When reason fails, go with false attribution, create a strawman, argue against that. You'll win every time.
When reason fails, go with false attribution, create a strawman, argue against that. You'll win every time.
Feel free to offer countervailing evidence.
Denial is just a whole lot easier, huh?
Even these guys say basically the same thing in numbers, but you have to dig at them a little to come to the same conclusions-
http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0
I suppose they're also "Leftists", huh?
shortylickens
No Lifer
- Jul 15, 2003
- 80,287
- 17,082
- 136
- Jun 19, 2000
- 18,883
- 641
- 126
I learned something today. We have common ground between us. I read Mother Jones nearly 40 years ago. The difference between us is that I quit reading it and grew up - a long, long time ago.
But I do get it. Some folks just can't give up the fight. They like "to protest"! They want to "stick it to the man"! Some of them wake up one day and realized they've thrown away so much in a fight that they are no closer to winning than they were the day way back when they started in a haze of hash smoke. Some of them never wake up. They carry the banner until they're too weary to do so anymore. They continue to vote for the same people that have been promising them results for decade after decade after decade. They continue to defend those same people too.
But by all means keep on keepin' on. Power to the people brother!
Oh, and I dissed your source but at the heart of the matter is that I just don't see a problem where you see a problem. I grew up and learned to work within the system.
Matt1970
Lifer
- Mar 19, 2007
- 12,320
- 3
- 0
Well, you have said it before and you are even basically saying it here, the reason their income doubled was because of the 1/3rd their taxes were cut. If allowing people to keep more of their own money allows them to make that much more and in turn pay more overall in income taxes, I think anyone in their right mind will take that all day long. Or would you rather they pay a lesser share of total tax revenue but at a higher rate just to be "fair"?
BTW, your chart is pure BS as it is nothing more than speculation. Speculation is not fact. Middle income tax rates were cut as well so how does cutting everyones taxes adversly effect the middle class? I have proven to you time and time again that the decline in middle income can be traced back to when we started rinning trade deficits in the late 60's/earlly 70's.
Sigh. You're not getting it, nor will you ever in all likelihood. You want not to get it, after all. I'd much rather that people at mid income make a lager share of national income so they could pay the same tax rates as they did pre-Reagan. If income distribution had remained unchanged from 1979, median families would be making ~40% more. Even paying higher taxes, they'd be a lot better off, as would the economy in general.
The chart is extrapolation, not speculation. The numbers from the Tax Foundation are actual data, confirming the accuracy of that. Middle income tax cuts simply have not made up for the loss of income share. It's quite impossible that they ever could have, or ever will.
The whole schtick about when this trend started is really immaterial. The effect was quite small in the 70's, and has only accelerated in a non-linear fashion as top tier tax cuts have taken effect. Those tax cuts just give capitalists more money to invest offshore, and to speculatively inflate asset prices in this country. Investment in productive enterprise in this country is quite low, has been for decades. Financial manipulation is not productive enterprise.
Matt1970
Lifer
- Mar 19, 2007
- 12,320
- 3
- 0
No, you aren't getting it. They will make a larger share, but of a smaller pie. And what you repeatedly seem to not get is that all income levels had their taxes reduced. Why did that adversely effect the middle income levels? It's because it had already started in the 70's and it did not accelerated in a non-linear fashion in the 80's. And the "whole schtick about when this trend started" is material because you keep blaming it on Reagan when the wheels were set in motion 10 years before he took office.
Engineer
Elite Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 39,230
- 701
- 126
So the only reason that their income doubled was because of the 1/3 tax cut? Nothing to do with undermining the middle class jobs of the US in favor or slave wages of foreign countries (and much higher incomes and profits) while at the same time pushing for lower taxes for the lower and middle classes to make up for the shortfall of income (even to the point of going negative on taxes - EIC - to make up for the loss of consumption). Throw in consumer debt and now you have a double temporary 'win'. You have higher profits from cheaper labor and even more profits from giving your former employees credit so that they can continue their lifestyles.
Of course, you could say that the 1/3 tax cut gave those at the top the much needed capital to build those new factories in China/etc. to help push the jobs out and move their incomes higher. Probably would be truth to that.
But of course, the above didn't happen and it was only tax cuts that allowed them to double their income.
The reason that the top 1% are paying more of the share of taxes is....
and this (worker's share of national income):
Sure, they have lower tax rates but the "bottom class" has been removed from federal tax rolls because the government, in its' effort to subsidize their income, has went negative on the tax for them. Of course, now we have a debt/deficit issue and people are focusing on getting those at the bottom to 'pay something'. That would be 'more fair' than getting those at the top to 'pay more'.
Last edited:
It's remarkable that you need to make derisive attributions about me that aren't true at all. It's a form of strawman argument. Like you, I've done well, but I have broader concerns than my own well being. It's not all about me, at all. Never was.
"I got mine", but I don't really believe in the second half of the usual conservative mantra, the "Screw you" part.
I realize that it's difficult for people who live in the upper 20-30% of incomes to appreciate what's happened to us at a broader level. The changes have bypassed us for the most part, affecting the tippy-top and the less fortunate. That's what the chart shows. We also tend to discount the effect of fortune, of joss, of luck in our own well being. We like to think that we're smarter or that we work harder when we're often just luckier.
Figure it out. Extrapolate the trends of the last 30 years another 30 years into the future. Tell me that you want that world for our grandchildren.
So the only reason that their income doubled was because of the 1/3 tax cut? Nothing to do with undermining the middle class jobs of the US in favor or slave wages of foreign countries (and much higher incomes and profits) while at the same time pushing for lower taxes for the lower and middle classes to make up for the shortfall of income (even to the point of going negative on taxes - EIC - to make up for the loss of consumption). Throw in consumer debt and now you have a double temporary 'win'. You have higher profits from cheaper labor and even more profits from giving your former employees credit so that they can continue their lifestyles.
Of course, you could say that the 1/3 tax cut gave those at the top the much needed capital to build those new factories in China/etc. to help push the jobs out and move their incomes higher. Probably would be truth to that.
But of course, the above didn't happen and it was only tax cuts that allowed them to double their income.
The reason that the top 1% are paying more of the share of taxes is....
and this (worker's share of national income):
Sure, they have lower tax rates but the "bottom class" has been removed from federal tax rolls because the government, in its' effort to subsidize their income, has went negative on the tax for them. Of course, now we have a debt/deficit issue and people are focusing on getting those at the bottom to 'pay something'. That would be 'more fair' than getting those at the top to 'pay more'.
Thank you. Well said.
Point 2: neglects to mention that under Bush Jr the figure was the same
Point 4: shows all american workers, a large chunk of this is part time workers, so the stat is skewed
Point 11: In 2004 the trade deficit to China was a little under 8 billion...under bush's 2nd term it went $260billion, and it is now massively saturated thanks to policies from both that it has nowhere to go but up.
Point 12: The 0.6 million that came out of manufacturing mostly went into either management or other jobs.
Point 18: Blame oil companies. They've admitted to artificially inflating prices to make more profits
Point 19: See point 18, price of oil affects price of electricity due to running costs of turbines etc. Also electricity companies penalise people who use solar/wind.
Point 20: Healthcare has risen globally, obamacare can't be the reason for NHS cost increases in the UK, or the healthcare system in France or Germany etc.
Point 21: The US provides very little in terms of the global market. Furs, small amounts of coal, small amounts of industrial materials. This is nothing compared to say Germany or China. (By small amounts, I mean globally)
Point 22: who the hell wants to start a business in a recession? (which btw, was started by bush, and only exacerbated by obama)
Point 23: This is a good thing that people want to go to college, but it shows that the colleges are also charging way too much!
Point 24: This figure was around 43% under bush Sr, 9% under Clinton, 58% under Bush Jr, and yes it is an increase, but it fluctuates based on the economy. If the economy is good it goes down, if it is bad, it goes up.
Point 27: The census was from 2010, the cencus prior to that in 200 had the figure at roughly the same, and in 1990 the figure was higher.
Point 32: The "new debt" is primarily from interest from previous debts created. Obama's "loans" from other countries is significantly lower than what Bush Jr had.
Hell I could make 33 points that point everything at bush jr, or I can make 33 points to push it to clinton...all about how your political skew is.
Point 4: shows all american workers, a large chunk of this is part time workers, so the stat is skewed
Point 11: In 2004 the trade deficit to China was a little under 8 billion...under bush's 2nd term it went $260billion, and it is now massively saturated thanks to policies from both that it has nowhere to go but up.
Point 12: The 0.6 million that came out of manufacturing mostly went into either management or other jobs.
Point 18: Blame oil companies. They've admitted to artificially inflating prices to make more profits
Point 19: See point 18, price of oil affects price of electricity due to running costs of turbines etc. Also electricity companies penalise people who use solar/wind.
Point 20: Healthcare has risen globally, obamacare can't be the reason for NHS cost increases in the UK, or the healthcare system in France or Germany etc.
Point 21: The US provides very little in terms of the global market. Furs, small amounts of coal, small amounts of industrial materials. This is nothing compared to say Germany or China. (By small amounts, I mean globally)
Point 22: who the hell wants to start a business in a recession? (which btw, was started by bush, and only exacerbated by obama)
Point 23: This is a good thing that people want to go to college, but it shows that the colleges are also charging way too much!
Point 24: This figure was around 43% under bush Sr, 9% under Clinton, 58% under Bush Jr, and yes it is an increase, but it fluctuates based on the economy. If the economy is good it goes down, if it is bad, it goes up.
Point 27: The census was from 2010, the cencus prior to that in 200 had the figure at roughly the same, and in 1990 the figure was higher.
Point 32: The "new debt" is primarily from interest from previous debts created. Obama's "loans" from other countries is significantly lower than what Bush Jr had.
Hell I could make 33 points that point everything at bush jr, or I can make 33 points to push it to clinton...all about how your political skew is.
Matt1970
Lifer
- Mar 19, 2007
- 12,320
- 3
- 0
And none of it had anything to do with the fact that we were purchasing everything import we could get our hands on just to save a buck. Blaming the loss of jobs on American companies has a timeline problem and that problem is a lot of the foreign companies were selling here long before any American companies shipped jobs overseas. Toyota wasn't an American company that started shipping jobs overseas. Subaru wasn't an American company that started shipping jobs overseas. Sony wasn't an American company that started shipping jobs overseas. Get the picture? BTW, were were warned this shit would happen way back then, but we chose to ignore it an opt to blame it on offshoring. We screwed ourselves and are just looking for a scapegoat.
Engineer
Elite Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 39,230
- 701
- 126
Yet every company that you mentioned (except Sony) has built factories in the US while the US companies have moved them out. Toyota alone is responsible for 100,000's of thousands of jobs in the US from their manufacturing and their supplier base (also many of them building US factories even thought they are from Japan).
Contrast that to the typical US company and CEO.....it wasn't about competing only...it was about bringing soaring "short term" profits (and wages) to those at the top as quickly as possible. Look at the Japanese (or many other country's CEO's) and see how their wages compare to their employees over the decades. Contrast that to the US.
(of course you won't do that - would be against your argument)
I'm not going to argue that we were not warned. Ross Perot, and his giant sucking sound, was right. I'm sure there were many more that warned the same thing. Yet, there are still more people who think more 'free trade' is the answer.....many on this very forum.
Oh, and it still doesn't change the fact that the top pay a higher percent of the taxes because they have effectively sent the bottom off of the tax scales as I said above.
Finally, US manufacturers weren't forced to move offshore...they opted to move out because they wanted MORE profits and higher wages. Sure, some were forced (by the likes of the Walmarts of the world - who wanted MORE themselves too - now they are paying for it and trying to figure out how to bring it back)...but many OPTED to do it because they wanted more of the pie. Shortsighted but that's the trend....grab as much as you can quickly and let the next guy figure out how to fix the mess.
Last edited:
Heh. American investment in those companies has been huge & instrumental. Jobs follow investment, in case you hadn't noticed.
Matt1970
Lifer
- Mar 19, 2007
- 12,320
- 3
- 0
No, jobs and investment follow the money. There is little demand for American made products. Are companies supposed to just fold up because everyone wants cheap imported crap, or are they going to adapt?
Matt1970
Lifer
- Mar 19, 2007
- 12,320
- 3
- 0
That's well after the fact and mostly in the last decade or so that they are building factories in the US. It goes way back before Perot that we were warned. I remember back in the 70's the saying was something like Every time you puchase an import car 1.4 Americans lose their jobs. Please don't quote me on that, but we were warned long ago. We now reap what we sow.
*EDIT* And you are right. Open free trade with countries that manipulate their currency and have slave labor is only making things worse. We as Americans want to feel good that we have labor unions fighting for higher wages for us, demand the EPA and OSHA have guidelines for safe and clean work environments, all of which drives up the cost of doing business and in turn prices, and then we turn around and crap all over all of it by opting for the cheaper imported items over American made ones.
Last edited:
Putting the cart ahead of the horse.
It was the desire for greater profit that sent investment offshore. American products are often still competitively priced. Investor yields are just smaller.
Matt1970
Lifer
- Mar 19, 2007
- 12,320
- 3
- 0
Yes you are by blaming the loss of jobs on outsourcing rather than Americans greed for cheap crap.
Engineer
Elite Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 39,230
- 701
- 126
So outsourcing / offshoring had (has) nothing to do with the greed at the top (who are doing said outsourcing / offshoring)? The charts above paint a different picture. Notice that once you start sending the jobs out and the incomes start to lower, there is often not a choice but to buy the cheapest products you can find...especially on Walmart/McDonald's wages (Walmart/McDonalds/Yum Brands now account for nearly 2% of US jobs).
Matt1970
Lifer
- Mar 19, 2007
- 12,320
- 3
- 0
I don't think anyons is arguing the the top wasn't getting a bigger piece of the pie. The problem is the portions of the pie for the lower and middle class started shrinking back in the 70's well before all the outsourcing and tax cuts. Is it a coincidence we started running trade deficits in 1970?
Here's another but this only goes back as far as 75
The part you're not getting, Matt, is that growth has been more than adequate. Your last graph shows that. It's just that our conceptualization of how to distribute the rewards (on the basis of work) doesn't reflect the reality that income sourcing has shifted to investment, much of it offshore.
Low taxes on enormous investment incomes only make that worse. As American capitalists' dependence on American labor has diminished, we end up on the losing end of currency imbalances & labor arbitrage. We also end up being subject to various forms of crowding out & economic extortion, as well. That's what current campaign financing & the whole Job Creator meme are all about.
Other first world nations have resorted to a variety of mechanisms to provide for their citizens, mechanisms that our version of Capitalism simply doesn't, and won't unless we change some of our underlying assumptions.
Low taxes on enormous investment incomes only make that worse. As American capitalists' dependence on American labor has diminished, we end up on the losing end of currency imbalances & labor arbitrage. We also end up being subject to various forms of crowding out & economic extortion, as well. That's what current campaign financing & the whole Job Creator meme are all about.
Other first world nations have resorted to a variety of mechanisms to provide for their citizens, mechanisms that our version of Capitalism simply doesn't, and won't unless we change some of our underlying assumptions.
Well, I suppose one could classify Saudi Crude as a "cheap crappy import'.
I remember the Conservative led beat down administered to Jimmy Carter when he tried to convince us that energy efficiency & conservation were a big part of the answer.
I remember the Conservative led beat down administered to Jimmy Carter when he tried to convince us that energy efficiency & conservation were a big part of the answer.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter