So..... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

NCB · 11-08-2006, 04:36 PM

What will the Democrats define as "rich" now that they have power? They desire to raise taxes on the rich, but how will they define it? 150,000 for married coups? 80,000 for single?

ratbastid · 11-08-2006, 04:51 PM

I can't really say what they'll do, but I will say that you have to go a LOT higher than that before you get to where the majority of personal wealth is holed up. Like top 3%.

NCB · 11-08-2006, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

I can't really say what they'll do, but I will say that you have to go a LOT higher than that before you get to where the majority of personal wealth is holed up. Like top 3%.

Were talking yearly income, not saved wealth.

BTW...Based on your response, you have no idea where top 3% is, do you?

matthew330 · 11-08-2006, 05:12 PM

And what should be done with those in the top 3% that are "holding up" the majority of personal wealth? What should the ever efficient government do when these finances are freed for the masses, as if this were the only thing standing in the way of those less fortunate? Why does the above post solidify my belief that what motivates liberalism is nothing more than envy (or power/exploitation of the lower class) if you happen to be in politics?

roachboy · 11-08-2006, 05:22 PM

so wait---let me get the idea behind this thread straight

1. the implication is that raising taxes on the wealthy ISor WOULD BE class warfare--but the conservative tax cuts for the wealthy ARE NOT or WERE NOT class warfare.

2. if this is accurate, then it would follow that a radically stratified distribution of wealth would be NATURAL in conservativeland and attempts to redistribute wealth FOR ANY REASON would be other than that.

3. ncb/matthew330: are you worried about this kind of thing because you would yourselves be classified as wealthy? or are you looking out for the interests of someone else?

that is all for now.

MuadDib · 11-08-2006, 05:47 PM

They won't define what "rich" is. In '07 they'll repeal the Bush tax cuts and call that good enough.

And it will be.

filtherton · 11-08-2006, 05:47 PM

Class envy is a funny thing. If you're conservative it apparently means pretending that you're rich and pretending that taxes are bad and pretending that you're an expert on wealth distribution. If you're a liberal it apparently means that you just can't stand other people having more money than you.

As for class warfare, let me just say that the only people who bring class warfare up are the people who have benefitted the most from it, or the people who like to pretend that they've benefitted from it. Capitalism american-style can't exist without a constant class war.

matthew330 · 11-08-2006, 06:07 PM

Jeez, they were two rather simple questions that never implied I myself was rich (in fact far from it by any standard suggested in this thread), or that I was an expert on wealth distribution (in fact I want nothing to do with it). If your gonna be so cavalier about taking and distributing someone else's finances, shouldn't you robin hoods at least be up front about where it's going and why it's not going in the right places. Perhaps this attitude comes from living in the liberal fantasyland called Baltimore Maryland, but christ it's not that much to ask is it?

ratbastid · 11-08-2006, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Were talking yearly income, not saved wealth.

I understood you were talking about annual income with the numbers you gave. Annual income is strongly correlated to net wealth, especially if you include capital gains.

Quote:

BTW...Based on your response, you have no idea where top 3% is, do you?

Like a specific number? Nope. But I gotta think it's a household over $150k. That's based on nothing but a guess. Which is part of why I said "I can't speak to what they'll do"--cause I don't know that. Do you?

Elphaba · 11-08-2006, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

I understood you were talking about annual income with the numbers you gave. Annual income is strongly correlated to net wealth, especially if you include capital gains.

Like a specific number? Nope. But I gotta think it's a household over $150k. That's based on nothing but a guess. Which is part of why I said "I can't speak to what they'll do"--cause I don't know that. Do you?

RB, the trick is in the tax deductions that reduce taxable gross income. The bigger the taxable income, the bigger those tax deductions need to be. Follow that money trail over the last six years.

dc_dux · 11-08-2006, 08:31 PM

Quote:

What will the Democrats define as "rich" now that they have power? They desire to raise taxes on the rich, but how will they define it? 150,000 for married coups? 80,000 for single?

NCB....thats an interesting way to pose the question. It sounds like a Republican push poll question.

What is likely is that the Dems will not introduce any bills to make all of the Bush tax cuts permanent(they are currently set to expire in 2010), but offer an alternative that will include some of the Bush tax cuts and refocus others more on the middle class (those in your range of the $50-80,000 single/$150-$200,000 couple) AND at the same time have a less draconian long term fiscal impact.

The CBO projected several years ago that implemeting the full Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 is unsustainable without drastic cuts in discretionary spending - an estimated loss of revenue of over $1.5 trillion between 2001 and 2010.

BTW, the proposed cuts for the very top tax bracket (ie...the "rich") havent even been applied yet..they were planned to be phased in slowly in the outyears (2006-2010) so that they wouldnt impact the budget deficit during his term.

guy44 · 11-08-2006, 10:03 PM

You know, the Democrats will probably do a lot of really sensible things in the foreseable future. Let Bush's tax cuts expire, cut spending by cleaning house on a lot of Republican waste like no-bid contracts, eliminate tax breaks for oil companies, and allow the government to bargain for lower drug prices.

Also, you know, they are going to do things to make it easier for the middle/lower classes, like allowing college tuition to be deductable on your taxes.

I'm just saying, that's a damn practicle list of things to do.

NCB · 11-09-2006, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

NCB....thats an interesting way to pose the question. It sounds like a Republican push poll question.

What is likely is that the Dems will not introduce any bills to make all of the Bush tax cuts permanent(they are currently set to expire in 2010), but offer an alternative that will include some of the Bush tax cuts and refocus others more on the middle class (those in your range of the $50-80,000 single/$150-$200,000 couple) AND at the same time have a less draconian long term fiscal impact.

The CBO projected several years ago that implemeting the full Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 is unsustainable without drastic cuts in discretionary spending - an estimated loss of revenue of over $1.5 trillion between 2001 and 2010.

BTW, the proposed cuts for the very top tax bracket (ie...the "rich") havent even been applied yet..they were planned to be phased in slowly in the outyears (2006-2010) so that they wouldnt impact the budget deficit during his term.

Thanks for answering the question. Everyone seems to be ducking and dodging. Why, I dont know.....

I think one of the problems a lot of liberals have when it comes to fiscal policy is that they tend to think of the tax revenue pie as a fixed entity. As the tax cuts have proven, that is not the case at all.

Also, you stated that the cuts are unsustainable. However, you seem to rather sacrifice tax cuts for wealth redistribution. I guess I really shouldnt be surprised, but I do at least appreciate that brute honesty. I tend not to see that among liberals when it comes to this issue and I appreciate your honesty. We'll just agree to disagree

dc_dux · 11-09-2006, 04:57 AM

Your interpretation of my response is as interesting as your OP and just as slanted. ...but thats Ok. We agree to disagree.

ASU2003 · 11-09-2006, 04:58 AM

Someone has to pay for all the money the government spends. Either you can reduce spending or increase taxes. Probably both are needed. It is the fiscal conservative republicans that went over to the democrats two day ago.

I think people who make money on other people's work should pay higher taxes than the people who get a wage for doing the work.

Bush is still in the WH, and has veto power, so the nation won't be that different.

roachboy · 11-09-2006, 05:32 AM

ncb: i was asking you questions about the premise you posed.
seems to me that if anyone is dodging anything, it's you.

stevo · 11-09-2006, 06:41 AM

Why would anyone want to repeal the tax cuts? Tax revenues have increased since the implementation of them in 2003. Do people actually think the only way to raise tax revenue is by raising taxes? What don't people understand?

dc_dux · 11-09-2006, 07:03 AM

Tax revenues accounted for 19.8 percent of gross domestic product in 2001. They have dropped as a percentage in each of the last three years to a low of 16.3 percent of GDP in 05...and will drop even more once the last round of cuts kick-in this year.

The tax cuts, along with Iraq war costs, are most responsible for the total loss of the budget surplus that Bush inherited.

stevo · 11-09-2006, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Tax revenues accounted for 19.8 percent of gross domestic product in 2001. They have dropped as a percentage in each of the last three years to a low of 16.3 percent of GDP in 05...and will drop even more once the last round of cuts kick-in this year.

The tax cuts, along with Iraq war costs, are most responsible for the total loss of the budget surplus that Bush inherited.

Budget surplus = more money than the government should have had. surplus /= good, surplus means we are over taxed.

I think 16.8% of GDP is fair.

why do we need to raise taxes? why not just spend less?

average tax recipts as a percentage of GDP 1940-2003: 17.45%

like I said, spend less. keep the tax rates about here, but spend less.

dc_dux · 11-09-2006, 07:18 AM

We currently have an $8.5 TRILLION national debt, costing taxpayers over $400 BILLION in interest alone this year.

In 2000, for the first time in years, there was an effort to start paying down that debt (under $7 trillion at the time) which many economist believed at the time, and still believe, is more important to long term fiscal stability than making the tax cuts permanent.

We are currently giving more money to Japan, China and OPEC in interest payments than we are our to our own citizens through the Bush tax cuts.

Quote:

why do we need to raise taxes? why not just spend less?

Its a matter of priorites. I think we need to deal with this....:

...And IMO, the best way to do that is to roll back some of the Bush tax cuts to 2000 levels (the "rich" werent doing too badly back then) AND spend less.

pan6467 · 11-09-2006, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Why would anyone want to repeal the tax cuts? Tax revenues have increased since the implementation of them in 2003. Do people actually think the only way to raise tax revenue is by raising taxes? What don't people understand?

I understand Stevo. The problem here is that good paying jobs are leaving, manufacturing is leaving, industries are leaving..... those build tax revenues.

You don't need to raise taxes to build revenue, you need businesses, you need growth, you need industry, manufacturing, education and so on.

YOU NEED A FUNCTIONING MIDDLE CLASS WITH HOPE FOR THE FUTURE.

When the median income hasn't gone up, the slightest bit of inflation hurts. You need to at least see income move with inflation. When you see a needed industry so out of control in their inflationary moves (such as healthcare, such as utilities, such as colleges) and you make cuts in supproting those industries so that people absorb more... you're slowly bankrupting them.

The tax cuts would work IF and only if the people recieving them spread the wealth and invested in research and development, education, industry, built factories here, put people to work with decent wages, allowed workers more discretionary income.

But that is not what is happening. What is happening is the people who got the tax cuts invested elsewhere, took jobs elsewhere, kept wages the same and kept the wealth.

The middle class is receding and is on the verge of collapse. Without the middle class, the tax burden will totally fall upon the rich.

So no, tax cuts are not in and of themselves evil..... in fact theoretically they should help. But in our society of greed and money being power, the purpose of the tax cuts are lost.

dc_dux · 11-09-2006, 07:49 AM

Stevo:
What is most graphic to me in your "Receipts and Outlays" chart is the 1990s period of dramatically reducing outlays and dramatically increasing receipts.

When we achieve those trend lines again, I would be all in favor of more tax cuts (in addition to continuing to pay down the debt).

stevo · 11-09-2006, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

We currently have an $8.5 TRILLION national debt, costing taxpayers over $400 BILLION in interest alone this year.

In 2000, for the first time in years, there was an effort to start paying down that debt (under $7 trillion at the time) which many economist believed at the time, and still believe, is more important to long term fiscal stability than making the tax cuts permanent.

We are currently giving more money to Japan, China and OPEC in interest payments than we are our to our own citizens through the Bush tax cuts.

Its a matter of priorites. I think we need to deal with this....:

...And IMO, the best way to do that is to roll back some of the Bush tax cuts to 2000 levels (the "rich" werent doing too badly back then) AND spend less.

I think we're both editing our posts at the same time....check mine again above....

also, lets keep everything in relateable terms. If your going to talk about the debt, talk about it in terms of GDP...for consitency and so we can make some sense out of it.

Yakk · 11-09-2006, 08:31 AM

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/ie4.html

By household: (from the census)

Code:

Year             10th      20th       50th     80th      90th      95th  
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
 2001           $10,686   $17,970   $42,100   $83,500  $113,628  $150,499

150k$ US, in 2001, was top 5%.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html
Individual data:

Code:

Year Top 1%   Top 5%   Top 10%   Top 25%   Top 50% 
2001 $292,913 $127,904 $92,754   $56,085   $28,528 
2004 $328,049 $137,056 $99,112   $60,041   $30,122

(income tax data -- using "AGI")

NYT:

Quote:

They are not just a few Croesus-like rarities. Draw a line under the top 0.1 percent of income earners - the top one-thousandth. Above that line are about 145,000 taxpayers, each with at least $1.6 million in income and often much more.

The average income for the top 0.1 percent was $3 million in 2002, the latest year for which averages are available. That number is two and a half times the $1.2 million, adjusted for inflation, that group reported in 1980. No other income group rose nearly as fast.

(exerpt)

So:
Top 50%: $30,122+
Top 25%: $60,041+
Top 10%:$99,112+
Top 5%: $137,056+
Top 1%: $328,049+
Top 0.1%: $1,600,000+

The top 5% cutoff, divided by the top 25% cutoff, is about 2.

The top 1% cutoff, divided by the top 5% cutoff, is about 3.

In other words, the top 25% are closer in wealth to the top 5% than the top 5% are to the top 1%.

The top 0.1% cutoff divided by the top 1% cutoff is about 5.

So the top 1% are further from the top 0.1% than the top 10% are to the top 1%.

There is an exponential distribution going on here.

dc_dux · 11-09-2006, 08:49 AM

Quote:

also, lets keep everything in relateable terms. If your going to talk about the debt, talk about it in terms of GDP...for consitency and so we can make some sense out of it.

Stevo...IMO it goes beyond the issue of GDP to a broader philosphical approach to fiscal priorities. For me, it is debt reduction before tax relief,particularly since the national debt that has been growing exponentially for the last 4 years.

I dont think the tax rates in the 90s were so burdensome that they stiffled economic growth or personal wealth...while I think the national debt, if left unattended may have serious economic consequences.

After 4-5 years of disciplined spending, paying down the debt, and without the Bush tax cuts being permanent, we should be able to do both.

aceventura3 · 11-09-2006, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

What will the Democrats define as "rich" now that they have power? They desire to raise taxes on the rich, but how will they define it? 150,000 for married coups? 80,000 for single?

It amazes me how the Democratic party leadership (very wealthy people) continually succeed at the class warfare scam.

Really rich people could careless about income, they care about net worth. Really rich people can grow net worth 24/7, 365 days a year and show almost no taxable income. Working people on a salary, small business owners, and hourly employees can not shelter and defer income the way rich people can. It doesn't matter how they define "rich", middle class working people will carry the burden.

Just ask the new speaker of the house and her husband how the rich grow networth and minimize taxable income.

Yakk · 11-09-2006, 10:34 AM

Can anyone find some decent stats on the distribution of wealth?

I tried, but most of the links I'm searching for are coming up stale.

Data like:
How much wealth is owned by Americans?
How is that wealth distributed? (Top 0.1%, 1%, 5%, 10%, 25%, 50%, bottom 20%).

Ideally both Net value and Gross value (ie, ignoring debt).

kutulu · 11-09-2006, 10:42 AM

You can look at historic data about taxes.

dc_dux · 11-09-2006, 10:52 AM

The Federal Reserve has the best data on wealth:

The 2004 report has a table on page 8 (family net worth)

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/b...ancesurvey.pdf

pan6467 · 11-09-2006, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

It amazes me how the Democratic party leadership (very wealthy people) continually succeed at the class warfare scam.

And exactly how is my post above in any way class warfare?

I believe this to be what the Dems will (if they aren't starting to in full) conclude and try doing.

Clinton knew this and that is why we boomed. The problem with that boom, was that it was a growing industry (the dotcoms) but was very secluded in who made money. It didn't truly expand and move.

We need a true growth industry that will actually move society forward.

As much as it is downplayed the only sector that will keep creating jobs, keep moving forward is manufacturing. It is the only sector that can grow, employ and keep wages on a rising scale, while maintaining growth in jobs.

As long as we keep downplaying it, letting it leave and not building it up, we will be on this spiral downward and while those at the top may not see it or believe it affects them, it will. It starts hitting from the bottom up, picking up speed along the way and it's getting to the top fast and when it does it will be more extreme than when it started.

jorgelito · 11-09-2006, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

And exactly how is my post above in any way class warfare?

I believe this to be what the Dems will (if they aren't starting to in full) conclude and try doing.

Clinton knew this and that is why we boomed. The problem with that boom, was that it was a growing industry (the dotcoms) but was very secluded in who made money. It didn't truly expand and move.

We need a true growth industry that will actually move society forward.

As much as it is downplayed the only sector that will keep creating jobs, keep moving forward is manufacturing. It is the only sector that can grow, employ and keep wages on a rising scale, while maintaining growth in jobs.

As long as we keep downplaying it, letting it leave and not building it up, we will be on this spiral downward and while those at the top may not see it or believe it affects them, it will. It starts hitting from the bottom up, picking up speed along the way and it's getting to the top fast and when it does it will be more extreme than when it started.

I agree with you Pan that we need to continue to grow but I'm not sure I agree with you that it needs to be in manufacturing.

I am convinced that the age of manufacturing (industrial) is pretty much dead in this country (the US) which isn't necessarily a bad thing. We are shifting/shifted to more information age. So I would expect that our services industry would expand - banking, insurance, consulting, management etc. These are high value-added industries and great for our economy (as far as I can tell).

Ideally, I would like to see former manufacturing laborers be able to shift with the times as well - i.e. get new training education etc and adjust accordingly. Those jobs to China et al are not coming back and I don't think that's too bad. Even in China, they are starting to shift production overseas. They got it - they are outsourcing now to places like Vietnam, Africa etc.

The problem with our manufacturing base (as we have discussed in other threads) is the rising costs due to the need for higher wages and uncompetitive nature with other firms. Perhaps we can transition our manufacturing industries more smoothly so as not to "shock" the system. EX: Ford is dying. As a company they really suck (my opinion). I would love to but a Ford but the product is shoddy and overpriced. Maybe Ford can take a page out of the Japanese with their innovative plants and better R&D. In this case, there will have to be compromise. To keep a competitive or living wage, something will have to be cut. So your options may be, reduce 25,000 to 10,000 while updating/automating the plants. The savings in costs will make the company more competitive. Simultaneously, the skilled labor required to operate the new plants maybe should result in a higher pay scale? So higher pay for the remaining workers, but overall savings for the company by reducing in other areas. I don't know, something like that?

flstf · 11-09-2006, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

As much as it is downplayed the only sector that will keep creating jobs, keep moving forward is manufacturing. It is the only sector that can grow, employ and keep wages on a rising scale, while maintaining growth in jobs.

It seems like those jobs are getting harder and harder to find and most of the growth is in the service sector. We are becoming a nation of paper shufflers and people performing services for each other. If your experience is like mine then most of your friends and family have jobs where they do not make anything (doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc...)

As far as raising taxes on the rich, I thought that this decreased revenue as the wealthy have the resources to buy political support and hire pros to find more tax shelters. Income taxes are only collected on what is determined to be taxable income. Wouldn't it be nice if we all could pay income taxes only on what we show as profit each year?

Yakk · 11-09-2006, 12:56 PM

In case you didn't notice, the USA manufactures more goods, valued by dollars, than any other nation on the planet Earth.

Yes, including the EU, China and Japan.

...

So, wealth distribution! 2004 data from:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/b...ancesurvey.pdf

Wonder what percentile of net worth you are in? Well...

Quote:

2004:
Top 5.0%: 1,430+ k$
Top 10.0%: 831.6+ k$
Top 17.5%: 506.8+ k$
Top 25.0%: 328.0+ k$
Top 37.5%: 170.7+ k$
Top 50.0%: 93.1+ k$
Top 62.5%: 43.6+ k$
Top 75.0%: 13.3+ k$
Top 87.5%: 1.7+ k$

AVERAGE household wealth: 448.2 k$

Notice the MEDIAN is 93.1. The average is highly scewed the the top few percent of households. Only the top 20% of houses, by wealth, have above-average wealth (strange, eh?). This is because nobody but the top 10% of households in the USA has any significant amounts of wealth.

Edit: changed an erronious "income" in the above paragraph to "wealth".

There are roughly 108.2 million families (this will be off by a bit).

So that places the total net worth of the families in the USA at about 50 trillion dollars.

By per-capita share (someone with a 1.0x share would have 1/300 millionth the USA's total net worth -- ie, an equal share).

Median wealth means "half of the families are richer". It is a good measure of the "typical" American.

0% to 10% have about 7 x share, or 33 x median
10% to 25% have about 1.2 x share, or 5.8 x median
25% to 50% have about 0.4 x share, or 1.9 x median
50% to 75% have about 0.1 x share, or 0.5 x median
75% to 100% have, on average, next to no wealth.

Fuzzier data, but might be useful:
0% to 5% have 10.7 to 12.0 x share, or 51 to 58 x median (typical) wealth
5% to 10% have 1.8 to 3.2 x share, or 8.7 to 15.4 x medianwealth

Share of total US net worth by percentile:
Top 5%: 53.5% to 60.2% ~ 27 to 30 trillion$
Top 10%: 69.5% ~ 35 trillion$
Top 25%: 87.1% ~ 44 trillion$
Top 50%: 97.3% ~ 49 trillion$
Top 75%: 100% ~ 50 trillion$
Top 100%: 100% (ie, bottom 25% of asset owners own a trivial amount of assets)

From the bottom:
Bottom 25%: No assets (~ 0$ total)
Bottom 50%: 2.7% of the assets of the USA (~1 trillion dollars total)
Bottom 75%: 12.9% of the assets of the USA (~6 trillion dollars total)
Bottom 90%: 30.5% of the assets of the USA (~15 trillion dollars total)
Bottom 100%: 100% of the assets of the USA (~50 trillion dollars total)

So, the result...

The top 10% of family units in the USA have 70% of the net worth.

Who pays taxes currently:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/income...hopaysmost.htm
Top 1% of income pays ~1/3
Top 5% of income pays ~1/2
Top 50% of income pays ~ 96%

So, note that a wealth-based tax, even if it was completely non-progressive in percentages, would be significantly more progressive than the current income tax.

Edit: added in some derived "top 5%" data, and some median data, and fixed a dangling sentence.

jorgelito · 11-09-2006, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

In case you didn't notice, the USA manufactures more goods, valued by dollars, than any other nation on the planet Earth.

Yes, including the EU, China and Japan.

...

So, wealth distribution! 2004 data from:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/b...ancesurvey.pdf

Wonder what percentile of net worth you are in? Well...

So, the result...

The top 10% of family units in the USA have 70% of the net worth.

Who pays taxes currently:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/income...hopaysmost.htm
Top 1% of income pays ~1/3
Top 5% of income pays ~1/2
Top 50% of income pays ~ 96%

So, note that a wealth-based tax, even if it was completely non-progressive in percentages, would be significantly more progressive than the current income tax.

Edit: added in some derived "top 5%" data, and some median data, and fixed a dangling sentence.

Wow, thanks for crunching the numbers Yakk, now I need some time to digest though. Trying to distill what the numbers imply.

flstf · 11-09-2006, 03:52 PM

Quote:

AVERAGE household wealth: 448.2 k$

Notice the MEDIAN is 93.1. The average is highly scewed the the top few percent of households. Only the top 20% of houses, by wealth, have above-average income (strange, eh?). This is because nobody but the top 10% of households in the USA has any significant amounts of wealth.

Perhaps this should read "reported income".

Quote:

So, note that a wealth-based tax, even if it was completely non-progressive in percentages, would be significantly more progressive than the current income tax.

I suspect we will never see our polititians advocate taxing wealth. As I understand it most of them dramatically increase their net worth during and after holding office. I wonder how hard it is to hide wealth as opposed to taxable income to escape taxation?

Also I believe the middle class and poor pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes than the wealthy since most of the taxes in the distribution chain are passed down to them and reflected in the final price of goods and services, and they spend most of what they make purchasing them.

Marvelous Marv · 11-09-2006, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Class envy is a funny thing. If you're conservative it apparently means pretending that you're rich and pretending that taxes are bad and pretending that you're an expert on wealth distribution. If you're a liberal it apparently means that you just can't stand other people having more money than you.

I must be dreaming. Filtherton expressed my thoughts, except that I don't agree with the "pretending" part.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

As for class warfare, let me just say that the only people who bring class warfare up are the people who have benefitted the most from it, or the people who like to pretend that they've benefitted from it. Capitalism american-style can't exist without a constant class war.

Exactly! Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, et. al.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

RB, the trick is in the tax deductions that reduce taxable gross income. The bigger the taxable income, the bigger those tax deductions need to be. Follow that money trail over the last six years.

Three words:

"Alternative minimum tax."

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

I think people who make money on other people's work should pay higher taxes than the people who get a wage for doing the work.

Yes, let's punish them for creating jobs. The depression was such a wonderful time for middle-class workers.

host · 11-09-2006, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

.....Yes, let's punish them for creating jobs. The depression was such a wonderful time for middle-class workers.

Marv....want to know how many of the jobs "created" during the period of the Bush led...."economic miracle" era, were related to the "housing bubble"...read this first...then, just ask, and ye shall receive !

Quote:

http://www.realtytrac.com/ContentMan...62&accnt=64847

NATIONAL FORECLOSURES INCREASE 17 PERCENT IN THIRD QUARTER
By RealtyTrac Staff

<h3>U.S. Foreclosures Up 43 Percent From 2005</h3>
Colorado, Nevada and Florida Post Nation’s Highest Foreclosure Rates

IRVINE, Calif. – Nov. 1, 2006 – RealtyTrac™ (http://www.realtytrac.com/), the nation’s leading online marketplace for foreclosure properties, today released its Q3 2006 U.S. Foreclosure Market Report showing that 318,355 properties entered some stage of foreclosure nationwide during the third quarter of 2006, a 17 percent increase from the previous quarter and a 43 percent yearly increase from the third quarter of 2005. The nation had a foreclosure rate of one foreclosure filing for every 363 households during the quarter, slightly higher than last quarter’s rate of one foreclosure filing for every 425 households, but lower than the first-quarter rate of one foreclosure filing for every 358 households.

RealtyTrac publishes the largest and most comprehensive national database of pre-foreclosure and foreclosure properties, with nearly 650,000 properties from more than 2,500 counties across the country, and is the foreclosure data provider to MSN Real Estate, Yahoo! Real Estate, The Wall Street Journal’s Real Estate Journal and Knight Ridder Online.

“Higher interest rates and a general softening of the real estate market are the two key factors contributing to the 43 percent increase in foreclosure filings from the third quarter of 2005,” said James J. Saccacio, chief executive officer of RealtyTrac. “What our third quarter research appears to be showing is that the first wave of adjustable rate mortgages is having a negative impact on the number of homes going into foreclosure. With the volume of these loans — more than $1 trillion of them due to adjust over the next 15 months — this is a trend that definitely bears watching.”

Colorado, Nevada, Florida post highest quarterly foreclosure rates
Colorado posted the highest foreclosure rate in the nation for the second consecutive quarter, reporting one new foreclosure filing for every 127 households — 2.9 times the national average. After declining almost 13 percent between the first and second quarter of the year, foreclosure activity in the state was back up 24 percent from the second to the third quarter, with 14,374 properties entering some stage of foreclosure — the eighth highest foreclosure total in the nation.

Nevada moved up from having the sixth highest rate in the second quarter to the second highest rate in the third quarter, reporting one new foreclosure for every 156 households — 2.3 times the national average. The state reported 5,561 properties in some stage of foreclosure during the quarter.

Florida, which had the ninth highest foreclosure rate in the country for the second quarter, took over the No. 3 spot from Texas during the third quarter, reporting one new foreclosure for every 182 households — almost twice the national average. With 40,136 properties in some stage of foreclosures during the quarter, the state reported the highest number of foreclosure filings during the quarter, barely beating out Texas which held the No. 1 spot for the previous two quarters.

Other states with foreclosure rates ranking them in the nation’s top 10 for the third quarter included Georgia, Michigan, Texas, Indiana, Utah, Ohio and Illinois.

Quarterly foreclosure numbers soar in Florida, California; Texas remains static
A 55 percent spike in activity catapulted Florida into leading the nation in total foreclosure filings during the third quarter. Texas, which led the nation in foreclosure activity for the first two quarters of the year, moved into second place, reporting 39,363 properties in some stage of foreclosure. With a 35 percent spike in activity, California rounded out the nation’s top three, reporting 37,317 properties in some stage of foreclosure for the three-month period.

While both Florida and California experienced significant increases in activity for the quarter, foreclosure activity in Texas remained basically unchanged, down less than 1 percent from the 39,690 properties reported for the second quarter, but still 18 percent above the 33,289 foreclosures reported for third quarter 2005. Compared to the same quarter last year, foreclosure activity in Florida is 26 percent above the 31,829 properties reported, and activity in California has increased 171 percent since the same quarter last year.

The state with the fourth highest foreclosure total for the quarter was Michigan, reporting 20,777 properties entering some stage of foreclosure, a 37 percent increase from the second quarter and 109 percent above third quarter 2005 numbers. Ohio posted the fifth highest total, reporting 19,748 new foreclosure filings for the third quarter, a 23 percent quarter-to-quarter increase and 32 percent above the foreclosure numbers reported for the same quarter last year.

“While the overall number of foreclosures represents a return to more or less normal levels, there are pockets of the country that are being hit more severely,” Saccacio noted. “States with underlying economic issues, such as high unemployment or depreciating home prices will continue to outpace the rest of the country in the total number and rate of foreclosures.”......

Necrosis · 11-16-2006, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

so wait---let me get the idea behind this thread straight

1. the implication is that raising taxes on the wealthy ISor WOULD BE class warfare--but the conservative tax cuts for the wealthy ARE NOT or WERE NOT class warfare.

Of course not. Tax cuts allow people to keep their own money. It's downright shocking that anyone would consider an end to confiscation of one's earnings to be "warfare" against those who no longer benefit (as much) from the work of others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

2. if this is accurate, then it would follow that a radically stratified distribution of wealth would be NATURAL in conservativeland and attempts to redistribute wealth FOR ANY REASON would be other than that.

But the premise, being untrue, does not lead to your conclusion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

3. ncb/matthew330: are you worried about this kind of thing because you would yourselves be classified as wealthy? or are you looking out for the interests of someone else?

This is important because ...?

roachboy · 11-16-2006, 08:30 AM

necrosis: your entire line of "thinking" presupposes that
(1) the accumulation of wealth happens independently of a social system--you know, capitalist economy, which is intertwined with all kinds of other social systems--which is ludicrous;
(2) that the unequal/uneven distribution of wealth owes nothing to the structural characteristics of capitalism and everything to Individual Gumption etc., which is just idiotic. the correlate of this is that a radically uneven distribution of wealth is natural, which is false. another correlate is that there are no political problems that follow from a radically uneven distribution of wealth--which is the stuff of fantasy.

(3) that because there are no political correlates to the accumulation of wealth, those who accumulate wealth owe nothing back for the maintenance of that social system, the one that enables them to extrct wealth in the first place, which is...well...the kind of surreal nonsense i have come to expect from rightwingers who like to think taxation is a kind of punishment

of course the conservative tax cuts are an element in a version of class warfare.
capitalism is built around class warfare: it IS class warfare, just as it IS the motor of more or less continual crisis that requires the action of the state to regulate it (regulate in the sense of balance, adjust, maintain.....conservative delusions of the "free market" are just that).

if you look at capitalism from the point of view of individuals to the exlcusion of systematic considerations, you are not in fact looking at anything.

on the second question: you provided nothing like a coherent critique of the premise, but recycled some conaservative recieved wisdom, so it would follow that you do not see the relevance of the second question, which is simply a rhetorical reversal of the first one.

on the third: just asking. its a legit question. it's sometimes nice to know whose water is being carried.

Yakk · 11-16-2006, 08:34 AM

Running a stable modern economy requires certain costs. These costs range from police, transportation, military, all the way to "keep people from fearing starvation, so they are willing to move around and try new jobs, and unwilling to engage in armed revolt against the state to increase their sense of security".

So, the question becomes, who pays for these costs?

Do you say "who benefits", and charge based off benefits?

Practically, the people who make the most money from a stable state and advanced economy are the rich.

Heck -- most of the structure of modern society is built around guaranteeing property rights. You own your house not because of a piece of paper, or because of the money you paid when you bought it, but because of the stable society that enforces your ownership.

The costs of maintaining a stable society should, thus, be charged based not off income, but rather off wealth. The wealth whose ownership the society is enforcing.

Interestingly, income taxes in the USA grow far slower than wealth concentration rates do. 5% of the USA owns well over half of the assets -- but the top 5% in income pays only half of the tax burden.

...

So, in effect, the lower-wealth people pay for the wealth protection of the higher wealth people. The rich are subsidized by the middle class, and to a lesser extent, the poor.

11-08-2006, 05:22 PM	#5 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	so wait---let me get the idea behind this thread straight 1. the implication is that raising taxes on the wealthy ISor WOULD BE class warfare--but the conservative tax cuts for the wealthy ARE NOT or WERE NOT class warfare. 2. if this is accurate, then it would follow that a radically stratified distribution of wealth would be NATURAL in conservativeland and attempts to redistribute wealth FOR ANY REASON would be other than that. 3. ncb/matthew330: are you worried about this kind of thing because you would yourselves be classified as wealthy? or are you looking out for the interests of someone else? that is all for now. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

11-08-2006, 05:47 PM	#6 (permalink)
MuadDib Psycho	They won't define what "rich" is. In '07 they'll repeal the Bush tax cuts and call that good enough. And it will be. __________________ "The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

11-08-2006, 10:03 PM	#12 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	You know, the Democrats will probably do a lot of really sensible things in the foreseable future. Let Bush's tax cuts expire, cut spending by cleaning house on a lot of Republican waste like no-bid contracts, eliminate tax breaks for oil companies, and allow the government to bargain for lower drug prices. Also, you know, they are going to do things to make it easier for the middle/lower classes, like allowing college tuition to be deductable on your taxes. I'm just saying, that's a damn practicle list of things to do. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

11-09-2006, 04:57 AM	#14 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Your interpretation of my response is as interesting as your OP and just as slanted. ...but thats Ok. We agree to disagree. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

11-09-2006, 05:32 AM	#16 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ncb: i was asking you questions about the premise you posed. seems to me that if anyone is dodging anything, it's you. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

11-08-2006, 04:51 PM	#2 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	I can't really say what they'll do, but I will say that you have to go a LOT higher than that before you get to where the majority of personal wealth is holed up. Like top 3%.

11-08-2006, 05:12 PM	#4 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	And what should be done with those in the top 3% that are "holding up" the majority of personal wealth? What should the ever efficient government do when these finances are freed for the masses, as if this were the only thing standing in the way of those less fortunate? Why does the above post solidify my belief that what motivates liberalism is nothing more than envy (or power/exploitation of the lower class) if you happen to be in politics?

11-08-2006, 05:47 PM	#7 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Class envy is a funny thing. If you're conservative it apparently means pretending that you're rich and pretending that taxes are bad and pretending that you're an expert on wealth distribution. If you're a liberal it apparently means that you just can't stand other people having more money than you. As for class warfare, let me just say that the only people who bring class warfare up are the people who have benefitted the most from it, or the people who like to pretend that they've benefitted from it. Capitalism american-style can't exist without a constant class war.

11-08-2006, 06:07 PM	#8 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	Jeez, they were two rather simple questions that never implied I myself was rich (in fact far from it by any standard suggested in this thread), or that I was an expert on wealth distribution (in fact I want nothing to do with it). If your gonna be so cavalier about taking and distributing someone else's finances, shouldn't you robin hoods at least be up front about where it's going and why it's not going in the right places. Perhaps this attitude comes from living in the liberal fantasyland called Baltimore Maryland, but christ it's not that much to ask is it?

11-09-2006, 04:58 AM	#15 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	Someone has to pay for all the money the government spends. Either you can reduce spending or increase taxes. Probably both are needed. It is the fiscal conservative republicans that went over to the democrats two day ago. I think people who make money on other people's work should pay higher taxes than the people who get a wage for doing the work. Bush is still in the WH, and has veto power, so the nation won't be that different.

11-09-2006, 06:41 AM	#17 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	Why would anyone want to repeal the tax cuts? Tax revenues have increased since the implementation of them in 2003. Do people actually think the only way to raise tax revenue is by raising taxes? What don't people understand? __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

11-09-2006, 07:03 AM	#18 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Tax revenues accounted for 19.8 percent of gross domestic product in 2001. They have dropped as a percentage in each of the last three years to a low of 16.3 percent of GDP in 05...and will drop even more once the last round of cuts kick-in this year. The tax cuts, along with Iraq war costs, are most responsible for the total loss of the budget surplus that Bush inherited. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

11-09-2006, 07:49 AM	#22 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Stevo: What is most graphic to me in your "Receipts and Outlays" chart is the 1990s period of dramatically reducing outlays and dramatically increasing receipts. When we achieve those trend lines again, I would be all in favor of more tax cuts (in addition to continuing to pay down the debt). __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

11-09-2006, 10:34 AM	#27 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	Can anyone find some decent stats on the distribution of wealth? I tried, but most of the links I'm searching for are coming up stale. Data like: How much wealth is owned by Americans? How is that wealth distributed? (Top 0.1%, 1%, 5%, 10%, 25%, 50%, bottom 20%). Ideally both Net value and Gross value (ie, ignoring debt). __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

11-09-2006, 10:42 AM	#28 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	You can look at historic data about taxes.

11-09-2006, 10:52 AM	#29 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	The Federal Reserve has the best data on wealth: The 2004 report has a table on page 8 (family net worth) http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/b...ancesurvey.pdf __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

11-16-2006, 08:30 AM	#39 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	necrosis: your entire line of "thinking" presupposes that (1) the accumulation of wealth happens independently of a social system--you know, capitalist economy, which is intertwined with all kinds of other social systems--which is ludicrous; (2) that the unequal/uneven distribution of wealth owes nothing to the structural characteristics of capitalism and everything to Individual Gumption etc., which is just idiotic. the correlate of this is that a radically uneven distribution of wealth is natural, which is false. another correlate is that there are no political problems that follow from a radically uneven distribution of wealth--which is the stuff of fantasy. (3) that because there are no political correlates to the accumulation of wealth, those who accumulate wealth owe nothing back for the maintenance of that social system, the one that enables them to extrct wealth in the first place, which is...well...the kind of surreal nonsense i have come to expect from rightwingers who like to think taxation is a kind of punishment of course the conservative tax cuts are an element in a version of class warfare. capitalism is built around class warfare: it IS class warfare, just as it IS the motor of more or less continual crisis that requires the action of the state to regulate it (regulate in the sense of balance, adjust, maintain.....conservative delusions of the "free market" are just that). if you look at capitalism from the point of view of individuals to the exlcusion of systematic considerations, you are not in fact looking at anything. on the second question: you provided nothing like a coherent critique of the premise, but recycled some conaservative recieved wisdom, so it would follow that you do not see the relevance of the second question, which is simply a rhetorical reversal of the first one. on the third: just asking. its a legit question. it's sometimes nice to know whose water is being carried. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

11-16-2006, 08:34 AM	#40 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	Running a stable modern economy requires certain costs. These costs range from police, transportation, military, all the way to "keep people from fearing starvation, so they are willing to move around and try new jobs, and unwilling to engage in armed revolt against the state to increase their sense of security". So, the question becomes, who pays for these costs? Do you say "who benefits", and charge based off benefits? Practically, the people who make the most money from a stable state and advanced economy are the rich. Heck -- most of the structure of modern society is built around guaranteeing property rights. You own your house not because of a piece of paper, or because of the money you paid when you bought it, but because of the stable society that enforces your ownership. The costs of maintaining a stable society should, thus, be charged based not off income, but rather off wealth. The wealth whose ownership the society is enforcing. Interestingly, income taxes in the USA grow far slower than wealth concentration rates do. 5% of the USA owns well over half of the assets -- but the top 5% in income pays only half of the tax burden. ... So, in effect, the lower-wealth people pay for the wealth protection of the higher wealth people. The rich are subsidized by the middle class, and to a lesser extent, the poor. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.