get your $1200 in may .. whoopdeedoo

LMAO at stroh 


Year 2000:
Effective Tax rate for those under $200,000 in adjusted gross income = 11.4%
Effective Tax rate for those $200,000+ in adjusted gross income = 26.4%

Year 2005 (most recent IRS data available):
Effective Tax rate for those under $200,000 in adjusted gross income = 8.66%, a reduction of 24%.
Effective Tax rate for those $200,000+ in adjusted gross income = 22.11%, a reduction of 16.25%.


Year 2000:
Share of Taxes Paid for those under $200,000 in adjusted gross income = 54.23%
Share of Taxes Paid for those $200,000+ in adjusted gross income = 45.77%

Year 2005:
Share of Taxes Paid for those under $200,000 in adjusted gross income = 48.68%
Share of Taxes Paid for those $200,000+ in adjusted gross income = 51.32%


So 'our' tax rate reduction was larger AND 'our' share of the tax burden got smaller, but the rich got the better end of the deal?  I'm not saying they got screwed, but you cannot claim the cuts were for 'them' when 'we' are paying even less than before.

I have no idea what happens to two compared families at such extremes... because I don't care.  The $10M guy is rare enough that its not statistically relevant.  And using marginal rates really isn't the best way to go, as the rich guy is paying the top rate, 35%*, for a chitload of his income; while the not-rich is paying his top rate, 25%*, on a smaller portion of income (2007 rates, even though the data above this stops at 2005).  But let me try to take a smaller group later tonight (soccer game to get to right now) and see what happens.  Give me a range of income and I'll run it - pick a specific not-rich group and a rich one, break points are (in AGI):

$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$75,000
$100,000
$200,000
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$5,000,000
$10,000,000

ahhh, rick  you want to use AGI  instead of just tax / gross ?

between 2000 and 2005  how much did  health care costs increase ?



and anyways, that WAS my point... just what you said.  a 4% tax cut in the top rate bracket is far, far  more meaningful than a 3% cut in the 20-25% bracket.  both in raw dollars and in % increase in spending power.  this was the bu$hco tax cut platform, by the way, was it not ?


the Politics question is certainly at what point does the 10$M +  level need the money and use it to a greater net societal benefit than society itself can (via gubmint. and yes, in the u$a we suck at doing so!!!) ?        (no, i don't claim to have the answer to an exact #. )

 

'Want to'?  No.  Its what is available.  I'm not attempting to skew anything here.  I'm simply motivated by accuracy and truth in economics, but all too often its politics with a false veneer of economics that rules the masses.

So, using the 'spending power argument' I went ahead with the $50K-$75K range vs. the $2M-$5M range (yes, its still agi).  And yes, the 'middle class' range gained 3.2% in spending power, while the 'uber rich' gained 4.8%.  So by that argument, and that alone, you can say the tax cuts benefited the 'rich' more.

I still find it impossible to ignore the rest - 'they' pay a larger share of our collective taxes than before the cuts, 'we' pay less.  So why all the hate?

  surrenders

[rant on]
anyways, as to why the 'hate'  ...

too much anecdotal (yes, it's worthless in a macro-sense, i know)  watching close friends and family who are pure middle class through and through, generation above, and contemporary with me   busting their ass just to get by, and never managing to get anything more or better... and for example now in one case not even able to buy the medical care needed to survive. i won't go into how much bull*feces* it is that some trust-fund inheritance baby who never worked a day in their life can for example get the medical care they want/need, etc.  (yes, that kind of instance is rare, blah blah.  but it does exist, and it is true).

in this era of dwindling resources  and stagnating opportunities, we're slowly reverting back to a glorified feudalistic system,  and as a serf, i have a big problem with that- both in principle, and in the real experience of it.     
 


i know you like to view capitalism as good, and are far more optimistic than I am (hell i think everyone on the board is).   the problem is i see capitalism never really existed here, and what traces of it we did have ... have died off in the last few years.  we're reverting, not progressing, and  yeh, I'm human enough to admit I'd probably sing a different tune if I were on the other side of the curve,  but I'm not, and I can only base my opinions and predictions based on the cumulative life experiences and observations I have seen around me- in that end, nobody in my 'circle' stands any chance of severely improving their lifestyle NO MATTER WHAT OR HOW HARD they do/try  ... because of their 'birthplace'-  the 'american dream' died to them and me long ago.

[/rant off]

I want to offer an opposing viewpoint. My wife grew up in what was as close to abject poverty as there is. Her Dad worked the "bacon" line at Hormel and was part of the P-9 strike in the 80's (pretty infamous story in and of itself). He was without work for years. Her mom worked part-time at K-Mart.

They raised 4 kids and never had a spare nickel. Literally.

My wife paid her way through college and earned two degrees. When she wasn't working she would drive home and go to the union hall making sandwiches for the unemployed. She vowed then and there that she was going to make a better life for her family. I grew up in pretty standard, if very basic, middle class home. Dad was an electrician and Mom taught 4th grade.

Today we are better off (arguably) than our parents were at the same age. And by arguably I mean people have different ideas of what constitutes "improved lifestyle". I run into more people today who complain about what they don't have rather than looking around and realizing that they're better off than 95% of the world. Now I'm not saying an electrician and school teacher don't have it tougher today than 25 years ago but I reject the notion that your lot in life is set when you are born.

It isn't that I disagree with the fact it may be harder today and that capitalism breeds some pretty unethical situations but what government system doesn't?

Understand, I don't want to sound as simplistic as 'hitch up your pants, get to work and everything will be better' because I know things are much different today. And they'll be different tomorrow. It's just that I see that people can improve their lot in life without winning the lucky sperm lottery.

Again just another viewpoint. Nothing more. 

How's this?

nope, I'm used to feeling this way,  i would have offed myself by now if i really wanted to.



50 years ago ago someone could do pretty much any (at least 90% or so) remotely skilled job in this country, and afford* to build/buy a safe house, buy clothes and food, and a car.      today. not a chance in hell. maybe 60% (and i doubt even that, probably barely 50%) of the jobs.  recession aside, that % is continuing to decline as the mcjob and outsourcing and downsizing trends continue.     i don't see it reversing until the trend of maximizing short term shareholder gains declines.   i'm (believe it or not, seriously)  open to arguments otherwise as to why this could change.    sure, we do have better tvs, better little things,  but do we take more or less vacations?  do we work more or less hours to get them?  are we not practically* required to have cell phones and internet conxns  to do additional work at home?   previous generations never had that cost.  previous generations never had to decide on gasoline or health insurance either. mortgage/bankruptcy  vs   prescription drugs required to live.  and you certainly didn't need a college degree to get an entry level 20% over minimum wage job (and hence the associated $20-40k,even more college debt)% the quality (and length) of life is certainly up (and i posted earlier in this thread as much as i bitch, i READILY acknowlege my QoL is greater than 99.99 of all humans who have ever lived!)  on average,  but perhaps with far greater width on the negative end of the tail?  certainly with greater width on the positive end of the tail.