Economy of US

[WhatsHisNuts]

Stevie I'm still waiting waiting for ANY Dem to define the middle class--would you or anyone else like to make an attempt.

I must have missed this debate. As the following article from PBS.org discusses, there is no specific dividing line between classes. That said, what is point? You appear to have the hammer raised prepared to strike.....so what is it you are getting at.

I wish I had a way to bet on whether or not you'll read this article.....because ""Won't Read" is my LOCK of the day.

06.25.04

Who is the Middle Class?

More on This Story: Select One Professor Elizabeth Warren Middle Class Myths Interest Rates Previous Interview Transcript Election 2004: Income Issues

Overview
America is sometimes called a "middle-class country," but nobody ? not economists, sociologists, or the U.S. Census Bureau ? seems to have a clear definition of who the middle class actually is. The notion of where a dividing line between "middle class" and "working class" might be is an elusive one. In November 2003, Chris Baker of THE WASHINGTON TIMES reported in "What is middle class?" that the Census Bureau shows the middle 20% of the country earning between $40,000 and $95,000 annually. The Drum Major Institute for Public Policy, a non-partisan and non-profit organization, reports that the middle class has conventionally come to mean families with incomes between $25,000 and $100,000 each year.

But if you ask the American people, you'll get yet another response. According to statistics from the National Opinion Research Center, as reported by Baker, large numbers of American define themselves as "working class" or "middle class," including:

50% of those families who earn between $20,000 and $40,000 annually
38% of those families who earn between $40,000 and $60,000 annually
16.8% of those families who earn over $110,000 annually
As NOW reported in "Middle Class Squeeze" (December 13, 2002), the shape of income distribution in America is changing and many are finding it increasingly difficult to afford housing while keeping up with necessities such as food, clothing, transportation, and health care. In Baker's article, Anirban Basu, chairman and CEO of Optimal Solutions Group, explains, "Based on those [income data] numbers, the statistical middle class can't afford the middle-class lifestyle. I think that's why there is so much confusion about what it is and why so many people have trouble identifying themselves as anything but middle class."
With the 2004 campaign year underway, the Drum Major Institute has surveyed the major Democratic candidates to find out where they stand on protecting the middle class and restoring mobility to poor and working families who want to earn their way into the middle class. Read the candidates' records and proposals on such issues as minimum wage, bankruptcy abuse protection, federal regulation of credit card and lending industries, health insurance, unemployment insurance and more in "The Myth of the Middle? Campaign 2004 on America's Middle Class." Also, read President George W. Bush's plan to strengthen America's economy on the White House page for Jobs and Economic Growth.

Sources: United States Census Bureau; Drum Major Institute for Public Policy; THE WASHINGTON TIMES.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

The wikipedia article didn't help stevie to vague--Gmroz is getting closer solution.

I'd like a $ amount so we know who these people Pelosi-Edwrds and others are speaking about when they say their anticipated legislation is for the working/middle class.

 

[StevieD]

The wikipedia article didn't help stevie to vague--Gmroz is getting closer solution.

I'd like a $ amount so we know who these people Pelosi-Edwrds and others are speaking about when they say their anticipated legislation is for the working/middle class.

Tell you what Wayne, even though it is BS I will surrender to what ever definition the Republicans put on the middle class. Afterall, don't they claim they actually help them too?

So just to get this discussion back on track we will go with whatever your Republicans call the middle class and we will work from there.

 

[WhatsHisNuts]

Chad's article "No new taxes? Don't read Bush's lips" reminded me of this thread. The main reason to "bump" this thread up is to refute the first person that cites the "facts" on how it is best for Americans to cut the taxes for the rich.

By the way, if anyone can chime in to back up (with FACTS) the theory of the original poster, I'm all ears. I've never said this isn't a viable theory, but I have yet to see anything that actually supports it.

 

[Terryray]

facts from a post of mine last September

facts from a post of mine last September

the IRS data show that the highest income earners pay a strikingly disproportionate share of all Federal income taxes. And it has been
getting worse the last 20 years. in the last year for which we have data:

The top 1 percent of taxpayers earned 16.77% of all adjusted gross income, but paid 34.27% of all federal personal income taxes.

The top 10 percent of taxpayers earned 42.36% of all adjusted gross income, but paid 65.84% of income taxes.

On the other hand, the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers earned 13.99% of all adjusted gross income, but paid only 3.46% of income taxes.---the day is not long off where 50% of wage earners will pay no federal income tax but continue to get gobs of federal benefits.



Post discussing IRS, with links to data on that bottom 45% here, with some excellent comments by Nick Douglas.


cutting certain taxes of the rich unquestionably help the economy, reduce unemployment and grow wealth for all taxpayers. Cutting other taxes---targeting them differently---may not help many. Depends on a lot of factors, way too much to get into now.


on "the Middle Class", it is shrinking by most definitions----and that isn't all bad news. But that's a post for another day, getting late....

 

[dawgball]

gmroz -- first and foremost, remember that what I posted was just a cut and paste of one man's opinion.

I do think that it is hard to deny that the rest of the paragraph that began with your bolded selection is what this country is based upon.

The opposite notion is to continually increases taxes levied on the very people who are creating jobs for others. Are they getting very wealthy while doing it? My answer is "Yes, but should it matter"? The only way our country will remain a super-power is to continue to create new businesses. With the world becoming flatter and flatter, once the over-taxation of our wealthy crosses the tipping point, these businesses will just uproot and move.

There are many countries that are as friendly or friendlier to business culture than our own. That is a scary situation.

Is the data irrefutable? Who knows. I don't really know what specific data the original commenter was referring to. If I did, I would gladly try to refute it myself. But I think this is being quite picky on a post that is an opinion piece.

Remember, all of us have two things. And our assholes usually smell better than their counter-part.

 

[The Sponge]

Stevie I'm still waiting waiting for ANY Dem to define the middle class--would you or anyone else like to make an attempt.

Dog, i know who the No Class party is. That would be the neo con party. Don't worry im not saying you have no class. You are just a pigeon Neo con plucked into there beliefs. I guess that would be the ass party.:00hour

 

[djv]

It''s starting to sound like someone is saying. We have super rich and rich. Then the bottom 90%. Hell maybe we should do like some European countries do. Up high end tax to 55%. But get rid of capital gains completely. Or just do Steve Forbes formula flat tax.

 

[shamrock]

I can't even get by the part about Bush not being a idiot. What exactly is he managing? I suppose he also writes his own speeches.

 

[WhatsHisNuts]

the IRS data show that the highest income earners pay a strikingly disproportionate share of all Federal income taxes. And it has been
getting worse the last 20 years. in the last year for which we have data:

The top 1 percent of taxpayers earned 16.77% of all adjusted gross income, but paid 34.27% of all federal personal income taxes.

The top 10 percent of taxpayers earned 42.36% of all adjusted gross income, but paid 65.84% of income taxes.

On the other hand, the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers earned 13.99% of all adjusted gross income, but paid only 3.46% of income taxes.---the day is not long off where 50% of wage earners will pay no federal income tax but continue to get gobs of federal benefits.



Post discussing IRS, with links to data on that bottom 45% here, with some excellent comments by Nick Douglas.


cutting certain taxes of the rich unquestionably help the economy, reduce unemployment and grow wealth for all taxpayers. Cutting other taxes---targeting them differently---may not help many. Depends on a lot of factors, way too much to get into now.


on "the Middle Class", it is shrinking by most definitions----and that isn't all bad news. But that's a post for another day, getting late....

Terry: Thanks for posting. Looks like you have a knack for seeking out this data. The only problem I have is that nothing here (unless I'm missing it)
spells out how tax cuts for the rich definitively or proportionately affect the US economy in a positive manner. Seems to be lots of speculation, but nothing is definitive. I think showing how the rich pay the majority of the taxes is more reason to keep the burden on them.

 

[WhatsHisNuts]

1. gmroz -- first and foremost, remember that what I posted was just a cut and paste of one man's opinion.

2. I do think that it is hard to deny that the rest of the paragraph that began with your bolded selection is what this country is based upon.

3. The opposite notion is to continually increases taxes levied on the very people who are creating jobs for others. Are they getting very wealthy while doing it? My answer is "Yes, but should it matter"? The only way our country will remain a super-power is to continue to create new businesses. With the world becoming flatter and flatter, once the over-taxation of our wealthy crosses the tipping point, these businesses will just uproot and move.

4. There are many countries that are as friendly or friendlier to business culture than our own. That is a scary situation.

5. Is the data irrefutable? Who knows. I don't really know what specific data the original commenter was referring to. If I did, I would gladly try to refute it myself. But I think this is being quite picky on a post that is an opinion piece.

6. Remember, all of us have two things. And our assholes usually smell better than their counter-part.

1. What you posted was an opinion of one man....that is exactly my point. I only had an issue with his theory when he pointed out that the "data is irrefutable" and then failed to post said data. Until the data is shown, it is nothing more than an opinion...not any different than someone saying that tax cuts for the middle class drive business and posting claims that the proof is out there.

2. Dawg, I too think that capitalism and entrepreneurial spirit is what this company is based on. However, for this particular argument, that fact holds no water until tax breaks for the rich are proven to accelerate the economy.

3. I don't argue the fact that entrepreneurs create jobs. I'm just asking for some data to prove that tax cuts for this group accelerate the economy. Your point about over-taxation might someday be true....if we do in fact cross that tipping point, but for now, it is just an assumption based on an assumption that the rich are currently over-taxed.

4. I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. If there are friendlier countries to big business, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Is there a business model of another country we should adopt? Please elaborate.

5. Dawg: Am I being picky, or am I asking for more information? I'd argue the latter. I realize this is an opinion piece, but you did mention how this is post is "enlightening".

6. Your assuming that I have an opinion, and you are correct. However, I'm not convinced that my belief/opinion is necessarily correct because it is simply a theory. What got my attention is that someone with a differing opinion is claiming that the data is irrefutable, so my response was "Okay, I'm interested, please tell me more." If that is enough to be considered an attack, then the flags will be raised.

 

[The Sponge]

What neocons often forget to mention is when they pass these tax cuts for the rich they also fund a fake economy by causing tremendous deficits and dept. When Clinton tax the rich the economy boomed and the deficit went down. The con people would wantt you to believe is that giving these breaks create jobs. Now you tell me if you gave a poor guy a thousand dollars and you give a rich guy a thousand who is most likely to spend it? This is how you create jobs. You give the middle class a nice tax break they will spend it on stuff they need hence it creates jobs. Only a rare few people who are rich will take a huge tax break and spend it back in the country. Most will think of using it to make more money like sending their company overseas or just stick it in an account somewhere. Look at history when you give these guys the big breaks the deficit and debt soars. Its a fake economy that someone eventually has to pay for. Like what is happening here. Im not even sure this pig in office now is paying for this war. I think it is going to be passed onto someone else.

 

[dawgball]

I will restate for the board that I am middle of the road conservative. I think Clinton was a better president than Bush has been so far. I am only stating this because of the Rush Limbaugh-type obsession by many on this board with calling anyone who does not berade Bush a neo-con.

What neocons often forget to mention is when they pass these tax cuts for the rich they also fund a fake economy

As opposed to the completely real economy of the stock market bubble during Clinton's admin?

How many middle class and below Americans gained any long-term advantages by that? Money was not lost during the market bust. It was transferred from the late-arrivers (mostly middle America who is not investment-savvy) to the people who were aware of the unsustainability of that economy. Money does not disappear. It simply transfers hands.

5. Dawg: Am I being picky, or am I asking for more information? I'd argue the latter. I realize this is an opinion piece, but you did mention how this is post is "enlightening".

The "enlightening" part that I was referring to more has to do with this person's angle of rich/poor. By his position (which you and I may or may not agree with) is that most people in this country don't appreciate just how rich they are. If you are required by our government to pay taxes, then you are rich (again, by his position here). If you do not pay taxes, then you are either A) poor; or B) are so rich that you can afford to avoid taxes (this poster and I agree whole heartedly that this is not right).

4. I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. If there are friendlier countries to big business, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Is there a business model of another country we should adopt? Please elaborate.

I don't get this. You are approaching this like your sole goal is to beat me or something. It seems from your position that you are willing to take the risk of continuing to raise taxes on the people in this country who create the wealth (business creators). If we reach the "tipping point" that I was referring to, it will be virtually impossible to reverse the trend of businesses leaving. Tipping points are named that because the momentum shifts in another direction. I don't like the future of the US if this is reached.

djv mentioned using Forbes' plan of flat taxation. From what I have read (not an overly large amount), I am all for this. Taxes are the price that we pay for the privelige (sp?) for living here.

The other point of me posting this was this person's view on how the rich do have to bail us out. His position is not to tax the poor, but to be weary of raising the rate for the rich too high.

The data is irrefutable.

If we removed this sentence and the final paragraph, would you have sounded the three alarms?

This will be my last post in this thread because I don't think we are going to solve any problems. I wasn't in this to argue, but it seems that this is what this board is for. I'll continue reading for other's thoughts.

 

[The Sponge]

Im all for a flat tax. I dont think a rich guy should have to pay a percentage higher than me. I think we should all pay the same. When you have a flat tax you lose loop holes so this is why this idea never takes. Makes to much sense like campaign finance reform that never works.

 

[WhatsHisNuts]

"The data is irrefutable"

If we removed this sentence and the final paragraph, would you have sounded the three alarms?

If you remove this sentence, it is a different post because it is now simply an opinion. Once he says the facts are "irrefutable", it begs the question "Where are these facts?". He went from opinion/theory to claiming fact without presenting it.

Dawg, this wasn't an attack on you and really isn't an attack on your post. I have heard this argument since the Reagan years, but have never seen it backed up with anything but theory/opinion. The arrogance of this quote got my attention, but it also piqued my curiosity.

 

[djv]

It's stated some whare above last 20 years rich and super rich are paying over 50% of all taxes. Seems fair since they been getting rich, richer, and just stupid super rich last 15 years forsure.
Small price for them to pay for what all this county has give them.

 

[Ball Buster]

My only issue with the economy is

My only issue with the economy is

the amount, or lack of, personal savings by the
average American. There is far too much of
keeping op with the Jones and not enough
saving money by the middle class as well
as most Americans.
Then when an emergency strikes they have to go
deep into debt and next thing you know they
are in financial deep shyte.
Smartest thing I have heard Bush say was in one
of the debates. He replied to a question about
jobs.....
"well the first thing you can do is get a good education."
It is scary how dumb the average American can
be sometimes.