who is exagerating when fair share is north of 70% of income

Post #351,228 by boxley 11/25/11 9:45:19 AM Reply	who is exagerating when fair share is north of 70% of income Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #351,230 by Another Scott 11/25/11 9:46:22 AM Reply	You understand what "marginal rate" means, right?
Post #351,233 by boxley 11/25/11 9:49:55 AM Reply	Re: You understand what fair is right? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #351,235 by Another Scott 11/25/11 10:06:46 AM Reply	Yes. It's not fair for the rich to take ever larger proportions of national income. The tax rates on high incomes have been too low for too long. Capital gains and "carried interest" should not be taxed at lower rates than "ordinary" income - doing so invites distorted "investments" and money shufflings that are only done to reduce taxes. We have over 100 years of modern economics data that tells us that all of those "reforms" aren't good for the country, nor for the rich (because the economy grows more slowly). High GDP growth is strongly correlated with more progressive tax rates and the reverse is strongly correlated with real incomes for the majority that stagnate or fall. All of this is easy to see (review AngryBear for some of the data). Don't fall for the senseless talking points by the know-nothings on the Right. Talking points about "fairness" for those who have done very well for the last 30 years while the majority have not aren't reality. Cheers, Scott.
Post #351,236 by boxley 11/25/11 10:11:44 AM Reply	stale data set "It's not fair for the rich to take ever larger proportions of national income" the percentage has moved 5 points the other way since 2008 trying to strain to gloss over that hurts your argument Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #351,239 by Another Scott 11/25/11 10:39:55 AM Reply	Still a lot higher than the '40s-'70s historical norm. http://economistsvie...troversies-a.html From June - http://economix.blog...fitable-recovery/ In their newly released study, the Northeastern economists found that since the recovery began in June 2009 following a deep 18-month recession, Âcorporate profits captured 88 percent of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than 1 percentÂ of that growth. The study, ÂThe ÂJobless and Wageless RecoveryÂ From the Great Recession of 2007-2009,Â said it was ÂunprecedentedÂ for American workers to receive such a tiny share of national income growth during a recovery. According to the study, between the second quarter of 2009, when the recovery began, and the fourth quarter of 2010, national income rose by $528 billion, with $464 billion of that growth going to pretax corporate profits, while just $7 billion went to aggregate wages and salaries, after accounting for inflation. The share of income growth going to employee compensation was far lower than in the four other economic recoveries that have occurred over the last three decades, the study found. [...] ÂAggregate employment still has not increased above the trough quarter of 2009, and real hourly and weekly wages have been flat to modestly negative,Â the report concludes. ÂThe only major beneficiaries of the recovery have been corporate profits and the stock market and its shareholders.Â HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #351,240 by boxley 11/25/11 10:45:00 AM Reply	Corporate profits is not individual earnings the millionaire count is still negative Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #351,251 by Another Scott 11/25/11 2:32:58 PM Reply	"Corporations are people my friend." HTH.
Post #351,252 by boxley 11/25/11 2:37:54 PM Reply	mebbe so, never saw one shopping at walmart tho Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #351,253 by Another Scott 11/25/11 2:43:38 PM Reply	They shop at Nieman-Marcus. Attempting to get back on topic: Corporate profits don't go to much of the bottom tax brackets. They go to management and to shareholders - people who have been paying taxes that are too low. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #351,254 by boxley 11/25/11 2:51:01 PM Reply	go to management sure when I had investments in the market I never got a dime of profit as a shareholder, so what shares do you own that are receiving too much profit that I can tax? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #351,255 by Another Scott 11/25/11 2:59:17 PM Reply	You're making a nice impression of a brick wall today. Try Krugman's column today. Maybe that'll help. http://www.nytimes.c...are-the-99-9.html I think I'm done. Got chores to do... ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #351,256 by boxley 11/25/11 3:22:09 PM Reply	you brought up shareholders by and large shareholders are us Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #351,278 by drook 11/25/11 11:59:01 PM Reply	Wrong http://www2.ucsc.edu...power/wealth.html In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 38.3% of all privately held stock, 60.6% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top 10% have 80% to 90% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. When you say, "by and large shareholders are us," are you blind, stupid or mendacious? I like you, man, but that's a fucking whopper by any standard. -- Drew
Post #351,286 by crazy 11/26/11 6:51:43 AM Reply	Hey, maybe he's REALLY rich and we didn't know! Listen to a story 'bout a man named Jed
Post #351,301 by boxley 11/26/11 4:47:20 PM Reply	do you have a 101k? if you do what do you think its invested in? http://www.palmbeach...-sink-751950.html free example what drove the tech bubble back in the day? 401k money pension funds have a chunk. State and municipal folks invest heavily. Look at the Alaska perm fund, 40% is in the market. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #351,315 by drook 11/26/11 8:35:20 PM Reply	You mean 401k? Read the quote again: The top 10% have 80% to 90% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. There may be 50 times more people who have some money in stocks, but of the total dollar value of the stocks, it's mostly held by the rich. People with money on 401s don't drive investment activity. -- Drew
Post #351,325 by folkert 11/27/11 12:46:24 AM Reply	Yes it does drive... People with money on 401s don't drive investment activity. Yes they do... investment into the "401K's" managers pocket.
Post #351,376 by mmoffitt 11/28/11 10:18:48 AM Reply	Ed Zachary!
Post #351,248 by drook 11/25/11 1:08:38 PM Reply	Sure, measure from the peak Where are they compared to historical norms? More important, when's the last time the income polarization was this extreme? -- Drew
Post #351,249 by boxley 11/25/11 1:19:40 PM Reply	sure, stop measuring at the peak 1929, 1912, 1880 etc Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep

Welcome to IWETHEY!