Can you explain this?

[Dawkinsrocks]

I haven't got a clue what you are going on about

 

[Fallschirmjager]

I haven't got a clue what you are going on about

Then perhaps you might want to investigate taking a few basic economics and accounting classes. It's really not that difficult to comprehend once you set your mind to it.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Yeah PLC, don't confuse whiners with facts.

.....Rather, what are SOLD as facts.....by the same Org. ​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I have been saying this for years and no one has listened. The Bush tax cuts helped everyone.

So.....for the first-time, ever....a C-student defies Reality, huh?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....... ​

"The central concept of supply-side economics is that tax cuts cause economic growth. Tax cuts allow entrepreneurs to invest their tax savings, which creates higher productivity, jobs and profits. This, ironically, allows the entrepreneur and his new workers to pay even more taxes, even at lower rates.

The supply-side idea is a simple one, and makes a popular political message. However, it is interesting to note that mainstream economists -- even conservative ones -- almost universally reject supply-side theory."​

 

[Fallschirmjager]

And to quote John Adams;

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Like Arnold Schwartzenneger (Pardon if I spelled his last name wrong), said in a recent
interview. Acting for all those years made his political career so much easier.
Politicians blow smoke up your @**, who would expect more?

Gee.....I guess you forgot to mention Ahhhnold was quoting ReRon Reagan.....an honest "conservative"-mistake (on your part), no doubt. ​

"You'd be surprised how much being a good actor pays off." -- President Reagan, responding to a question from students at Shanghai's University of Fudan as to which experiences best prepared him for the presidency, April 30, 1984​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The charts presented don't indicate the percentage of wealth that gravitated towards the weathiest Americans during the same time frame.

Many, many years ago , the first thing I was taught in statistics class, was how to lie with statistics.

I forget the name of the man who said "there are lies, there are damm lies, and there are statistics"

.....And, The Heritage Foundation...who has such bullet-proof knack for predicting-the-Future. ​

"With April 15 just around the corner, many taxpayers are acutely aware tio the tax burden in America is at an all-time high. This is due in part to President Clinton and Congress, who imposed on the American economy last year the largest tax increase in world history. While no region of the country was spared, the tax hike will have a particularly severe impact on certain states and districts."​

Whatta drag (for the Heritage-psychics), when the WSJ (actually) kept-track.....​

 

[Fallschirmjager]

.....And, The Heritage Foundation...who has such bullet-proof knack for predicting-the-Future.


Whatta drag (for the Heritage-psychics), when the WSJ (actually) kept-track.....​

And they were absolutely correct in their analysis, as the tax increases under Clinton did stifle growth, and did result in lower revenues to the government, or weren't you paying attention in the early 90's?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Primarily because, prior to the recent market melt down, due to the Bush tax cuts leaving more money in the hands of the people, thereby creating more and higher paying jobs, more people moved into the upper tax brackets, and as a result more taxes were collected from those in the upper tax brackets.

....In-THEORY, anyhow.....right? ​

 

[Fallschirmjager]

....In-THEORY, anyhow.....right? ​

What does "job creation" have to do with any of this? Do you usually resort to Red Herrings when the facts don't suit your preconceived notions?

Anyway, there's no "theory" to it Mr. Shaman, and Krugman is, to put it politely, full of it (as usual), and nothing but a liberal hack with Socialistic tendencies, despite his credentials. Oh, and did I mention that during the Clinton years he was an Enron flunkie too, and advised them on their business practices? Yeah, we should really take anything he has to take seriously.

 

[BigRob]

So.....for the first-time, ever....a C-student defies Reality, huh?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....... ​

Everyone got a break from the Bush tax cuts... that is reality, but whatever you say.

 

[foggedinn]

So because it doesn't show completely unrelated data, you think the data provided is a lie....

You should have taken some classes on logic with your stat classes.

Unrelated data? An integrated chart that included information on how the percentage of income each group has changed would indicate how the ability to pay the tax burden of each group has changed. This would be the only way your claim that all income groups have benefited under the Bush tax plan could even remotely be construed as credible.

The presented chart is just an agenda driven statistical presentation designed to lend credibility to your claim that the Bush tax plan helped everyone. As such; yes, it is a lie.

 

[Fallschirmjager]

Unrelated data? An integrated chart that included information on how the percentage of income each group has changed would indicate how the ability to pay the tax burden of each group has changed. This would be the only way your claim that all income groups have benefited under the Bush tax plan could even remotely be construed as credible.

The presented chart is just an agenda driven statistical presentation designed to lend credibility to your claim that the Bush tax plan helped everyone. As such; yes, it is a lie.

I fear that you're the one with an "agenda" foggedinn, as the chart clearly indicates that the top 40% of income earners payed a higher percentage of taxes to the government in 2004 than they did in 2000, while the lower 60% of income earners payed a lower percentage of taxes to the government in 2004 than they did in 2000. As such, there are a limited number of possible explainations for the data given the reality of the changes to the tax structure between 2000 and 2004. As it stands, in 2000, there were 5 tax brackets with the lowest effective tax rate being 15% and the highest being 39.6%, while since 2001 there have been 6 tax brackets with the lowest being 10% and the since 2003 the highest being 35%. Perhaps you have another explaination of why the top 40% of tax payers are now paying more in income taxes, even though they are paying those taxes at a lower rate, and the lower 60% are paying less, including the fact that they are paying only a slightly lower amount at a substantially lower rate?

The only caveat to all of this is the fact that for those (married filing jointly) earning between $14,300 and $43,850 were still paying the same effective 15% that they were in 2000, however if one factors in the fact that the deductions available to them had been increased, their effective tax rate has still been lowered.

Married Filing Jointly

--------2000--------------------------2004---------------------------2008---------------
$000,000 - $043,850 - 15%____$000,000 - $014,300 - 10%____$000,000 - $016,050 - 10%
$043,850 - $105,950 - 28%____$014,300 - $058,100 - 15%____$016,050 - $065,100 - 15%
$105,950 - $161,450 - 31%____$058,100 - $117,250 - 25%____$065,100 - $131,450 - 25%
$161,450 - $288,350 - 36%____$117,250 - $178,650 - 33%____$131,450 - $200,300 - 28%
$288,350 - $higher ---39.6%___$178,650 - $319,100 - 33%____$200,300 - $357,600 - 33%
___________________________$319,100 - $higher---- 35%____$357,700 - $higher --- 35%

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Do you really think you get accurate stats on what % of their wealth the rich pay in tax?

If so you are very gullible.

Their wealth is largely unearned income and you will see not see much of the 'tax' on that in your silly statistics.

How did America get to be such a nation of suckers who believe any old tosh their government spews out?

No wonder the cowboy films were lapped up so much.

Can you imagine the German film industry making films that portrayed the Jews as the wrongdoers against the good ol honest nazis happily going about their business?

No wonder they have got away with 9/11.

No wonder they have got away with illegally attacking Iraq and Afghanistan

So far.

 

[Fallschirmjager]

Do you really think you get accurate stats on what % of their wealth the rich pay in tax?

That question is completely immaterial to the discussion at hand, as we are discussing what percentage of taxes each of the 20 percentiles pays, and how that has changed over time.