OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[Tifone]

Wow konmig, that was a nou-kyuu-lar bomb!!

[thejeff]

Good point, we've got chris arguing we can't tax the rich more because "Top 5% of earners pay 50% of the taxes in the U.S.", which is close enough to true. He neglects to mention they also bring in roughly 50% of the income. And probably a far larger percentage of actual assets.
On the other hand NTJedi claims there's no point in raising taxes on the rich since they just find loopholes and never pay taxes anyway.
I'm not quite sure how to reconcile those arguments. The facts of the first one seem to check out, and don't seem that unfair with a little bit of context. In fact, it suggests that the top 5% are barely paying their fair share ("Fair" is a fuzzy word in this context. In one sense it would be "fair" for the top 5% to pay 5% of the taxes.)
The US seemed to do quite well in 50s & 60s with top marginal tax rates up in the 90% range. What has accompanied the lowering of those rates since then is a massive transfer of wealth upwards. The top few percent control a much larger percentage of the countries wealth than at any time since the Roaring Twenties. I would like to see that reversed.

[MaxWilson]

Originally Posted by thejeff

Good point, we've got chris arguing we can't tax the rich more because "Top 5% of earners pay 50% of the taxes in the U.S.", which is close enough to true. He neglects to mention they also bring in roughly 50% of the income.

Only the first statement is true, according to the IRS. Top 5% on the 2006 doc pays 55% of the taxes, and has 31% of the adjusted gross income.

(It would be nonsensical otherwise, in a country which has progressive taxation. The top X percent will *never* pay the same proportion of taxes as their income.)

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxst...=96981,00.html

Note though that this is only federal income tax, not state/local/payroll taxes.

-Max

[thejeff]

Originally Posted by MaxWilson

Only the first statement is true, according to the IRS. Top 5% on the 2006 doc pays 55% of the taxes, and has 31% of the adjusted gross income.

My apologies then.

I'd poked around after Chris's post and found a source giving something around 48% income for the top 5%. That probably wasn't adjusted gross income, which may account for some of the disparity. A quick look didn't find the source again. Maybe later...

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by thejeff

Good point, we've got chris arguing we can't tax the rich more because "Top 5% of earners pay 50% of the taxes in the U.S.", which is close enough to true. He neglects to mention they also bring in roughly 50% of the income. And probably a far larger percentage of actual assets.
On the other hand NTJedi claims there's no point in raising taxes on the rich since they just find loopholes and never pay taxes anyway.
I'm not quite sure how to reconcile those arguments. The facts of the first one seem to check out, and don't seem that unfair with a little bit of context. In fact, it suggests that the top 5% are barely paying their fair share ("Fair" is a fuzzy word in this context. In one sense it would be "fair" for the top 5% to pay 5% of the taxes.)
The US seemed to do quite well in 50s & 60s with top marginal tax rates up in the 90% range. What has accompanied the lowering of those rates since then is a massive transfer of wealth upwards. The top few percent control a much larger percentage of the countries wealth than at any time since the Roaring Twenties. I would like to see that reversed.

Here are some other figures for you:

Barry has proposed 1 trillion in new spending.

This is roughly: 16% of the US economy - additional spending.
Our current budget is roughly .. 2 trillion dollars. He proposes to increase govt spending 1 trillion dollars?

How is transfering 1 trillion dollars each year from the private economy to nonproductive government use.. a good thing? I mean sure, if he's giving it to you.. you're all in favor of it... but if you are looking out for the goose as a whole (you know the goose that lays the golden eggs) how is it a good thing?

We borrow roughly..$450 billion a year.. and he wants 1 trillion in additional spending. And this is on top of a financial crises where we are going to have to spend BILLIONS more in bailouts.

and this is a good idea?

How is it a good idea to increase the % of people not paying taxes from 38% to 48%.

Also an interesting statistic.. how is it possible to give a tax break to 95% of taxpayers - when 38% don't pay taxes?

Its financial insanity. As de Toqueville said.. democracy works until people realize they can vote themselves a pay raise.

[JimMorrison]

I think either someone is feeding you total bull**** interpretations of stated "plans", or you are reading something wrong.

Otherwise, he would be the first Democratic president in I don't know how long, to actually increase the deficit.

That's right, for all of the Republican blustering about Democrats spending on this or that, it is well documented that over the last century, every economic indicator is better under a Democrat, than under a Republican.

What do our presidents "increase", in the economy?

Democrats =
GDP
Taxes
Social Programs
Public Works (important, increases jobs while building infrastructure)

Republicans =
Inflation
Unemployment
Deficit
Spending (where? pork?)


For your dining pleasure - http://www.slate.com/id/2199810/

[chrispedersen]

For your dining pleasure - http://www.slate.com/id/2199810/

Yeah, bogus statistics in that slate article. Which just goes to prove you can prove anything you want to with statistics.

For example:

Why did the statistics start in 1957? Could it be to avoid including the huge deficits imposed by wwII? The great depression? If you're going exclude WWII years.. why shouldn't you exclude Korean, Vietnam, Kuwait War?

Secondly.. Democrats love to point to the years in the 50's and 60s, and the performance of the American economy.

OF COURSE the american economy did well. Europe, Japan, Russia and the rest of the 'first' world had been bombed to hell. We *had* no economic competitors.

No competition to our industry. No competition for resources. No competition for our investment into research.

But the telling fact is that a mere 25 years later, (1970) the Soviet Union never a world power, has become a military superpower, and the world (often) seems poised at the brink of nuclear destruction - and a group of Arab States are about to shake the world with the first Oil Embargo. Which, by the way, was a direct result of Kennedy's domestic oil policies - at least according to Onassis.

And quoting wiki...."After the 1954 Congressional elections, the Democratic Party now dominated both houses of Congress until 1994, except when Republicans held a majority of seats in the Senate, after the party dominated the 1980 US Presidential and US Senate elections".

So .. our competitors are in ruins; the democrats have more or less 40 years in power; and according to you they do an excellent job of managing the economy and world affairs.

Yet - if thats so how do our competitors, by 1980.. catch us? How does europe rebuild? How does Russia become a military power on par with us? You'd think that if the democrats did such a stellar job - there was no way anyone else could catch us.

Or is it in fact because perhaps in fact - that other nations - and not just one or two - but whole HOSTS of other nations.. exceeded us.

And if they exceeded us.. perhaps the democrats didn't do such a good job, did they.....

[chrispedersen]

[quote=JimMorrison;650408]What do our presidents "increase", in the economy?

Democrats =
GDP
Taxes
Social Programs
Public Works (important, increases jobs while building infrastructure)

Republicans =
Inflation
Unemployment
Deficit
Spending (where? pork?)/[quote]

Jim, I had to make one further observation. Our president's input on the economy is actually fairly small.

1. Congress passes spending bills, setting fiscal policy.
2. The federal reserve sets monetary policy.

Reference after refernce will document that the role of the president is overstated.

[rdonj]

Also an interesting statistic.. how is it possible to give a tax break to 95% of taxpayers - when 38% don't pay taxes?

I may be misunderstanding the question here, but aren't you not a taxpayer if you don't pay taxes? That being the case, I don't see a conflict with these numbers are they are completely unrelated.

Also, please address konming's posted birth certificates and why we should give any credence to unsubstantiated rumors spread about a candidate in a presidential election?

[sum1lost]

Obama won!!!!

As a resident of virginia, whoop!

Seriously though, that was a very, very nice speech by mccain.