Mind Blowing Charts From Senate Income Inequality Hearing

[Throckmorton]

I'm sure the charts are correct for what they show, just like the Motherjones article was correct in what it said.

Translation: "THE FACTS ARE BIASED IN YOUR FAVOR. GOOD DAY SIR!"

 

[Throckmorton]

Incorrect.
These charts are all about percentages but a percentage of what is what is key.

If I get 50% of a 12oz soda (6oz) and then only get 25% of a soda but that soda is now a 2 litter (32oz) am I getting less soda because my overall percentage decreased?

I'm thinking you're just out of touch with reality. It used to be that a man earning a middle class income could support a family, including owning a house, owning and maintaining two cars, and putting good quality food on the table. That is no longer the case.

 

[Throckmorton]

You realize that the inflation adjusted median income for the average American family is not very much higher than it was in the 1970's, right?

Not only that, we now have mostly dual income households. Compare single incomes, and you'll see how far we've truly fallen.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Not only that, we now have mostly dual income households. Compare single incomes, and you'll see how far we've truly fallen.

Some of us make enough that our spouse doesn't have to work. My wife has never had a job.

 

[DCal430]

Real median household income has grown around 15-20% since 1975.

 

[DCal430]

Real Median Individual Income is the highest has ever been.

For men real median individual income has remained stagnant over the last 30 years but for women it has made significant progress. Still much lower than men, but progress.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Government takes all the money you earn and then let's a small amount trickle down to you.

Are you certain that the top 1% really earned all of their money? How do you define earned? Is being born into wealth the same as earning it? Is being tremendously overcompensated for your contribution to the act of wealth production earning it?

Have you considered questioning your dogmatic religious belief that just because someone receives money in a legal manner that they really earned it?

 

[monovillage]

Translation: "THE FACTS ARE BIASED IN YOUR FAVOR. GOOD DAY SIR!"

You obviously didn't understand my comment. It's easy to manipulate charts, it's easy to manipulate statistics until they say whatever you want them to say.
Everyone knows this. the DRIZZLE got it right.

 

[monovillage]

Are you certain that the top 1% really earned all of their money? How do you define earned? Is being born into wealth the same as earning it? Is being tremendously overcompensated for your contribution to the act of wealth production earning it?

Have you considered questioning your dogmatic religious belief that just because someone receives money in a legal manner that they really earned it?

Who cares, it's the Democrat/liberal stand that all money, earned or not is the Governments money, you damn peons should be happy that they let a little trickle down to you. Before you ask, to Big Government, every citizen is a peon.

*edit* religious? where did you pull that from?

 

[Throckmorton]

Some of us make enough that our spouse doesn't have to work. My wife has never had a job.

That used to be the norm. Now it's not.

 

[DCal430]

In 1975 it was 55% dual income, today it is 65% dual income. People have incorrect view of how things were int he past. Things are much better now.

 

[Throckmorton]

You obviously didn't understand my comment. It's easy to manipulate charts, it's easy to manipulate statistics until they say whatever you want them to say.
Everyone knows this. the DRIZZLE got it right.

But these aren't manipulated. These are the simple numbers. The facts make it really clear that wealth and income have become very concentrated in this country.

 

[Jhhnn]

But these aren't manipulated. These are the simple numbers. The facts make it really clear that wealth and income have become very concentrated in this country.

Yeh, but monovillage is smart enough to require some mechanism to maintain denial, just not smart enough to understand that he needs to break it. So he attacks the source.

 

[CallMeJoe]

In 1975 it was 55% dual income, today it is 65% dual income. People have incorrect view of how things were int he past. Things are much better now.

So more homes requiring a second wage earner is a good thing?

 

[monovillage]

In 1975 it was 55% dual income, today it is 65% dual income. People have incorrect view of how things were int he past. Things are much better now.

I disagree.

 

[monovillage]

But these aren't manipulated. These are the simple numbers. The facts make it really clear that wealth and income have become very concentrated in this country.

The first chart was the one I have the most problem with and the DRIZZLE dealt with it very well, better then I could have. The other charts I found less interesting.

 

[Jhhnn]

What do you expect from Motherjones ? Mind-blowing bias and partisanship is what you get. Try going to more balanced media next time.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the panel’s ranking member, also cited a 2008 study from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that said that the U.S. had a more progressive tax system than other industrialized countries. (That study also said that income inequality had been rapidly increasing in the U.S.)

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mon...nate-republicans-the-wealthy-pay-enough-taxes

So Hatch wants European tax rates? Probably not...

His claim is regularly debunked-

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/02/inequality-deniers-fudge-the-numbers-again.html

What inequality deniers attempt to obfuscate is that the income share of the top 1% has doubled in 30 years, and their effective federal tax rate has fallen by 1/3. They get a bigger, much bigger share of national income than the European Rich, so of course they pay a higher % of total taxes collected.

 

[MotF Bane]

All higher taxes are going to do is create a larger government.

This.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mon...nate-republicans-the-wealthy-pay-enough-taxes

So Hatch wants European tax rates? Probably not...

His claim is regularly debunked-

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/02/inequality-deniers-fudge-the-numbers-again.html

What inequality deniers attempt to obfuscate is that the income share of the top 1% has doubled in 30 years, and their effective federal tax rate has fallen by 1/3. They get a bigger, much bigger share of national income than the European Rich, so of course they pay a higher % of total taxes collected.

The problem is that looking at the 1% in aggregate distorts the issue. The .1% pay a lower that rate than those between 1% and .1%. The statutory rates in the US are extremely progressive especially when you include state taxes.

Our tax code is so screwed up that effective rates vary widely within each group. We should stop using the tax code as a tool to encourage everything our brilliant politicians decide we need more of and instead view it as a means to collect revenue to fund the government in a fair and reasonable way.

 

[Patranus]

I'm thinking you're just out of touch with reality. It used to be that a man earning a middle class income could support a family, including owning a house, owning and maintaining two cars, and putting good quality food on the table. That is no longer the case.

Sure it is if you *choose* to live within your means, forgo cable, give up the iPhone, ect.

 

[monovillage]

What's that ? Using fair and equitable ways of taxing citizens instead of using taxes to bludgeon people into the behavior you want? Is that even legal?

 

[Jhhnn]

The problem is that looking at the 1% in aggregate distorts the issue. The .1% pay a lower that rate than those between 1% and .1%. The statutory rates in the US are extremely progressive especially when you include state taxes.

Our tax code is so screwed up that effective rates vary widely within each group. We should stop using the tax code as a tool to encourage everything our brilliant politicians decide we need more of and instead view it as a means to collect revenue to fund the government in a fair and reasonable way.

Total taxes are the real issue, and by that measure, American taxes are barely progressive at all from the middle to the top-

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf

And low earners pay a surprising share of their income in total taxes-

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505

Are tax rates regressive as we approach the truly wealthy realms? Obviously, because the bulk of their income is from capital gains, dividends, & carried interest, taxed at ~15%. in that rarefied atmosphere at the top, all other taxes shrink to insignificance as a % of income. Romney's taxes are a great example.

Extremely wealthy people have income options that middle class people don't, like borrowing money to live on against the value of their real estate, buying munis & other strategies, reducing taxable income to a pittance-

http://money.msn.com/tax-tips/post.aspx?post=0c36eab7-9059-4b35-ae0c-cdf96b39189a

What the tax code truly incentivizes is being rich, and there are plenty of other incentives wrt that, snivelling from the likes of Grover Norquist and Bill O'Reilly aside.

 

[fskimospy]

The problem is that looking at the 1% in aggregate distorts the issue. The .1% pay a lower that rate than those between 1% and .1%. The statutory rates in the US are extremely progressive especially when you include state taxes.

Our tax code is so screwed up that effective rates vary widely within each group. We should stop using the tax code as a tool to encourage everything our brilliant politicians decide we need more of and instead view it as a means to collect revenue to fund the government in a fair and reasonable way.

I totally disagree. Tax policy is, bar none, the most effective regulatory tool in the government's arsenal. Taxation is most certainly not only to provide the government with revenue, and to deprive lawmakers of such a useful tool would be a terrible idea.

 

[XZeroII]

I'm thinking you're just out of touch with reality. It used to be that a man earning a middle class income could support a family, including owning a house, owning and maintaining two cars, and putting good quality food on the table. That is no longer the case.

I didn't live back then, but I've heard very different. My grandma tells me that even though she didn't work, she still made a lot of clothes for my father and his siblings and had her own large garden. By actually working a lot around the house, she saved a lot of money. So it wasn't just that she sat around all day watching TV. BOTH people worked. But only one got paid.

So while you are "technically" correct in what you said, you are not painting an accurate picture of how things were back then compared to now.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

I totally disagree. Tax policy is, bar none, the most effective regulatory tool in the government's arsenal. Taxation is most certainly not only to provide the government with revenue, and to deprive lawmakers of such a useful tool would be a terrible idea.

This boils down to significant philosophical differences between my government and yours. Can you elaborate on why you think it's the most effective regulatory tool?