IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Shifting terminology
This is the usual game of shifting terminology that is so common when dealing with taxes. Not entirely your fault, since Obama is also talking pretty loosely.

Buffet said he paid a higher percentage in payroll and income tax then his secretary. The article you link to talks about total federal taxes on average. The two don't line up.

The 10 percent of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70 percent of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

That sort of phrasing is so bad it is hard to believe it is an honest mistake. It is put together to make it sound like the top 10% pay more then their fair share. Saying they pay 70% of income taxes without indicating what percent of income they take leaves you without any basis of comparison.

Jay
New That sounds about right.
50% of federal taxes sounds about right.

This is dated but still valid. The top 10% receive 50% of all income.

The Great Compression ended in the 1970s. Wages stagnated, inflation raged, and by the decade's end, income inequality had started to rise. Income inequality grew through the 1980s, slackened briefly at the end of the 1990s, and then resumed with a vengeance in the aughts. In his 2007 book The Conscience of a Liberal, the Nobel laureate, Princeton economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman labeled the post-1979 epoch the "Great Divergence."

It's generally understood that we live in a time of growing income inequality, but "the ordinary person is not really aware of how big it is," Krugman told me. During the late 1980s and the late 1990s, the United States experienced two unprecedentedly long periods of sustained economic growth—the "seven fat years" and the " long boom." Yet from 1980 to 2005, more than 80 percent of total increase in Americans' income went to the top 1 percent. Economic growth was more sluggish in the aughts, but the decade saw productivity increase by about 20 percent. Yet virtually none of the increase translated into wage growth at middle and lower incomes, an outcome that left many economists scratching their heads.


http://www.slate.com...025/entry/2266026

Here's a really nice picture from the article:
http://img.slate.com...ettySaez-fig1.gif

New coincides quite nicely with
the death of manufacturing.

http://mjperry.blogs...ent-drops-to.html
Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
New nope...they lined up perfectly
and even if you add the 7% to all the classes under 125k cap, they STILL pay at a higher rate (22% or less vs 29.1%).
Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
     Pants on Fire - (beepster) - (10)
         Shifting terminology - (jay) - (3)
             That sounds about right. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                 coincides quite nicely with - (beepster)
             nope...they lined up perfectly - (beepster)
         Krugman weighs in on the issue - (jay) - (5)
             of course he continues to shill - (beepster) - (4)
                 But if you count ESTATE TAXES... -NT - (folkert) - (1)
                     Then it's worse than an ex wife;-) -NT - (beepster)
                 you are the expert on shills around here -NT - (lincoln) - (1)
                     So I should know one when I see him, and he is one -NT - (beepster)

I miss the old days when we used to talk about chocolate.
38 ms