Fear Mongering

[Top Gun]

...I'm sorry, but I have no idea where you're going with that. If you followed the plan of the current majority of GOP members, what we'd be "giving up" are significant portions of services that are very important to a lot of low-income people out there. I can't really say that I see the downside to asking tax brackets who have enjoyed significant windfalls due to the tax policies of the last decade or so to return the favor and take a moderate increase now.

[Spidey]

Has anybody here done the numbers? Are you sure you can get enough money from taxing the rich to do the job.

Spending can be infinite…taxes are not.

Someone show me proof that taxing the rich can produce enough revenue to clear the deficit and pay down the debt.

(and don’t forget to add the projected spending increases over the same time period)

[Will Robinson]

Has anybody here done the numbers? Are you sure you can get enough money from taxing the rich to do the job.

Spending can be infinite…taxes are not.

Someone show me proof that taxing the rich can produce enough revenue to clear the deficit and pay down the debt.

(and don’t forget to add the projected spending increases over the same time period)

I haven't done the numbers myself but lots of people have, and the way the Obama supporters and spokesmen avoid addressing those results tell me they know it to be true, and that is you can take 100% of the income away from the top 2% and it won't fund his spending!

You have to tax the crap out of the middle class as well as everything he proposes if you want to fund his model.

Obama seems to have a simple plan, break it and rebuild it to suit his model regardless of the fact it is economically unsustainable. He knows what outcome he wants but no idea how to make it functional so he's just going to declare the outcome as the way it shall be and let the chaos ensue. Congress has been working that way lately as well, "We need to pass the bill so you can see what's in it" - Pelosi
and what was in it was simply place holders for provisions that were completely unwritten, not even conceived at the time they passed it! Once it passed they went back in and stuffed it full of whatever they wanted.

We have no leadership as a nation, congress is like an average highschool. We have foodfights between two cliques and whichever one gets the most 'likes' on their youtube page gets to break into the principles office to hack the schools computer and change grades for their friends and make the schedule to suit them..two lunches no english, send the other clique members to detention etc. etc.

[flip]

..I'm sorry, but I have no idea where you're going with that. If you followed the plan of the current majority of GOP members, what we'd be "giving up" are significant portions of services that are very important to a lot of low-income people out there. I can't really say that I see the downside to asking tax brackets who have enjoyed significant windfalls due to the tax policies of the last decade or so to return the favor and take a moderate increase now.

I notice this happens a lot, but we are agreeing with each other, but for some reason it doesn't sound like it. Let me say in no uncertain terms. Equal taxes on the rich and poor. It's not about how much you have to give away, it's about how much you get to keep. The rich argue that they provide jobs and run this economy. NO THEY DON'T. They outsource jobs around the world and RUIN our economy. The least they could do is give an equal percentage of their wages. The 'majority' of democrats and republicans that have been if some office or another for years upon years are not there to make OUR NATION strong, they are there now to secure a world economy for those that have the power to grasp total control. We are on our own. Get that in your head.

[callmeslick]

Honestly TopGun, what else are you willing to give up? Equal adversaries compromise assets, the disenfranchised must stand firm and be immovable. We have sacrificed enough. It's time we thought more highly of ourselves and draw a line in the sand. Who knows what comes of it, but one thing I do know. It's our watch and just maybe we have good favor on our side .

If you are saying what I think you are saying, I agree. Given that the vast bulk of the populace has been getting screwed for nigh-onto the last 30 years(shrinking incomes, shrinking employment opportunity, costly education and healthcare), and that that same populace not only favors but benefits from Medicare,
Medicaid, Social Security and would from cradle to grave Medicare it IS time they drew the line in the sand.
Unfortunately, you have 'representatives' that don't give a crap about you, and just wish to keep the tax gifts rolling in to the wealthy.

[callmeslick]

Has anybody here done the numbers? Are you sure you can get enough money from taxing the rich to do the job.

yes, and yes. In fact, you should be able to get universal health care without really crimping any well-off person's lifestyle, and then you would lift the single greatest barrier to US Industry, in terms of international
competitiveness.

Spending can be infinite…taxes are not.

sure, and what is starting to look limitless as well are meaningless platitudes like that one.....

Someone show me proof that taxing the rich can produce enough revenue to clear the deficit and pay down the debt.

a surtax of 20% on all income over $500,000, on top of the current rates would yield roughly 3 trillion dollars,
based on numbers I've seen, annually. That wipes out the current deficit and would enable paydown of
1.4 trillion to the debt. HOWEVER, the caveat is that you still have to retool the system under which both Medicare and Social Security work, or the baby boomers will bring a wave of red ink eventually. Do I think such a surtax would ever pass? No. Would such a surtax ruin anyone financially? No. Would a surprising chunk of the wealthy agree to such a surcharge? Yup.

Now, why the general public doesn't DEMAND such a surcharge, immediately, is beyond me. That is how the House of Representatives is supposed to work, representing the demands of the People. Unfortunately, the People have been sold such a longstanding load of crap that far too few either realize that they could do this, and fewer still realize what a good thing it would be for the nation. Heck, if you could use half of the deficit reduction to expand Medicare cradle to grave, you would probably pave the way for an economic boom that would enable EVERYONE's standard of living to increase for a change, instead of only a handful of folks. Food for thought......

[callmeslick]

[supporters and spokesmen avoid addressing those results tell me they know it to be true, and that is you can take 100% of the income away from the top 2% and it won't fund his spending!

there is no way to sugar coat this: The statement above is a bald-faced lie. The top 2%(consisting of
roughly 6 million people, 2 million actual earners, make roughly 15 Trillion Dollars per year. Your claim is asinine.

[Will Robinson]

[supporters and spokesmen avoid addressing those results tell me they know it to be true, and that is you can take 100% of the income away from the top 2% and it won't fund his spending!

there is no way to sugar coat this: The statement above is a bald-faced lie. The top 2%(consisting of
roughly 6 million people, 2 million actual earners, make roughly 15 Trillion Dollars per year. Your claim is asinine.

Are you talking about taxable income? Or talking about seizing 100% of all wealth?
According to the article I linked which is supposedly using IRS numbers you are the one who is wrong:

But let's not stop at a 42% top rate; as a thought experiment, let's go all the way. A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That's less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable "dime" of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion.

Fast forward to this year (and 2010) when the Wall Street meltdown and recession are going to mean far few taxpayers earning more than $500,000. Profits are plunging, businesses are cutting or eliminating dividends, hedge funds are rolling up, and, most of all, capital nationwide is on strike. Raising taxes now will thus yield far less revenue than it would have in 2006.

It looks to me like taxing the crap out of the rich sells really well to the lefty voters but to actually fund Obamanomics you need to move everyone earning $75,000 and above into the rich column...

[flip]

If you are saying what I think you are saying, I agree. Given that the vast bulk of the populace has been getting screwed for nigh-onto the last 30 years(shrinking incomes, shrinking employment opportunity, costly education and healthcare), and that that same populace not only favors but benefits from Medicare,
Medicaid, Social Security and would from cradle to grave Medicare it IS time they drew the line in the sand.
Unfortunately, you have 'representatives' that don't give a crap about you, and just wish to keep the tax gifts rolling in to the wealthy.

Yes, The very first thing to do would be to secure all these benefits. Like I said, this money comes directly from our pockets for that very reason. It should be used for only that reason, especially as we keep seeing increasing population and narrowing opportunity.
Aside from that, I believe everyone would benefit from establishing new or at least enforcing existing anti-trust laws. On top of that, an equal across the board tax for all. Keep the tax law as it is as far as I'm concerned, just the same rate across the board. This would provide all the revenue the government needs to operate without them being in the pocket of others and then maybe we would get some politicians that actually had balls instead of telling us how much we need them.
Hell, I say let them go. Go elsewhere if you don't love this country and it's people. Let it break. We'll step right in there and take over.

[flip]

The Second Bank of the United States was authorized for a twenty year period during James Madison's tenure in 1816. As President, Jackson worked to rescind the bank's federal charter. In Jackson's veto message (written by George Bancroft), the bank needed to be abolished because:

It concentrated the nation's financial strength in a single institution.
It exposed the government to control by foreign interests.
It served mainly to make the rich richer.
It exercised too much control over members of Congress.
It favored northeastern states over southern and western states.
Banks are controlled by a few select families.
Banks have a long history of instigating wars between nations, forcing them to borrow funding to pay for them.

In light of this, I would also create a foundation such as those owned by the rich. One where the money increases by interest without the burden of taxation.

EDIT: For Social Security

[Spidey]

sure, and what is starting to look limitless as well are meaningless platitudes like that one.....

This from a person who posts links to other people’s political satire.

Dude you keep moving to the personal, and you won’t like what you find there…

[Spidey]

[supporters and spokesmen avoid addressing those results tell me they know it to be true, and that is you can take 100% of the income away from the top 2% and it won't fund his spending!

there is no way to sugar coat this: The statement above is a bald-faced lie. The top 2%(consisting of
roughly 6 million people, 2 million actual earners, make roughly 15 Trillion Dollars per year. Your claim is asinine.

WOW…the gnp for the entire country is only 15 trillion!

[Will Robinson]

[supporters and spokesmen avoid addressing those results tell me they know it to be true, and that is you can take 100% of the income away from the top 2% and it won't fund his spending!

there is no way to sugar coat this: The statement above is a bald-faced lie. The top 2%(consisting of
roughly 6 million people, 2 million actual earners, make roughly 15 Trillion Dollars per year. Your claim is asinine.

WOW…the gnp for the entire country is only 15 trillion!

Don't bother him with details....he's an Obama supporter, they don't do that.

[woodchip]

[supporters and spokesmen avoid addressing those results tell me they know it to be true, and that is you can take 100% of the income away from the top 2% and it won't fund his spending!

there is no way to sugar coat this: The statement above is a bald-faced lie. The top 2%(consisting of
roughly 6 million people, 2 million actual earners, make roughly 15 Trillion Dollars per year. Your claim is asinine.

It would help Slick, if you could link a source for your claim.

[callmeslick]

just read the source for the claim Will posted. It is based on a total income figure of only 4.1 trillion dollars.
BUT, that was 'taxable' income, and therein lies the entire problem. To give myself as an example, my gross income is more than 4 times my taxable income, thanks to deductions, subsidies, writedowns, writeoffs and abatements for envioronmental reasons. That is the screwed up part of the tax code, IMO,
and why I have paid less than 10% of my gross on most years in taxes.

Here is what I based my calculus on: the top 2% of earners comes to about 2 million individuals. If those two million average $7,000,000 per person in income(the group would probably include all who earn over
around 250,000 per annum), a very conservative figure, you get 14 trillion. I suspect my numbers are rather low.

Finally, a quick question: how does personal income equate to GNP/GDP? The two are VASTLY different,
as the GNP includes corporate earnings(only a fraction are dispersed as salary or dividends) and other things that reflect an increase in capital.

It will be an interesting contrast to hear the points of view I am no doubt going to hear in the Clubhouse bar at Saratoga Race Course. There, the blame will be on the unrealistic expectations of the US Middle class,
the folks who spent beyond their means, and those evil taxes to cover those 'commoners' butts. There will be a grain of truth in those arguments, but, they are easy targets for folks who've had money since birth, never had to worry about basic expenses, and who are the beneficiaries of a couple hundred or more years of privilege. I try to keep a bit more humble, and aware that a lot of Americans are running in a handicap race, economically, and are saddled with a lot of weight. Take care all, 'slick is off to the races.

[Will Robinson]

just read the source for the claim Will posted. It is based on a total income figure of only 4.1 trillion dollars.
BUT, that was 'taxable' income, and therein lies the entire problem. To give myself as an example, my gross income is more than 4 times my taxable income, thanks to deductions, subsidies, writedowns, writeoffs and abatements for envioronmental reasons. That is the screwed up part of the tax code, IMO,..

Yea?!? No ★■◆● Sherlock! The part you quoted, the part you said was "The statement above is a bald-faced lie" said clearly "taxable income and was clearly NOT a lie!

So please stop using that bull★■◆● line that 'all we need to do is raise taxes to Clinton era levels' We need a lot more revenue than that if you aren't going to make big time cuts to the spending.
You have to tax the hell out of the middle class to pay for the outrageous level of spending Obama has taken us to not just tax the vulnerable (read:fraction of) income shown by the guys who fly corporate jets!

and why I have paid less than 10% of my gross on most years in taxes. ....

I bet you would say it's all because of republicans. The truth is because both parties set it up that way and are in the pocket of rich donors and you are loyal member of one of those two teams telling us it's all the other team's fault.

As problematic and politically motivated as the hard line is taken by the don't-raise-the-debt-ceiling-Repubs at least it does target the source of the problem - overspending. The notion that we avoid losing value/credit in the world by arbitrarily raising our limits to even higher unsustainable levels is a joke! We have put it off to the very end, now is time to change before we can't survive the transition to sanity.

...
It will be an interesting contrast to hear the points of view I am no doubt going to hear in the Clubhouse bar at Saratoga Race Course. ... ...
. I try to keep a bit more humble, and aware that a lot of Americans are running in a handicap race, economically, and are saddled with a lot of weight. Take care all, 'slick is off to the races.

Yea you strike me as being almost as humble as John Kerry.

[Spidey]

Finally, a quick question: how does personal income equate to GNP/GDP?.

I never said the two “equate” I was just amazed at the numbers…hence the “wow”.

And sorry, your personal calculus is not acceptable…I have been searching for two days to find the total income for the top two percent, and have come up empty.

Cite an actual correct source please.

[Spidey]

BTW…you can’t calculate a total number using an average that is based only on the lowest & highest numbers.

You do need all of the numbers to make a proper average. And if you had all of those numbers…you would not use an average to get the total…you would use addition.

Foil am I correct?

Slick…you REALLY need to show how you derived your average number.

Honest to god…after many web sites and many calculations…the best I can do is give or take 2 trillion, out of a total of 8.5 or so trillion. (the split is not exactly at the 2% mark)

The results are also off by a few years, but not more than 2. (provided by the IRS & others)

[Foil]

If X = average household income for the top 2%, then X * (number of households in the top 2%) is the total income for the top 2%, simply by definition of average.

The method used to calculate that average is the question here. Slick, your post appears to say you used an estimate of some kind to come up with X = $7mil; can you elaborate?

You do need all of the numbers to make a proper average. And if you had all of those numbers…you would not use an average to get the total…you would use addition.

Foil am I correct?

Yes. To obtain the average, you need the total. Of course, if you actually have that data (either the distribution curve, or 'all the numbers') there would be no need to calculate the average at all; finding the total would be trivial.

-------------------

Since you guys seem to be focusing on the top 2% number, here's what I found in a quick search from '07 census data:

All Households (all races):
116,783,000 households
X $67,609 average income
= $7,895,581,847,000

Highest-Income Households (all races, $250,000+ income)
2,245,000 households (~1.922%)
X $418,063 average income
= $938,551,435,000 (~11.89%)

Rounded to political terms: "The income of the top 2% of households was around 12% of all household income in 2007."

-------------------

You may now return to your regularly-scheduled debate.

[Krom]

All Households (all races):
116,783,000 households
X $67,609 average income
= $7,895,581,847,000

You forgot the last 3 zeroes. (The total for everyone being lower than the total for just the top 2% does not compute.)

[Foil]

D'oh. Fixed, thanks Krom.

...from '07 census data:

All Households (all races):
116,783,000 households
X $67,609 average income
= $7,895,581,847,000

Highest-Income Households (all races, $250,000+ income)
2,245,000 households (~1.922%)
X $418,063 average income
= $938,551,435,000 (~11.89%)

Rounded to political terms: "The income of the top 2% of households was around 12% of all household income in 2007."

[Spidey]

Thanks, Foil.

[Foil]

Glancing back, looks like I may have misread your post and just repeated a couple of things you already said. My apologies.

You found some more recent numbers? Were they significantly different at all?

[Spidey]

N/P

No, pretty much typical of the increase in the economy as a whole. Most recent numbers are very hard to find tho.

[callmeslick]

you are looking at(as I pointed out the other day) TAXABLE income in those tables.

[Foil]

you are looking at(as I pointed out the other day) TAXABLE income in those tables.

No. I'm not.

The data I cited comes from the Census, reflecting census income, which is not limited to the taxable amount.

[Even if the $418,063 average for the top 2% was only the taxable portion, your estimate of $7 million is still way out of the ballpark.]

[Spidey]

Are you trying to say the difference between the average rich person’s Gross Income and the AGI is something like 6.5 million?

I still need to see numbers, because the IRS requires you submit all of your income, taxable or not. (from all sources derived)

Someone with your obvious talents, should have no problem.

[Will Robinson]

you are looking at(as I pointed out the other day) TAXABLE income in those tables.

That is laughable! You called my citing taxable income as "asinine" and then claimed I was off by more than 7 times that amount to try and support your claims.
When I asked you if you were implying seizing all wealth instead of taxable income (the only way your snide remarks could come close to be correct) you dodged it completely.

You spout off rhetoric with no regard for the truth and now you dance around like Clinton trying to define a two letter word...

[callmeslick]

your numbers are low, and if I'm reading correctly, it isn't any factor of six or seven, it is around 1/2 what the total ought to be, IMO.
At this stage the discourse is so far off the track that it's a waste bothering, but suffice it to say, the claim that all the income of the top 2% would not more than cover government spending is laughably wrong.

[Will Robinson]

your numbers are low, and if I'm reading correctly, it isn't any factor of six or seven, it is around 1/2 what the total ought to be, IMO.
At this stage the discourse is so far off the track that it's a waste bothering, but suffice it to say, the claim that all the income of the top 2% would not more than cover government spending is laughably wrong.

a) My source was working with IRS published data on taxable income. Your opinion was based on..well...apparently only your opinion ...but you keep on reading it anyway that helps you, don't worry yourself about getting it correct at this stage.

b) The discourse is off course, in large part, because you sent it there and so now you want to use that as an excuse for not proving your claim?!?
Are you in training to run for the U.S. Senate? You certainly are qualified!

[Foil]

your numbers are low, and if I'm reading correctly...

What exactly are you reading?

I'll readily admit my source is 4 years old, and I'll certainly concur that census data is subject to some underreporting. But at least I've cited a source.

Slick, I agree that the number is likely somewhat higher than $418K, and I think the 2% claim is partisan posturing. But $7mil is an order of magnitude jump! If you want your counter claim to be taken seriously, I'd suggest you show some supporting evidence.

[callmeslick]

Foil, there are a fair number of people in this nation with annual gross incomes in excess of 50 million dollars. Incomes of 400k are pretty routine, actually. The heavy weight on the average comes from that top top end. I'll get around to real hardcore numbers when I return, but a week of marlin fishing, drinking and gambling await. I just hope the weather drops a few degrees, or it will be an incinerated 'Slick who returns here to PA next weekend.

[Foil]

The heavy weight on the average comes from that top top end.

Yes. The incomes at the very top are much higher, and growing much faster, than people think. However, your claim was about the top 2%, where the data shows that the low end is ~$250K, and the average is well under a million.

'Slick, I actually agree somewhat with your overall point; the income gap trends are disturbing. What irks me, though, is that you are defending it extremely poorly, with numbers from off the top of your head. I'm a math guy; a good point supported by bad data doesn't get credit in my book.

I'll get around to real hardcore numbers when I return...

Looking forward to it.