Good article about top 1%
- Thread starter pd1
- Start date
Yeah...Stiglitz is decent. Won a Nobel in economics, some time back.
"But one big part of the reason we have so much inequality is that the top 1 percent want it that way. "
Been going on for several thousand years.
Even Plato would've advocated such.
Small "d" democracy is in.
"But one big part of the reason we have so much inequality is that the top 1 percent want it that way. "
Been going on for several thousand years.
Even Plato would've advocated such.
Small "d" democracy is in.
Last edited:
Are you sure you want reply--you know thread will be moved the minute the facts come out 
Below per CBO/Fact Check
--and lets-- live and let live-
Split the US--penalize us by giving us all these 1% "freeloaders" we'll also take those nasty ole corps that provide those jobs and tax revenue also
--and you take that productive base of yours and each live with their convictions. :0008
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_percent_of_taxes_does_the_top.html
May 2, 2008
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top width="5%" noWrap align=left>Q:
</TD><TD vAlign=top width="95%" align=left>What percent of taxes does the top 1 percent pay and what percent of the income do they make?
</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width="5%" noWrap align=left>A:
</TD><TD vAlign=top width="95%" align=left>The top 1 percent of all households got 18 percent of all personal income and paid nearly 28 percent of all federal taxes in 2005, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The top 1 percent now pay a significantly larger share of taxes than before President Bush's tax cuts, and also have a larger share of income.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Below per CBO/Fact Check
--and lets-- live and let live-
Split the US--penalize us by giving us all these 1% "freeloaders" we'll also take those nasty ole corps that provide those jobs and tax revenue also
--and you take that productive base of yours and each live with their convictions. :0008
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_percent_of_taxes_does_the_top.html
May 2, 2008
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top width="5%" noWrap align=left>Q:
</TD><TD vAlign=top width="95%" align=left>What percent of taxes does the top 1 percent pay and what percent of the income do they make?
</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width="5%" noWrap align=left>A:
</TD><TD vAlign=top width="95%" align=left>The top 1 percent of all households got 18 percent of all personal income and paid nearly 28 percent of all federal taxes in 2005, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The top 1 percent now pay a significantly larger share of taxes than before President Bush's tax cuts, and also have a larger share of income.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
A typical bad article by Stiglitz, should be ignored by all.
Yeah, he did get a Nobel Prize. But his expertise is certainly not in this area. How about some required reading ("The Upside of Income Inequality") by a Nobel Prize winner who's expertise does touch these issues?
A review of international data reveals that the rise of income inequality in the US (including this fetish on top 1%) is broadly mirrored elsewhere in Europe--thus all this partisan gnashing of teeth and scapegoating here in the US of unique American policies which might be contributing to American inequalities of income is mostly off base.
The more regressive tax regimes in Europe are suprisingly more efficient than ours, but not much better at reducing inequalities.
Anyway, we are talking income inequalites, or as Stiglitz also mentions, wealth inequalites--but lifetime consumption inequalites is really the most important in measuring economic inequality. For example, two brothers work alongside each other as plumbers in their small business, both making $100K per annun for decades. One brother buys ever fancier houses and cars and vacations, pays for all his kid's educations. He retires middle-class. Other brother saves and invests most of his money, keeps same old house and buys new cars only every 8 years, etc. He's retires wealthy and is summarily targeted by the likes of Stiglitz and his ilk as "rich" and should be taxed to help the poor brother left behind in the "declining middle-class".
Yeah, he did get a Nobel Prize. But his expertise is certainly not in this area. How about some required reading ("The Upside of Income Inequality") by a Nobel Prize winner who's expertise does touch these issues?
A review of international data reveals that the rise of income inequality in the US (including this fetish on top 1%) is broadly mirrored elsewhere in Europe--thus all this partisan gnashing of teeth and scapegoating here in the US of unique American policies which might be contributing to American inequalities of income is mostly off base.
The more regressive tax regimes in Europe are suprisingly more efficient than ours, but not much better at reducing inequalities.
Anyway, we are talking income inequalites, or as Stiglitz also mentions, wealth inequalites--but lifetime consumption inequalites is really the most important in measuring economic inequality. For example, two brothers work alongside each other as plumbers in their small business, both making $100K per annun for decades. One brother buys ever fancier houses and cars and vacations, pays for all his kid's educations. He retires middle-class. Other brother saves and invests most of his money, keeps same old house and buys new cars only every 8 years, etc. He's retires wealthy and is summarily targeted by the likes of Stiglitz and his ilk as "rich" and should be taxed to help the poor brother left behind in the "declining middle-class".
I doubt we have any here Nick.
Actually I think subject is more important to middle class. Despite how the drive by media push the "tax cuts for the rich" talking points --the rich got the lowest % of tax cuts of any bracket--
--of course enjoy the topic being brought up every year--as always look forward to this discussion ending parable
by Bob Wade
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/802372/posts
I was having lunch with one of my favorite clients last week and the conversation turned to the government's recent round of tax cuts.
'"I'm opposed to those tax cuts," the retired college instructor declared, "because they benefit the rich. The rich get much more money back than ordinary taxpayers like you and me and that's not fair.'"
"But the rich pay more in the first place," I argued, "so it stands to reason that they'd get more money back."
I could tell that my friend was unimpressed by this meager argument. So I said to him, "let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand."
"Suppose that every day 10 men go to a restaurant for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If it was paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four men would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59."
The 10 men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Now dinner for the 10 only costs $80. The first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. Can you figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings among the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share? The men realize that $20 divided by 6 is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal.
The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same percentage, being sure to give each a break, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so now the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of $59.
Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," complained the sixth man, pointing to the tenth, "and he got $7!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"
"That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor."
Then, the nine men surrounded the tenth man (the richest one, paying the most) and beat him up. The next night the richest man didn't show up for dinner, so now the nine men sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They were $52 short! "And that, boys, girls and college instructors, is how America's tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table any more. There are lots of good restaurants in Switzerland and the Caribbean."
:0008
Actually I think subject is more important to middle class. Despite how the drive by media push the "tax cuts for the rich" talking points --the rich got the lowest % of tax cuts of any bracket--
--of course enjoy the topic being brought up every year--as always look forward to this discussion ending parable
by Bob Wade
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/802372/posts
I was having lunch with one of my favorite clients last week and the conversation turned to the government's recent round of tax cuts.
'"I'm opposed to those tax cuts," the retired college instructor declared, "because they benefit the rich. The rich get much more money back than ordinary taxpayers like you and me and that's not fair.'"
"But the rich pay more in the first place," I argued, "so it stands to reason that they'd get more money back."
I could tell that my friend was unimpressed by this meager argument. So I said to him, "let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand."
"Suppose that every day 10 men go to a restaurant for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If it was paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four men would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59."
The 10 men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Now dinner for the 10 only costs $80. The first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. Can you figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings among the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share? The men realize that $20 divided by 6 is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal.
The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same percentage, being sure to give each a break, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so now the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of $59.
Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," complained the sixth man, pointing to the tenth, "and he got $7!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"
"That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor."
Then, the nine men surrounded the tenth man (the richest one, paying the most) and beat him up. The next night the richest man didn't show up for dinner, so now the nine men sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They were $52 short! "And that, boys, girls and college instructors, is how America's tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table any more. There are lots of good restaurants in Switzerland and the Caribbean."
:0008
<TABLE style="WIDTH: 90%" border=1 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=418 colSpan=2>Before Bush Tax Cuts
</TD></TR><TR><TD width=285>
</TD></TR><TR><TD width=285>Bottom 20%, $0 to $14,415</TD><TD width=133>
</TD></TR><TR><TD width=285>Second 20%, $14,415 to $25,499</TD><TD width=133>
</TD></TR><TR><TD width=285>Third 20%, $25,500 to $41,640</TD><TD width=133>
</TD></TR><TR><TD width=285>Fourth 20%, $41,641 to $68,295</TD><TD width=133>
</TD></TR><TR><TD width=285>Top 20%, $68,296 and above</TD><TD width=133>
</TD></TR><TR><TD width=285>Total Tax Liability for all taxpayers</TD><TD width=133>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
</TD><TD width=329 colSpan=3>After Bush Tax Cuts</TD></TR><TR><TD width=285>
</TD><TD width=133>Share of Tax Liability
</TD><TD width=135>Tax Reduction for 2004
</TD><TD width=102>Share of Tax Liability
</TD><TD width=92>Share of Tax Cuts</TD></TR><TR><TD width=285>Bottom 20%, $0 to $14,415</TD><TD width=133>
0.50%
</TD><TD width=135>$1,976,256,511
</TD><TD width=102>0.30%
</TD><TD width=92>1.20%</TD></TR><TR><TD width=285>Second 20%, $14,415 to $25,499</TD><TD width=133>
2.30%
</TD><TD width=135>$7,177,358,834
</TD><TD width=102>1.90%
</TD><TD width=92>4.20%</TD></TR><TR><TD width=285>Third 20%, $25,500 to $41,640</TD><TD width=133>
5.90%
</TD><TD width=135>$15,905,120,495
</TD><TD width=102>5.20%
</TD><TD width=92>9.40%</TD></TR><TR><TD width=285>Fourth 20%, $41,641 to $68,295</TD><TD width=133>
12.60%
</TD><TD width=135>$29,559,373,144
</TD><TD width=102>11.60%
</TD><TD width=92>17.50%</TD></TR><TR><TD width=285>Top 20%, $68,296 and above</TD><TD width=133>
78.70%
</TD><TD width=135>$114,633,332,724
</TD><TD width=102>81.00%
</TD><TD width=92>67.70%</TD></TR><TR><TD width=285>Total Tax Liability for all taxpayers</TD><TD width=133>
100.00%
</TD><TD width=135>$169,251,441,709
</TD><TD width=102>100.00%
</TD><TD width=92>100.00%</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Last edited:
I doubt we have any here Nick.
Actually I think subject is more important to middle class. Despite how the drive by media push the "tax cuts for the rich" talking points --the rich got the lowest % of tax cuts of any bracket--
--of course enjoy the topic being brought up every year--as always look forward to this discussion ending parable
by Bob Wade
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/802372/posts
I was having lunch with one of my favorite clients last week and the conversation turned to the government's recent round of tax cuts.
'"I'm opposed to those tax cuts," the retired college instructor declared, "because they benefit the rich. The rich get much more money back than ordinary taxpayers like you and me and that's not fair.'"
"But the rich pay more in the first place," I argued, "so it stands to reason that they'd get more money back."
I could tell that my friend was unimpressed by this meager argument. So I said to him, "let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand."
"Suppose that every day 10 men go to a restaurant for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If it was paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four men would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59."
The 10 men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Now dinner for the 10 only costs $80. The first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. Can you figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings among the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share? The men realize that $20 divided by 6 is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal.
The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same percentage, being sure to give each a break, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so now the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of $59.
Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," complained the sixth man, pointing to the tenth, "and he got $7!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"
"That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor."
Then, the nine men surrounded the tenth man (the richest one, paying the most) and beat him up. The next night the richest man didn't show up for dinner, so now the nine men sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They were $52 short! "And that, boys, girls and college instructors, is how America's tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table any more. There are lots of good restaurants in Switzerland and the Caribbean."
:0008
<TABLE style="WIDTH: 90%" border=1 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=418 colSpan=2>Before Bush Tax Cuts
</TD><TD width=329 colSpan=3>After Bush Tax Cuts
</TD></TR><TR><TD width=285>
</TD><TD width=133>Share of Tax Liability
</TD><TD width=135>Tax Reduction for 2004
</TD><TD width=102>Share of Tax Liability
</TD><TD width=92>Share of Tax Cuts
</TD></TR><TR><TD width=285>Bottom 20%, $0 to $14,415</TD><TD width=133>0.50%</TD><TD width=135>$1,976,256,511
</TD><TD width=102>0.30%
</TD><TD width=92>1.20%
</TD></TR><TR><TD width=285>Second 20%, $14,415 to $25,499</TD><TD width=133>2.30%</TD><TD width=135>$7,177,358,834
</TD><TD width=102>1.90%
</TD><TD width=92>4.20%
</TD></TR><TR><TD width=285>Third 20%, $25,500 to $41,640</TD><TD width=133>5.90%</TD><TD width=135>$15,905,120,495
</TD><TD width=102>5.20%
</TD><TD width=92>9.40%
</TD></TR><TR><TD width=285>Fourth 20%, $41,641 to $68,295</TD><TD width=133>12.60%</TD><TD width=135>$29,559,373,144
</TD><TD width=102>11.60%
</TD><TD width=92>17.50%
</TD></TR><TR><TD width=285>Top 20%, $68,296 and above</TD><TD width=133>78.70%</TD><TD width=135>$114,633,332,724
</TD><TD width=102>81.00%
</TD><TD width=92>67.70%
</TD></TR><TR><TD width=285>Total Tax Liability for all taxpayers</TD><TD width=133>100.00%</TD><TD width=135>$169,251,441,709
</TD><TD width=102>100.00%
</TD><TD width=92>100.00%
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
I think Ayn Rand wrote that story a few years ago.
