Egypt's economics and the US's
-
Some of the information I've heard about the complaints of the people revolting in Tunisia and Egypt has been that the people are getting poorer while the rich are getting richer. I've heard similar things here. What have you heard about the middle class of these countries as well as your own? From what I've read and heard discussed economics is what's driving this. It seems governments are only willing to go a certain distance in any particular direction or risk massive protests or in the case of the middle east revolts. I suppose they're a lot closer to the economic bottom than the industrialized countries.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
IMHO...I think that the Islamic countries are sick and tired of how there governments oppress them and how their countries are run in general. I don't think it is just about being poor or rich.
-
Carlinian economics are universal... Any society is divided into three classes... "The rich people have all of the money, and pay none of the taxes. The middle class pays all of the taxes and does all of the work. The poor are there... Just to scare the #*(&% out of the middle class... Keep them showing up at those jobs." -- George Carlin
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)George Carlin was funny, but dead wrong - at least about the U.S. Here, 47% of the population doesn't pay income tax at all - many of them actually get a check from the IRS because they don't make enough money. And their share of taxes paid by the rich has being going up for at least 30 years. In 1980, with Jimmy Carter as president, the top 1% of tax-filers, those who reported an adjusted growth income of $80,580 or more, paid 19% of all federal income taxes. Ten years later the same top 1% of tax-payers was paying 25% of all taxes. By 2005, our top 1% were paying nearly 40 percent of the federal income tax bill, while those in the 2nd to 5th percentile paid another 20 percent. And in case you are thinking that income tax is only one tax and the po' folks pay a disproportionate share of things like sales tax and FICA, or corporate taxes that are passed on to consumers, the Congressional Budget Office figures all of those into its calculations of tax rates that Americans pay and tells us that the richest 1 percent pay an even higher real tax rate than the IRS figures — 31% of the total tax burden Here's a cute little graph from the IRS, although its outdated (2004)[^] In a democracy, progressive taxes are always favored by politicians who want to be re-elected. Sooner or later, of course, the goose that lays the golden eggs just can't keep up with demand, and then we have a revolution.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
IMHO...I think that the Islamic countries are sick and tired of how there governments oppress them and how their countries are run in general. I don't think it is just about being poor or rich.
I wasn't trying to marginalize it, just as an example of economics seeming to play a factor in it. Government oppression is causing a lot of the economic issues they're experiencing. I'm just trying to look at the less obvious or what seems like it to me. When a government suppresses it's people and people don't have the economic where-with-all to live in a way they want. A pattern I've seen is that people who are poor and oppressed rise up because they don't have anything to lose. Those who have jobs and are relatively safe economically are less likely to rise up because they have so much more to lose. You never see employed well off people taking to the street to protest. Economics does play a role in it don't you think?
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
George Carlin was funny, but dead wrong - at least about the U.S. Here, 47% of the population doesn't pay income tax at all - many of them actually get a check from the IRS because they don't make enough money. And their share of taxes paid by the rich has being going up for at least 30 years. In 1980, with Jimmy Carter as president, the top 1% of tax-filers, those who reported an adjusted growth income of $80,580 or more, paid 19% of all federal income taxes. Ten years later the same top 1% of tax-payers was paying 25% of all taxes. By 2005, our top 1% were paying nearly 40 percent of the federal income tax bill, while those in the 2nd to 5th percentile paid another 20 percent. And in case you are thinking that income tax is only one tax and the po' folks pay a disproportionate share of things like sales tax and FICA, or corporate taxes that are passed on to consumers, the Congressional Budget Office figures all of those into its calculations of tax rates that Americans pay and tells us that the richest 1 percent pay an even higher real tax rate than the IRS figures — 31% of the total tax burden Here's a cute little graph from the IRS, although its outdated (2004)[^] In a democracy, progressive taxes are always favored by politicians who want to be re-elected. Sooner or later, of course, the goose that lays the golden eggs just can't keep up with demand, and then we have a revolution.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
George Carlin was funny, but dead wrong - at least about the U.S. Here, 47% of the population doesn't pay income tax at all - many of them actually get a check from the IRS because they don't make enough money. And their share of taxes paid by the rich has being going up for at least 30 years. In 1980, with Jimmy Carter as president, the top 1% of tax-filers, those who reported an adjusted growth income of $80,580 or more, paid 19% of all federal income taxes. Ten years later the same top 1% of tax-payers was paying 25% of all taxes. By 2005, our top 1% were paying nearly 40 percent of the federal income tax bill, while those in the 2nd to 5th percentile paid another 20 percent. And in case you are thinking that income tax is only one tax and the po' folks pay a disproportionate share of things like sales tax and FICA, or corporate taxes that are passed on to consumers, the Congressional Budget Office figures all of those into its calculations of tax rates that Americans pay and tells us that the richest 1 percent pay an even higher real tax rate than the IRS figures — 31% of the total tax burden Here's a cute little graph from the IRS, although its outdated (2004)[^] In a democracy, progressive taxes are always favored by politicians who want to be re-elected. Sooner or later, of course, the goose that lays the golden eggs just can't keep up with demand, and then we have a revolution.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
Oakman wrote:
In 1980, with Jimmy Carter as president, the top 1% of tax-filers, those who reported an adjusted growth income of $80,580 or more, paid 19% of all federal income taxes. Ten years later the same top 1% of tax-payers was paying 25% of all taxes. By 2005, our top 1% were paying nearly 40 percent of the federal income tax bill, while those in the 2nd to 5th percentile paid another 20 percent.
So are you advocating that 40% is too high, or too low? What's that payout as compared to their income? That would be a more useful figure... If you've got one guy making five million a year, and 99 guys making 50k a year, then that one guy is making more than 50% of the total income, so he SHOULD be paying at least 50% of the taxes despite being only 1% of the (sample) population. Yes, that's an exaggerated example, but I'd like to see the actual numbers. EDIT: Ok, I just took another look at that link, and realized it gives exactly that information... Well, close enough to it... Still, the below point stands. And that's with a flat tax, which doesn't work when you take the poor into account. If you're making a million a year, paying 50% of it back in taxes is annoying, yes, but it's not exactly going to kill you. If you're making minimum wage, paying even 20% of it back in taxes could make it difficult for you to feed, clothe, and house yourself.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
George Carlin was funny, but dead wrong - at least about the U.S. Here, 47% of the population doesn't pay income tax at all - many of them actually get a check from the IRS because they don't make enough money. And their share of taxes paid by the rich has being going up for at least 30 years. In 1980, with Jimmy Carter as president, the top 1% of tax-filers, those who reported an adjusted growth income of $80,580 or more, paid 19% of all federal income taxes. Ten years later the same top 1% of tax-payers was paying 25% of all taxes. By 2005, our top 1% were paying nearly 40 percent of the federal income tax bill, while those in the 2nd to 5th percentile paid another 20 percent. And in case you are thinking that income tax is only one tax and the po' folks pay a disproportionate share of things like sales tax and FICA, or corporate taxes that are passed on to consumers, the Congressional Budget Office figures all of those into its calculations of tax rates that Americans pay and tells us that the richest 1 percent pay an even higher real tax rate than the IRS figures — 31% of the total tax burden Here's a cute little graph from the IRS, although its outdated (2004)[^] In a democracy, progressive taxes are always favored by politicians who want to be re-elected. Sooner or later, of course, the goose that lays the golden eggs just can't keep up with demand, and then we have a revolution.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
Oakman wrote:
In 1980, with Jimmy Carter as president, the top 1% of tax-filers, those who reported an adjusted growth income of $80,580 or more, paid 19% of all federal income taxes. Ten years later the same top 1% of tax-payers was paying 25% of all taxes. By 2005, our top 1% were paying nearly 40 percent of the federal income tax bill, while those in the 2nd to 5th percentile paid another 20 percent.
Is the median income keeping up with inflation or did it stagnate reflecting the burden you're pointing out? Besides IRS tax rate for federal income taxes over the years gives them nothing to complain about. It's been a whole lot higher. Check out historical tax rates[^]. I'd give the IRS version, but I can't find it right now. If stock options can be given as income why aren't they taxed at the same rate? Because the law is written not to. I read the same reports you did about it. Its interesting that the fact that companies like GE didn't pay any taxes at all through creative accounting practices and tax loop holes.
Oakman wrote:
In a democracy, progressive taxes are always favored by politicians who want to be re-elected. Sooner or later, of course, the goose that lays the golden eggs just can't keep up with demand, and then we have a revolution.
So what are you really saying?
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
I wasn't trying to marginalize it, just as an example of economics seeming to play a factor in it. Government oppression is causing a lot of the economic issues they're experiencing. I'm just trying to look at the less obvious or what seems like it to me. When a government suppresses it's people and people don't have the economic where-with-all to live in a way they want. A pattern I've seen is that people who are poor and oppressed rise up because they don't have anything to lose. Those who have jobs and are relatively safe economically are less likely to rise up because they have so much more to lose. You never see employed well off people taking to the street to protest. Economics does play a role in it don't you think?
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
wolfbinary wrote:
Economics does play a role in it don't you think?
of course; I believe economics plays a big role but I don't think that it is the only reason. I'm going to get flamed for this but this is how I really feel about the subject. People love to hate the United States of America but they want what we have and they should want what we have (for the most part). They want what I have but at the same time they want to hate me because I'm an American and they will talk shit that I'm a greedy American bastard. I feel that the Islamic countries (almost all of them) want what America has and this drives them crazy. Crazy because we are the infidels yet our Government and way of life is a trillion times better than theirs and it eats them up inside. America has poor people (very poor people). You don't see our poor people marching by the millions into Washington D.C. and asking for our President to leave the country. We have had riots in the past but they were just riots. I can walk out in the middle of my street and yell to everyone that my President is an ass and I will not be dragged from my home and tortured and killed. America is not perfect, what country is? I'm not saying my country is perfect. So yes economics plays a strong role but these people are not uprising because of the sole reason they are poor.
-
Oakman wrote:
In 1980, with Jimmy Carter as president, the top 1% of tax-filers, those who reported an adjusted growth income of $80,580 or more, paid 19% of all federal income taxes. Ten years later the same top 1% of tax-payers was paying 25% of all taxes. By 2005, our top 1% were paying nearly 40 percent of the federal income tax bill, while those in the 2nd to 5th percentile paid another 20 percent.
So are you advocating that 40% is too high, or too low? What's that payout as compared to their income? That would be a more useful figure... If you've got one guy making five million a year, and 99 guys making 50k a year, then that one guy is making more than 50% of the total income, so he SHOULD be paying at least 50% of the taxes despite being only 1% of the (sample) population. Yes, that's an exaggerated example, but I'd like to see the actual numbers. EDIT: Ok, I just took another look at that link, and realized it gives exactly that information... Well, close enough to it... Still, the below point stands. And that's with a flat tax, which doesn't work when you take the poor into account. If you're making a million a year, paying 50% of it back in taxes is annoying, yes, but it's not exactly going to kill you. If you're making minimum wage, paying even 20% of it back in taxes could make it difficult for you to feed, clothe, and house yourself.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)That chart doesn't take into account stock options, and other types of wealth compensation.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
Some of the information I've heard about the complaints of the people revolting in Tunisia and Egypt has been that the people are getting poorer while the rich are getting richer. I've heard similar things here. What have you heard about the middle class of these countries as well as your own? From what I've read and heard discussed economics is what's driving this. It seems governments are only willing to go a certain distance in any particular direction or risk massive protests or in the case of the middle east revolts. I suppose they're a lot closer to the economic bottom than the industrialized countries.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
wolfbinary wrote:
What have you heard about the middle class of these countries as well as your own?
I've lived all my life in the UK, but I have travelled around and currently live in the Middle East. Things are quite grotesque here, there are a highly-visible rich who form a small part of the society, who fly around in really expensive cars (whilst avoiding damaging them on poor roads). Then there are the middle class, who form a much smaller proportion of the society than would in the developed post-industrial countries of the west. Lower down the income bracket, there are a large group of people who just make enough to live, these form the majority here, and they have few luxuries. At the bottom (economically) there are people small (but still sizeable) proportion of people still literally living in tents, anywhere else they'd be living in shanty towns. In general, the further down the income scale they are, the harder they feel the economic situation.
wolfbinary wrote:
From what I've read and heard discussed economics is what's driving this.
I'd say economics has precipitated this, but there has been a long (read decades) build up. In general there is a feeling of powerlessness that has been acting as a pressure-cooker, many countries have suppressed the resulting anger, a few are notable for "disappearances". In the Middle East, the majority have to live with day-to-day degradation, little freedom of speech and lip-service democracy, all against a backdrop of widespread poverty. Here is a joke that was doing the rounds a few years ago: "President Bush phoned Mubarak to congratulate him on his 90% majority in the presidential elections. When they were talking Bush said that he wished he knew how Mubarak did it, so Mubarak told him. Bush took Mubarak's advice and went to the polls. Come election night the result was announced: 90% Voted for Mubarak." I'm quite lucky, I currently live in Jordan where things are better than the surrounding Arab states, the protests here really are economic and pressing for electoral reform.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[ -
wolfbinary wrote:
Economics does play a role in it don't you think?
of course; I believe economics plays a big role but I don't think that it is the only reason. I'm going to get flamed for this but this is how I really feel about the subject. People love to hate the United States of America but they want what we have and they should want what we have (for the most part). They want what I have but at the same time they want to hate me because I'm an American and they will talk shit that I'm a greedy American bastard. I feel that the Islamic countries (almost all of them) want what America has and this drives them crazy. Crazy because we are the infidels yet our Government and way of life is a trillion times better than theirs and it eats them up inside. America has poor people (very poor people). You don't see our poor people marching by the millions into Washington D.C. and asking for our President to leave the country. We have had riots in the past but they were just riots. I can walk out in the middle of my street and yell to everyone that my President is an ass and I will not be dragged from my home and tortured and killed. America is not perfect, what country is? I'm not saying my country is perfect. So yes economics plays a strong role but these people are not uprising because of the sole reason they are poor.
I don't flame people. So you won't get any fire from me. ;P
Slacker007 wrote:
People love to hate the United States of America but they want what we have and they should want what we have (for the most part). They want what I have but at the same time they want to hate me because I'm an American and they will talk sh*t that I'm a greedy American bastard. I feel that the Islamic countries (almost all of them) want what America has and this drives them crazy. Crazy because we are the infidels yet our Government and way of life is a trillion times better than theirs and it eats them up inside.
People love to hate the US because of the interference our government has in their countries. How many foreign country bases do we have on US soil? I'm not aware of any. Yes they want our economic way of life and enjoy our culture, but not by supplanting their own cultural identity. They hate how we sell weapons to their governments and then cry foul. From what I can tell the hating of America happened because of our blind support of Isreal and the quest for natural resources from groups of people we neither cared to understand or wanted to. These are problems from the 1950s and 1960s at least.
Slacker007 wrote:
I can walk out in the middle of my street and yell to everyone that my President is an ass and I will not be dragged from my home and tortured and killed. America is not perfect, what country is? I'm not saying my country is perfect. So yes economics plays a strong role but these people are not uprising because of the sole reason they are poor.
I agree completely. I was making sure I understood your thoughts. I will say this though. I'm getting increasing interested in the idea that companies have more power through your job then the government does on our lives. If you said that about the president of your company they could fire you for no reason or little and nothing could be done.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
That chart doesn't take into account stock options, and other types of wealth compensation.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
Very true... There's also foreign tax shelters, though those are more for corporations than individuals. And actually, that chart is a little misleading, in the way it accumulates instead of showing the statistics at each percentile range... With a little simple subtraction, you end up with: 99th Percentile (Top 1%): 19% of the income, pays 37% of the taxes 95th-98th Percentile (Next 4%): 14% of the income, 20% of the taxes 90-94th Percentile (Next 5%): 11% of the income, 11% of the taxes <-- Evening out already 75-89th Percentile (The rest of the top 25%): 22% of the income, 17% of the taxes So the only ones paying a higher percentage of the taxes than their income are the top 5%, not the top 25%. And if you're in the top 5%, you can afford to pay a little more so the poor people can eat.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
wolfbinary wrote:
What have you heard about the middle class of these countries as well as your own?
I've lived all my life in the UK, but I have travelled around and currently live in the Middle East. Things are quite grotesque here, there are a highly-visible rich who form a small part of the society, who fly around in really expensive cars (whilst avoiding damaging them on poor roads). Then there are the middle class, who form a much smaller proportion of the society than would in the developed post-industrial countries of the west. Lower down the income bracket, there are a large group of people who just make enough to live, these form the majority here, and they have few luxuries. At the bottom (economically) there are people small (but still sizeable) proportion of people still literally living in tents, anywhere else they'd be living in shanty towns. In general, the further down the income scale they are, the harder they feel the economic situation.
wolfbinary wrote:
From what I've read and heard discussed economics is what's driving this.
I'd say economics has precipitated this, but there has been a long (read decades) build up. In general there is a feeling of powerlessness that has been acting as a pressure-cooker, many countries have suppressed the resulting anger, a few are notable for "disappearances". In the Middle East, the majority have to live with day-to-day degradation, little freedom of speech and lip-service democracy, all against a backdrop of widespread poverty. Here is a joke that was doing the rounds a few years ago: "President Bush phoned Mubarak to congratulate him on his 90% majority in the presidential elections. When they were talking Bush said that he wished he knew how Mubarak did it, so Mubarak told him. Bush took Mubarak's advice and went to the polls. Come election night the result was announced: 90% Voted for Mubarak." I'm quite lucky, I currently live in Jordan where things are better than the surrounding Arab states, the protests here really are economic and pressing for electoral reform.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[Keith Barrow wrote:
I'd say economics has precipitated this,
That is the general gist of what I was trying to drive home. You put the point on it for me.
Keith Barrow wrote:
I'm quite lucky, I currently live in Jordan where things are better than the surrounding Arab states, the protests here really are economic and pressing for electoral reform.
Do you think Jordan will catch any of this too?
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
Keith Barrow wrote:
I'd say economics has precipitated this,
That is the general gist of what I was trying to drive home. You put the point on it for me.
Keith Barrow wrote:
I'm quite lucky, I currently live in Jordan where things are better than the surrounding Arab states, the protests here really are economic and pressing for electoral reform.
Do you think Jordan will catch any of this too?
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
Isn't Jordan the one where the king basically just fired and replaced his entire cabinet and prime minister? I don't know the details of the Jordanian government, but if it's something like the UK where the real legislative power is with the prime minister and parliament (Or equivalent), then that should probably placate the people. I'm not saying it's a good solution, but it could be enough to calm everyone down and change their attitude from "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!" to "Eh, I guess I can live with that"
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Keith Barrow wrote:
I'd say economics has precipitated this,
That is the general gist of what I was trying to drive home. You put the point on it for me.
Keith Barrow wrote:
I'm quite lucky, I currently live in Jordan where things are better than the surrounding Arab states, the protests here really are economic and pressing for electoral reform.
Do you think Jordan will catch any of this too?
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
wolfbinary wrote:
Do you think Jordan will catch any of this too?
Unlikely, the problems effecting Tunisia and Egypt aren't the same as those here. In general power lies with the king, and he is well respected by most of the populace.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^] -
Oakman wrote:
In 1980, with Jimmy Carter as president, the top 1% of tax-filers, those who reported an adjusted growth income of $80,580 or more, paid 19% of all federal income taxes. Ten years later the same top 1% of tax-payers was paying 25% of all taxes. By 2005, our top 1% were paying nearly 40 percent of the federal income tax bill, while those in the 2nd to 5th percentile paid another 20 percent.
So are you advocating that 40% is too high, or too low? What's that payout as compared to their income? That would be a more useful figure... If you've got one guy making five million a year, and 99 guys making 50k a year, then that one guy is making more than 50% of the total income, so he SHOULD be paying at least 50% of the taxes despite being only 1% of the (sample) population. Yes, that's an exaggerated example, but I'd like to see the actual numbers. EDIT: Ok, I just took another look at that link, and realized it gives exactly that information... Well, close enough to it... Still, the below point stands. And that's with a flat tax, which doesn't work when you take the poor into account. If you're making a million a year, paying 50% of it back in taxes is annoying, yes, but it's not exactly going to kill you. If you're making minimum wage, paying even 20% of it back in taxes could make it difficult for you to feed, clothe, and house yourself.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
So are you advocating that 40% is too high, or too low?
I advocated nothing. I pointed out how wrong GC was, and offered my opinion about progressive taxation and the effect it had on politicians. However, in case you are interested, I believe that the only hope the U.S. has of getting back on an even keel is the Fair Tax[^] but please don't bother to follow the link unless you are ready to spend some time reading and thinking the proposals through.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
If you're making a million a year, paying 50% of it back in taxes is annoying, yes, but it's not exactly going to kill you
But it might convince you to move to some place where they only took twenty-five percent. The millionaires tax in New York State, according to their Governor had exactly the opposite effect from intended. Instead of increasing the amount of money the State took from the very rich, it decreased it because the folks who were tired of being the golden goose simply moved to states without an income tax at all. While it would be harder to move out of the country, it would not be impossible.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
Oakman wrote:
In 1980, with Jimmy Carter as president, the top 1% of tax-filers, those who reported an adjusted growth income of $80,580 or more, paid 19% of all federal income taxes. Ten years later the same top 1% of tax-payers was paying 25% of all taxes. By 2005, our top 1% were paying nearly 40 percent of the federal income tax bill, while those in the 2nd to 5th percentile paid another 20 percent.
Is the median income keeping up with inflation or did it stagnate reflecting the burden you're pointing out? Besides IRS tax rate for federal income taxes over the years gives them nothing to complain about. It's been a whole lot higher. Check out historical tax rates[^]. I'd give the IRS version, but I can't find it right now. If stock options can be given as income why aren't they taxed at the same rate? Because the law is written not to. I read the same reports you did about it. Its interesting that the fact that companies like GE didn't pay any taxes at all through creative accounting practices and tax loop holes.
Oakman wrote:
In a democracy, progressive taxes are always favored by politicians who want to be re-elected. Sooner or later, of course, the goose that lays the golden eggs just can't keep up with demand, and then we have a revolution.
So what are you really saying?
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
wolfbinary wrote:
Is the median income keeping up with inflation or did it stagnate reflecting the burden you're pointing out?
I have no idea, but I don't see how it would make a difference, We weren't dealing with the mean, we were dealing with the top 1%
wolfbinary wrote:
Because the law is written not to.
One of the nice things about writing tax law is that you can reward your friends and punish your enemies. Why is there a tax deduction for mortgage interest, but not for automobile loans, or rent payments? Why do non-profits not only not pay taxes - forcing you to pay more, they give out tax deductions to people who agree with their aims - which may not coincide with yours? As you say, why are capital gains taxed at a different rate from the guy who makes his living with his hands? Why does Michele want to add a tax to soft drinks, but not increase the tax of cigarettes? In every case the answer is because the Congress is not simply attempting to raise money to pay the government's expenses, but to reward certain behaviors, and punish others.
wolfbinary wrote:
So what are you really saying?
That we're fucked.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
I don't flame people. So you won't get any fire from me. ;P
Slacker007 wrote:
People love to hate the United States of America but they want what we have and they should want what we have (for the most part). They want what I have but at the same time they want to hate me because I'm an American and they will talk sh*t that I'm a greedy American bastard. I feel that the Islamic countries (almost all of them) want what America has and this drives them crazy. Crazy because we are the infidels yet our Government and way of life is a trillion times better than theirs and it eats them up inside.
People love to hate the US because of the interference our government has in their countries. How many foreign country bases do we have on US soil? I'm not aware of any. Yes they want our economic way of life and enjoy our culture, but not by supplanting their own cultural identity. They hate how we sell weapons to their governments and then cry foul. From what I can tell the hating of America happened because of our blind support of Isreal and the quest for natural resources from groups of people we neither cared to understand or wanted to. These are problems from the 1950s and 1960s at least.
Slacker007 wrote:
I can walk out in the middle of my street and yell to everyone that my President is an ass and I will not be dragged from my home and tortured and killed. America is not perfect, what country is? I'm not saying my country is perfect. So yes economics plays a strong role but these people are not uprising because of the sole reason they are poor.
I agree completely. I was making sure I understood your thoughts. I will say this though. I'm getting increasing interested in the idea that companies have more power through your job then the government does on our lives. If you said that about the president of your company they could fire you for no reason or little and nothing could be done.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
wolfbinary wrote:
From what I can tell the hating of America happened because of our blind support of Isreal and the quest for natural resources from groups of people we neither cared to understand or wanted to. These are problems from the 1950s and 1960s at least.
Actually, it started when we entered WWII. We won, and that's the biggest sin of all.
wolfbinary wrote:
If you said that about the president of your company they could fire you for no reason or little and nothing could be done.
If you said it about Chris where he could read it, he could ban you from CP. If you said it about me in my house, I could throw you out.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
Oakman wrote:
In 1980, with Jimmy Carter as president, the top 1% of tax-filers, those who reported an adjusted growth income of $80,580 or more, paid 19% of all federal income taxes. Ten years later the same top 1% of tax-payers was paying 25% of all taxes. By 2005, our top 1% were paying nearly 40 percent of the federal income tax bill, while those in the 2nd to 5th percentile paid another 20 percent.
Is the median income keeping up with inflation or did it stagnate reflecting the burden you're pointing out? Besides IRS tax rate for federal income taxes over the years gives them nothing to complain about. It's been a whole lot higher. Check out historical tax rates[^]. I'd give the IRS version, but I can't find it right now. If stock options can be given as income why aren't they taxed at the same rate? Because the law is written not to. I read the same reports you did about it. Its interesting that the fact that companies like GE didn't pay any taxes at all through creative accounting practices and tax loop holes.
Oakman wrote:
In a democracy, progressive taxes are always favored by politicians who want to be re-elected. Sooner or later, of course, the goose that lays the golden eggs just can't keep up with demand, and then we have a revolution.
So what are you really saying?
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
wolfbinary wrote:
If stock options can be given as income why aren't they taxed at the same rate? Because the law is written not to.
Your statement belies your ignorance of how stock options work. It all depends on how stock options are "cashed-in". For most stock option holders, who are unable to simply buy the option outright, they have to do what's called a cashless exercise (basically borrow money from the brokerage to buy the stock at the strike price and then immediately sell the stock at market or a given price). The profits then *are* indeed taxed as normal income. In order for them not to be taxed as normal income, you would have to have the money to buy the stock option at the strike price and hold onto the stock for one year and a day (and hope that the stock price remains greater than the strike price). You could then sell the stock and only pay a 15% or 20% capital gains tax on your gains ((current price - strike price) * number of shares). *Extremely few* people are able to do that.
"If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams "Let me get this straight. You know her. She knows you. But she wants to eat him. And everybody's okay with this?"
-
That graph, although simple, is very useful. I don't suppose there is a version that gives a breakdown per person?
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
Trollslayer wrote:
I don't suppose there is a version that gives a breakdown per person?
I must not understand. I am thinking of a Y axis with 300 million points on it.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
Very true... There's also foreign tax shelters, though those are more for corporations than individuals. And actually, that chart is a little misleading, in the way it accumulates instead of showing the statistics at each percentile range... With a little simple subtraction, you end up with: 99th Percentile (Top 1%): 19% of the income, pays 37% of the taxes 95th-98th Percentile (Next 4%): 14% of the income, 20% of the taxes 90-94th Percentile (Next 5%): 11% of the income, 11% of the taxes <-- Evening out already 75-89th Percentile (The rest of the top 25%): 22% of the income, 17% of the taxes So the only ones paying a higher percentage of the taxes than their income are the top 5%, not the top 25%. And if you're in the top 5%, you can afford to pay a little more so the poor people can eat.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
And if you're in the top 5%, you can afford to pay a little more so the poor people can eat.
I see. And who gets to decide that? Who gets to decide when you can afford to pay a little, or a lot more? Is it OK if I decide you are making too much and I want you to give me 5% because I am making less than you are? If not, why do you, or your representatives in Congress, get to decide that about Little Billy Gates? Many of the people who make a higher income than average, I'm guessing you are among them, do so because they contribute to the wealth of the society as a whole. Many of those at the lower end (the 49% the graph doesn't show) have figured out how to contribute nothing to society and exist on what the government takes away from those who do.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
