes no sense at all.



So what? That has nothing to do with the TAX RATE of these people. Im sure what they pay is 34% of the total tax collected in america, but it doesnt mean they are paying 34% of their wealth in taxes.

All i know, the more money ive made over the years, the less federal income tax ive had to pay. It aint right.

So you'd rather punish people for being productive and making money? That’s a good lesson to teach our children. Work hard and you can be poor like everyone else.

There is a little island south of Florida that has that same mentality. If you don't like capitalize go to a socialist state.

Edit: Damn HTML editor

[NoMyths]

Doomed!

[sabotai]

BRILLIANT!

[illinifan999]

There ain't no we in team eitha


Money can give me happiness. When I didn't have any money, I was sad. Now that I have money, I am happy.

[Fonzie]

Money may not buy happiness, but it'll go a long way toward buying a new liver.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Primal

So you'd rather punish people for being productive and making money? That’s a good lesson to teach our children. Work hard and you can be poor like everyone else.

There is a little island south of Florida that has that same mentality. If you don't like capitalize go to a socialist state.

Considering the top tax bracket for individuals is 35% in this country, there is plenty of room to increase that before our Capitalist economy turns into a Socialist one.

[Draft Dodger]

interesting that he talked to Russell Simmons.

anyone see his house on MTV Cribs? Easily the most gorgeous house I've seen on that show. By a mile, really. Not only lavish and extravagent - but tastefully done as well.

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by Primal

So you'd rather punish people for being productive and making money? That’s a good lesson to teach our children. Work hard and you can be poor like everyone else.

There is a little island south of Florida that has that same mentality. If you don't like capitalize go to a socialist state.

Edit: Damn HTML editor

i dont feel sorry for anyone who makes over 311k a year. Take away 35% of that and it hardly qualifies someone as poor. What bothers me the most is when income tax is cut for the wealthy, its shifted too lower income folks.

which leads me too...

thats only EARNED income tax! the wealthiest 5% could careless about it. The real money is in UNEARNED income and dividends. Once you add up UNEARNED and EARNED, the total tax paid is nowhere remotely near 35%. Its more like 5%.

Thats whats truely disgusting.

The average american doesnt get any relief like this, simply because - theyre average.

[Primal]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Considering the top tax bracket for individuals is 35% in this country, there is plenty of room to increase that before our Capitalist economy turns into a Socialist one.

35% + 9.5% (California) = 44.5%

So you work almost to July for the Government before a dime goes in your pocket. You don't think that’s bad?

When did government taxation become so acceptable?

[Primal]

Originally Posted by chinaski

i dont feel sorry for anyone who makes over 311k a year. Take away 35% of that and it hardly qualifies someone as poor. What bothers me the most is when income tax is cut for the wealthy, its shifted too lower income folks.

I think the best method would be to move toward an consumption tax. That way there is no Rich vs. Poor. Everything would be equal (as far as taxes are concerned).

[Dutch]

Myth No. 6 — Republicans Shrink the Government

Republicans always trot out the slogan that they oppose big government and want to shrink the federal payroll. President Bush tells us that "big government is not the answer." President Reagan told us, "Our government is too big and it spends too much."

But for more than 75 years, no Republican administration has cut the size of government. Since George W. Bush became president, government spending has risen nearly 25 percent.

And the spending increase isn't just tied to the war on terrorism. The Office of Management and Budget says spending at the Environmental Protection Agency is up 12 percent, it's up 14 percent at the Agriculture Department, 30 percent at the Department of the Interior, 64 percent at the Department of Labor, and 70 percent at the Department of Education.

And let's not forget about #6 on the list. The Democrats are screaming bloody murder that we aren't spending enough on Environment, Labor, and Education social services. The Republicans are bad at Big Government? I guess, with all the rhetoric being thrown around in Iowa and NH, we ain't seen nothing yet!

[Primal]

Originally Posted by chinaski

The real money is in UNEARNED income and dividends.

I'd love to know where the untaxed dividends are.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Primal

35% + 9.5% (California) = 44.5%

So you work almost to July for the Government before a dime goes in your pocket. You don't think that’s bad?

When did government taxation become so acceptable?

I was only pointing out that you were exaggerating your point. Also, like someone else said, the 35% bracket is only on income earned above $311,000, so my anger is tempered by that.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Dutch

And let's not forget about #6 on the list. The Democrats are screaming bloody murder that we aren't spending enough on Environment, Labor, and Education social services. The Republicans are bad at Big Government? I guess, with all the rhetoric being thrown around in Iowa and NH, we ain't seen nothing yet!

The myth is that Republicans shrink government. They don't, and even though the Democrats are almost certainly worse on this, it doesn't make the point any less true. An example on the other side would be that Democrats are good on Civil Liberties. Janet Reno was worse than John Ashcroft at infinging on people's rights, but that doesn't get mentioned much in the hoopla surrounding the Patriot Act.

[Desnudo]

If I remember correctly the highest tax bracket around World War II was 90%. So it's happened in past where the brackets diverged greatly. What's interesting is that there were nearly 0% of the people actually in that bracket. Higher taxes provide a disincentive to earn money after a certain point. In case anyone was curious, there was no income tax at all prior to the Civil War.

I don't like the idea of diverging tax rates because of the implication that the government is trying to force "equality of outcome" instead of "equality of opportunity." I think it gets away from the spirit this country was founded on. I would much prefer to see Milton Friedman's idea of taxation based on usuage and impact.

Emotion and rhetoric shouldn't play a part in discussing tax plans but unfortunately that's all that seems to impact tax law.

[Primal]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

I don't like the idea of diverging tax rates because of the implication that the government is trying to force "equality of outcome" instead of "equality of opportunity." I think it gets away from the spirit this country was founded on. I would much prefer to see Milton Friedman's idea of taxation based on usuage and impact.

Well said.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

there is a great story in how Americans are being told by local governments that we want you to come flip our burgers and bag our groceries, but we'd prefer you live 30 minutes away because we don't want your kind hanging around.

Then I wish to hell & back my local government would listen to that message, because I've been trying to get that very point across to them for years.

This is essentially a bedroom community and the very last thing on earth I want is to have my property tax rate increased yet again in order to pay for infrastructure and service cost of people who contribute diddly squat relative to their cost.

We already have an ample supply of undereducated, undermotivated, and underskilled workers, to fill the small demand for burger flipping and grocery bagging, so please -- no more here, let somebody carry the f'n dead weight for a while, my back is tired.

And that's my little rant.

[sabotai]

thats only EARNED income tax! the wealthiest 5% could careless about it. The real money is in UNEARNED income and dividends. Once you add up UNEARNED and EARNED, the total tax paid is nowhere remotely near 35%. Its more like 5%.

And you wouldn't have any information or research to back up this claim, would you?

[Fritz]

I think most rational people already knew #3.

[Tigercat]

The one simple simple thing that isn't mentioned when partisian debates on taxes occur is that the rich would not be rich, in terms of legal tender, if not for the government. That is the simple reason why I agree with the point made above:
If one group of people, say the upper 1%, control a certain amount of the money, say 40%, they should indeed account for that amount of that tax burden. It seems quite fair and simple to me, and because we are talking percentages of wealth nation-wide and percentages of federal taxes paid from an income bracket, state and local taxes don't factor in. So if it is indeed true that the top 1% control 40% of the wealth and only pay 34% in taxes, it seems pretty obvious to me who should get a tax raise.

[yabanci]

actually, the top 1% of Americans own as much wealth as the bottom 95% percent.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

The one simple simple thing that isn't mentioned when partisian debates on taxes occur is that the rich would not be rich, in terms of legal tender, if not for the government. That is the simple reason why I agree with the point made above:
If one group of people, say the upper 1%, control a certain amount of the money, say 40%, they should indeed account for that amount of that tax burden. It seems quite fair and simple to me, and because we are talking percentages of wealth nation-wide and percentages of federal taxes paid from an income bracket, state and local taxes don't factor in. So if it is indeed true that the top 1% control 40% of the wealth and only pay 34% in taxes, it seems pretty obvious to me who should get a tax raise.

If it was 40% of the total national income, then fine, but if we are talking about total held wealth, it's not right to compare solely against federal income taxes. That's 34% income tax. It's an apples and oranges comparison. If you factor in capital gains, estate taxes, property taxes, sales tax, luxury tax, etc.., I'd bet the amount comes out more evenly.

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by yabanci

actually, the top 1% of Americans own as much wealth as the bottom 95% percent.

Funny though, color TVs and designer sneakers are much more even in ditribution. I bet the top 1% owns hardly more than 5% of the cell phones and play stations.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by chinaski

I dont get #5. It makes no sense at all.



So what? That has nothing to do with the TAX RATE of these people. Im sure what they pay is 34% of the total tax collected in america, but it doesnt mean they are paying 34% of their wealth in taxes.

All i know, the more money ive made over the years, the less federal income tax ive had to pay. It aint right.

Wish it worked that way for me. Two years ago I started making decent money and I also started having to pay more taxes, rather than getting a refund.

[Bubba Wheels]

Money may not buy happiness, but it does buy a certain amount of security. Big-name celebrities get away with murder and other crimes by hiring big-shot lawyers that game the legal system. Lesser folk would be put away for long-term sentences or life for similar offenses. I am reminded by the speech the late, great Richard Harris gives at the end of "The Molly McGuires": "The law is bought, like you would buy a loaf of bread." Maybe not always in the extreme, but almost always with some amount of degree.

[BishopMVP]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

[Bubba Wheels]

This is not just in the area of courtrooms and lawyers. High-income suburbs have much lower crime rates than low-income urban areas do, this is undisputable. Then again, this may all be by design, as incentive to work hard, get ahead, and get your kids into a much safer enviroment with better schools? One principle I remember from a long-ago psycology class was that pain was actually an incentive for personal change and improvement. Then again, maybe it is all relative.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by chinaski

All i know, the more money ive made over the years, the less federal income tax ive had to pay. It aint right.

What country do you live in?

[Glengoyne]

dola,

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Considering the top tax bracket for individuals is 35% in this country, there is plenty of room to increase that before our Capitalist economy turns into a Socialist one.

Pretty sure the top tax bracket is over 40%. Not that people in that bracket pay more than 40% of their income, but the income within in that top bracket is taxed at a forty something percent.

Originally Posted by chinaski

thats only EARNED income tax! the wealthiest 5% could careless about it. The real money is in UNEARNED income and dividends. Once you add up UNEARNED and EARNED, the total tax paid is nowhere remotely near 35%. Its more like 5%.

Only if you are using the same calculator as Al Sharpton. Seriously though, If you have something credible to back this up, I'd like to see it.

Originally Posted by chinaski

If I remember correctly the highest tax bracket around World War II was 90%. So it's happened in past where the brackets diverged greatly. What's interesting is that there were nearly 0% of the people actually in that bracket. Higher taxes provide a disincentive to earn money after a certain point. In case anyone was curious, there was no income tax at all prior to the Civil War.

The highest tax bracket was over 90% during WW2. It stayed close to that until 1982(maybe '81) when President Reagan lowered it to thirty something. Regarding the no income tax thought. I don't think there was an actual federal income tax until circa World War I. 1930 seems like the year, but I can't remember for certain.(Next stop Google I guess)

[Bubba Wheels]

The Federal Income Tax has been said to be unconstitutional. Even though congress enacted the tax, as I understand it they made no penalty provision for not paying and hence, technically, it is not binding. Rob Lowe even makes mention of this during a West Wing episode (not actually considered a far-right show).

[sabotai]

I know it was earlier than 1930 that an icome tax was started. I have a few old income tax receipts from a LONG time ago from ancesters of mine (How much did they pay in income tax? One was for $1, the second was for $2). I'm pretty sure the receipt said federal....I'll have to check.

[sabotai]

Bah. They're not where I last saw them. My parents must have put them away or something.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by sabotai

I know it was earlier than 1930 that an icome tax was started. I have a few old income tax receipts from a LONG time ago from ancesters of mine (How much did they pay in income tax? One was for $1, the second was for $2). I'm pretty sure the receipt said federal....I'll have to check.

Just back from Google, and it looks like the 1913 year was correct. In 1932 the system changed and is the first income tax that resembles what we have today. The revenue act of 1932 it was called. The 1913 version had such high deductions that almost everyone was exempt.

Edit: hehe I just noticed that I removed my reference to 1913 in the original post. See if I ever second guess myself again.

[Fritz]

this is an incredibly clueless post.

Originally Posted by chinaski

thats only EARNED income tax! the wealthiest 5% could careless about it. The real money is in UNEARNED income and dividends. Once you add up UNEARNED and EARNED, the total tax paid is nowhere remotely near 35%. Its more like 5%.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

This is not just in the area of courtrooms and lawyers. High-income suburbs have much lower crime rates than low-income urban areas do, this is undisputable. Then again, this may all be by design, as incentive to work hard, get ahead, and get your kids into a much safer enviroment with better schools? One principle I remember from a long-ago psycology class was that pain was actually an incentive for personal change and improvement.

I just fail to see what this or your original post had to do with people's happiness. If the knowledge that you could kill your wife and have a better chance than someone else of avoiding prison time makes you happy, that's great, but I don't think that's a large factor for most people.

Then again, maybe it is all relative.

Bingo. Once you reach a certain point, it comes down to what you yourself think of the situation. If you are someone in the middle class of this country, or even much of the lower-class, you can complain that you can't afford that bigger TV or you could realize that you're living in conditions superior to those of the Kings of Europe from 500 years ago.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Pretty sure the top tax bracket is over 40%. Not that people in that bracket pay more than 40% of their income, but the income within in that top bracket is taxed at a forty something percent.

Just going off the link provided earlier in the thread - http://taxes.yahoo.com/rates.html - the highest federal bracket is 35%. I don't know how accurate it is, and in most places, once you add on state and local taxes, that probably goes up over 40% anyway.

EDIT - I figured as long as we're on the topic of how much the wealthy pay in taxes, I would link to the thread on taxes in general/supply-side tax cuts from a couple months ago. http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/for...ht=reagonomics

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

The Federal Income Tax has been said to be unconstitutional. Even though congress enacted the tax, as I understand it they made no penalty provision for not paying and hence, technically, it is not binding. Rob Lowe even makes mention of this during a West Wing episode (not actually considered a far-right show).

Um, no. http://www.unclefed.com/Tax-News/2001/nr01-73.html

I wouldn't trust the West Wing to be my Constitutional Authority.