Pelosi asks the President where are the jobs

[spursncowboys]

Pelosi: Where Are the Jobs, Mr. President?

August 1, 2003

Washington, D.C. -- House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today on the Bureau of Labor Statistics' announcement that 470,000 people abandoned their job searches in July and that 3.2 million private sector jobs have been lost since President Bush took office:

“The fact is that President Bush’s misguided economic policies have failed to create jobs. Since President Bush took office, the country has lost 3.2 million jobs, the worst record since President Hoover. And today we learned that in July nearly half a million people gave up looking for a job.

“Job losses are taking a real toll on the financial security of American families. While Democrats are fighting for opportunity, jobs, and economic security for working families, Republicans continue to focus on helping those who need help the least.

“According to today’s survey, while the national unemployment rate dropped slightly, it still stands at a near record high. In addition, the unemployment rate for African Americans was still over 11 percent in July, and the unemployment rate for Hispanics was 8.2 percent in July.

“It is time for President Bush and the Republicans to get to work for all Americans, not just the elite few.”

[TheProfessor]

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4b6c5ff6000000000042f5ed/chart-of-the-day-jobs-lost-in-the-bush-and-obama-administrations.gif

[mogrovejo]

Pelosi should hire some new staffers. She can't even get a simple graph right. Negative job losses means job gains. If they don't understand this kind of simple things, no wonder the unemployment rate hiked since Pelosi took control of the House.

[ElNono]

Pelosi should hire some new staffers. She can't even get a simple graph right. Negative job losses means job gains. If they don't understand this kind of simple things, no wonder the unemployment rate hiked since Pelosi took control of the House.


Pelosi: Where Are the Jobs, Mr. President?

August 1, 2003

[spursncowboys]

I think he was referring to the graph professor posted.

[mogrovejo]

I think you misunderstood my post.

November 2006 4.7
Dems take control of the House, Pelosi elected Speaker
December 2006 5.0
January 2007 5.0
4.8 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.9 7.4
7.7 8.2 8.6 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.8 10.1 10.0
December 2009 10.0

So, playing her game of correlating unemployment to office holders, she has quite a record.

[Nbadan]

2003.... :lol


I thought tax-cuts for the elite spurred job growth....

[Wild Cobra]

2003.... :lol


I thought tax-cuts for the elite spurred job growth....

Tax cuts for the elite?

Are you really that stupid?

The working poor who pay taxes had their marginal rate drop by 33%. From 15% of taxable income to 10%. Some paying the 28% shifted to 15%, other to 25%.

It wasn't only the rich who got tax breaks. Everyone did, Propaganda Dan.

When the tax cuts expire... Will you libtards still be wanting to punish the rich?

[ElNono]

So, playing her game of correlating unemployment to office holders, she has quite a record.

I don't like Pelosi any more than any of you, but her complete record also shows a recovery to the levels of when she took office.

Again, the graph does not correlate with when Pelosi made the statement.

[ElNono]

Tax cuts for the elite?

Are you really that stupid?

The working poor who pay taxes had their marginal rate drop by 33%. From 15% of taxable income to 10%. Some paying the 28% shifted to 15%, other to 25%.

It wasn't only the rich who got tax breaks. Everyone did, Propaganda Dan.

When the tax cuts expire... Will you libtards still be wanting to punish the rich?

Being they're a percent of total income, the biggest savings were effectively for the rich...

Fancy numbers and charts here: link (http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm)

[Wild Cobra]

Being they're a percent of total income, the biggest savings were effectively for the rich...

Fancy numbers and charts here: link (http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm)
And just why does that matter?

The rich pay so much more than the rest of us. Contrary to popular believe, they pay a higher percentage than most. Sure, some have huge tax write-off that make their actual percentage less, but so do many in the middle-class.

Sorry, but I cannot stand those who play Class-Warfare games like you. It hurts the moral of all of us.

Look at the facts. Raising tax rates does no good. All it does it take money out of the peoples hands who would put it in the economy somehow anyway. Why the fuck, should the government say how it is put in the economy.

Now as for these jobs. We keep losing more and more jobs. About the only large growth in jobs is government jobs.

More government jobs, less tax payers.... How long can this be sustained? Not long. The demonrats will destroy this nation if we don't get a handle on government spending, and soon.

[ElNono]

And just why does that matter?

It matters because you tried to play indignant to somebody that pointed out who those tax cuts where really for.

When you're full of shit, expect to get called out for it.

[Nbadan]

Look at the facts. Raising tax rates does no good. All it does it take money out of the peoples hands who would put it in the economy somehow anyway. Why the fuck, should the government say how it is put in the economy

Yeah, it's much better to raise user fees like Republicans like to do...raising taxes can also signal to federal lenders that we are taking the national debt seriously, thereby decreasing the cost of future borrowing and creating a stronger dollar and a stronger economic recovery...

[Wild Cobra]

It matters because you tried to play indignant to somebody that pointed out who those tax cuts where really for.

When you're full of shit, expect to get called out for it.
No, I was pointing out that everyone got a break.

Question...

Why is the best data you have for the rich tax breaks based on a June 12, 2002 projection?

Just how inaccurate do you think it reflects the actual pattern?

I can tell you with certainty, it doesn't reflect the facts very well. I just found a CBO site database last month that dispels those numbers. I'll find it again if I can.

[Nbadan]

:rolleyes

The Bush tax cuts created a tax-haven for rich corporations


The Tax Foundation knows that the US statutory tax rates (set at 35% for the biggest corporations, but at much lower rates for the majority of corporations that have less than $10 million in assets) are not paid on the full amount of income by corporations, and in fact the effective tax rates (amount of tax paid as a percentage of income earned) are much much lower--enough lower so that the US counts as a tax haven on the tax rates scale.

Further, the US taxes for US businesses are plenty competitive. Taxes are most likely not the reason they go abroad: it seems to be much more likely that they do so to get away with paying their workers near slave-labor wages rather than enough for a decent standard of living. And even that isn't passed on to customers--it provides the moolah to pay managers ridiculously high salaries and pay rent dividends to shareholders.


Moreover, tax cuts for corporations don't really create jobs. If they did, we wouldn't have had the great recession, since the Bush tax bills included a whole smorgasboard of tax cuts for businesses, including the infamous "American Jobs Creation Act of 2004" that cut corporate rates (almost tax-free repatriation of foreign-earned income, manufacturing deduction that lowered the corporate rate for most US industries, all kinds of tax expenditures for extractive industries, various changes to subpart F that favored corporate taxpayers, bonus depreciation, etc.). If tax cuts for businesses worked, those bills should have resulted in millions upon millions of new jobs. Instead, it looks like most of the benefit of the low-taxed repatriation of profits went to stock buybacks and other manager/owner-friendly provisions, not job creation. IN fact, as pointed out in earlier postings, many of the corporations employing the low-taxed repatriation laid off workers! So much for tax cuts as a way to create jobs.....

Blogspot (http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2010/02/tax-foundation-at-it-again-with-bunk.html#more)

[SouthernFried]

Tax havens and tax cuts...always a good idea.

Anyone who decry's tax cuts, for anyone...should be shot. Or at least made to eat prunes.

[Nbadan]

The Bush tax cuts had the duel effect of increasing debt and increasing unemployment in the private sector, the real-world evidence speaks for itself, but whatever floats your boat

[boutons_deux]

WC, any other wrongie, watcha got as policies to to create 7M jobs your business friends the Banksters destroyed?

Do conservatives have any "policies" other than cut taxes (aka, destroy govt and increase the deficit) and continuous wars (aka, transfer taxpayer wealth to the the corps)?

[mogrovejo]

I don't like Pelosi any more than any of you, but her complete record also shows a recovery to the levels of when she took office.

False. When Pelosi was elected Speaker and the Dems took control of the House, the unemployment rate was bellow 5%. Today, it's about 10%. So, it doubled.


Again, the graph does not correlate with when Pelosi made the statement.

I'm fully aware of that. The OP point was that Pelosi is yet to ask Obama "where are the jobs". I just commented on the chart because I found funny that it has a mistake that I would expect a 12 years old to avoid.

[angrydude]

Yeah, it's much better to raise user fees like Republicans like to do...raising taxes can also signal to federal lenders that we are taking the national debt seriously, thereby decreasing the cost of future borrowing and creating a stronger dollar and a stronger economic recovery...


higher tax revenues and higher taxes do not necessarily go hand in hand.

I don't think anything we do will convince the rest of the world we are taking the national debt seriously as long as we keep printing t-bills like they're going out of style.

[angrydude]

WC, any other wrongie, watcha got as policies to to create 7M jobs your business friends the Banksters destroyed?

Do conservatives have any "policies" other than cut taxes (aka, destroy govt and increase the deficit) and continuous wars (aka, transfer taxpayer wealth to the the corps)?

abolish the federal reserve and go back to some form of real money.

I'm guessing you don't like those ideas though.

[Nbadan]

higher tax revenues and higher taxes do not necessarily go hand in hand.

...but there is real-world evidence named the Clinton Administration that the higher tax rate does not hurt private-sector job growth...especially on higher income earners...I'm all for leaving the tax-cuts in effect for those families make less the $250K...

[Nbadan]

I don't think anything we do will convince the rest of the world we are taking the national debt seriously as long as we keep printing t-bills like they're going out of style.

Don't be so sure...there is a lot of uncertainty out there and people know that the U.S. is a safe place to park their money...don't forget that a lot of the money we've borrowed, we've borrowed from ourselves in future obligations which would be paid either way...

[ChumpDumper]

Tax cuts for the elite?

Are you really that stupid?

The working poor who pay taxes had their marginal rate drop by 33%. From 15% of taxable income to 10%. Some paying the 28% shifted to 15%, other to 25%.You said in another thread the working poor don't pay any taxes.

Make up your mind.


It wasn't only the rich who got tax breaks. Everyone did, Propaganda Dan.

When the tax cuts expire... Will you libtards still be wanting to punish the rich?I believe that's precisely the plan.

[Winehole23]

Props for honesty.

[boutons_deux]

Since they are against the very existence of opposition, what are the Repug/conservative CONCRETE policy alternatives to restore the 7M jobs the Banksters destroyed?

We know that during the Repug years, there was no job growth (not enough to keep up with population growth) and no increase in real household income. We also know that just the cut in estate taxes cost the US nearly $1T in taxes. What happened there?

[spursncowboys]

It matters because you tried to play indignant to somebody that pointed out who those tax cuts where really for.

When you're full of shit, expect to get called out for it.

I believe you and dan were leaving out information. If rich pay most of the taxes and everyone gets a tax cut - more than likely they will get a higher tax cut. it's dishonest to act like the tax cuts were only for the rich.

[ElNono]

I believe you and dan were leaving out information. If rich pay most of the taxes and everyone gets a tax cut - more than likely they will get a higher tax cut. it's dishonest to act like the tax cuts were only for the rich.

I didn't leave any information out.
What's dishonest is to claim that the tax breaks were even handed because the poor had a bigger percentage of the break. That's what he tried to do. He was wrong and got called out for it.

[Marcus Bryant]

Naturally in these United States we assume that politicians control the economy and electing the right politicians who know how to operate the levers of state intervention is the key to prosperity and full employment. Or we're, to borrow from the philosopher-king Rahm, "retarded."

[ElNono]

Naturally in these United States we assume that politicians control the economy and electing the right politicians who know how to operate the levers of state intervention is the key to prosperity and full employment. Or we're, to borrow from the philosopher-king Rahm, "retarded."

Have you paid your taxes yet?

[Marcus Bryant]

Most of my federal income tax burden, as well as local property taxes? Yes.

So which politician offers the right approach?

[Marcus Bryant]

Further, why must this be a concern of the state?

[Wild Cobra]

...but there is real-world evidence named the Clinton Administration that the higher tax rate does not hurt private-sector job growth...especially on higher income earners...I'm all for leaving the tax-cuts in effect for those families make less the $250K...
Why do you want to hurt the rich people?

Why do you hate them so much?

Why do you propagate class warfare?

Many of them are small business owners. Ever get a good paying job from someone in the middle class?

[Wild Cobra]

I didn't leave any information out.
What's dishonest is to claim that the tax breaks were even handed because the poor had a bigger percentage of the break. That's what he tried to do. He was wrong and got called out for it.
You were dishonest.

You took a projection, several years old, before the 2003 changes, and portrayed it as fact.

Shame on you.

[ElNono]

You were dishonest.

You took a projection, several years old, before the 2003 changes, and portrayed it as fact.

Shame on you.

I presented evidence you were full of shit.
I'm still waiting for the numbers that prove my numbers wrong.

Dishonest much?

And please, don't forget to bring another strawman, like class warfare. Way to spin this shit.

[boutons_deux]

SUNDAY 7 FEBRUARY 2010
Economy Loses 85,000 Jobs in December, Ends Decade With Job Loss

Friday 08 January 2010

by: Dean Baker
The Center for Economic and Policy Research

Hours worked fell by 3.8 percent over the decade.

http://www.cepr.net/images/stories/bytes/jobs-2010-01.jpg

The economy lost another 85,000 jobs in December, driven by continued job losses in construction and manufacturing. While the current data still show a 378,000 job gain for the decade, these numbers will be lowered by approximately 824,000 when the benchmark revision is incorporated into the data with the release of the January employment report. The data show a decline in private sector jobs of 1,549,000 for the decade. The benchmark revision will increase the private sector job loss for the decade to more than 2.4 million.

The index for hours worked shows an even more dismal story. Hours worked are down 3.8 percent for the decade, even before the benchmark revision.

While some analysts had expected a smaller job loss or even a small gain in December, that would have been inconsistent with the recent level of unemployment insurance (UI) claims. UI claims have fallen sharply, but are still averaging over 440,000 a week. The economy did not begin to generate jobs after the last downturn until UI claims had fallen below 400,000 a week. Interestingly, a downward revision to the October jobs numbers led to a reported 4,000 increase in November employment. It remains to be seen whether this will hold up in subsequent revisions, but the difference between a small job gain and small job loss is irrelevant for all practical purposes.

By sector, the data continued to show the same patterns as recent reports. Construction lost 53,000 jobs in December. The job loss was spread across sectors, with the residential sector losing another 18,600 jobs. Job loss in the residential sector will almost certainly stop soon, but it will continue and possibly accelerate in the non-residential sector.

Manufacturing shed 27,000 jobs with the declines spread widely across sectors. The rate of job loss in manufacturing is slowing. Manufacturing employment is likely to level off and possibly even start growing modestly in the next few months.

Retail trade lost 10,200 jobs, all of them in general merchandise stores. It is likely that job losses will continue in this sector, especially in car dealerships, but at a modest pace. The wholesale trade, transportation, and information sectors lost 18,200, 8,000, and 6,000 jobs, respectively.
Health care continues to be a big job gainer, adding 21,500 jobs. The private education sector added 10,800 jobs and the banks are again increasing employment. One bright spot is an increase of 55,700 jobs in employment services. This continues an uptick of employment in this sector and could be a harbinger of future growth in permanent employment.

The picture in the household data was mostly negative. The unemployment rate remained steady at 10.0 percent, but this was only because 661,000 people left the labor force.

The employment to population (EPOP) ratio fell by 0.3 percent to 58.2 percent, the lowest level in more than a quarter century. There was a drop in the male unemployment rate from 10.4 percent to 10.2 percent, but this was entirely attributable to a decline in their EPOP of 0.4 percentage points. The unemployment rate for women rose from 8.0 percent to 8.2 percent.

The EPOP for blacks fell by 0.6 percentage points, with black women seeing a 1.2 percentage-point decline. The EPOP for black women is now a full percentage point lower than for white women, reversing a longstanding pattern of higher EPOPs for black women. The EPOP for Hispanics also fell sharply, dropping 0.7 percentage points in December. By education, those without a high school degree were hit hardest, with a 0.7 percentage-point decline in their EPOP.

Older workers continued to hold their own, as employment among people over age 55 remained constant, as an increase in 40,000 jobs among older women offset a decline of the same amount among men. All the duration measures hit new records, with the share of long-term unemployed now at 39.8 percent.

This report is consistent with a picture of an economy that is still experiencing job loss, albeit at a much slower rate. Job loss is likely to continue into the first few months of 2010, although even when it turns positive, it is not likely to be fast enough to bring down the unemployment rate.

========

So the decade-span shows that dubya's tax cuts, economic mismanagement, and two bogus/botched war deficits did fuck all for employed people, did fuck all for real household income.






http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-a6Y94vogzTtAs.gif

[Wild Cobra]

I presented evidence you were full of shit.
I'm still waiting for the numbers that prove my numbers wrong.

Dishonest much?

And please, don't forget to bring another strawman, like class warfare. Way to spin this shit.
Isn't the fact that you portray a 2002 projection from a biased source enough?

My God... For you to stand by that projection, for today's numbers, is laughable at the least. Retards are those who trust it.

I haven't even bothered looking for it yet. I have the link on a misplaced memory stick. Trust me, your linked numbers are outrageously wrong.

[Winehole23]

I have the link on a misplaced memory stick.Dog-ate-my-homework HOF just called.

They want their hero back. :lmao

[Wild Cobra]

El Don'tKnow...

What tables do you want?

Appendix: Detailed Tables for 1979 to 2005


All Households
Table 1A. Effective Federal Tax Rates
Table 1B. Shares of Federal Tax Liabilities
Table 1C. Number of Households, Average Pretax and After-Tax Income, Shares of Pretax and After-Tax Income, and Income Category Minimums

Households with Children
Table 2A. Effective Federal Tax Rates
Table 2B. Shares of Federal Tax Liabilities
Table 2C. Number of Households, Average Pretax and After-Tax Income, Shares of Pretax and After-Tax Income, and Income Category Minimums

Elderly Childless Households
Table 3A. Effective Federal Tax Rates
Table 3B. Shares of Federal Tax Liabilities
Table 3C. Number of Households, Average Pretax and After-Tax Income, Shares of Pretax and After-Tax Income, and Income Category Minimums

Nonelderly Childless Households
Table 4A. Effective Federal Tax Rates
Table 4B. Shares of Federal Tax Liabilities
Table 4C. Number of Households, Average Pretax and After-Tax Income, Shares of Pretax and After-Tax Income, and Income Category Minimums

These are 1979 to 2005 tables compiled in 2007...

Actual numbers... Not liberal think tank propaganda projections!

Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates: 1979 to 2005 (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/Appendix_tables_toc.xls)

This is not the link I saw before, but searching for it, found one similar.

Here is the data from one group of data in part 1B. I placed in Excel and graphed:

Share of Individual Income Tax Liabilities

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/Table1bShareofIndividualIncomeTaxLi.jpg

How about this:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/Table1aEffectiveIndividualIncomeTax.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

Dog-ate-my-homework HOF just called.

They want their hero back. :lmao

Wow...

You really think your funny.

You should know better than insinuate I'm lying about such things.

Yes, I am at times wrong. However, you are continuing to become a bigger asshole all the time.

[Winehole23]

Yeah. That could be.

There isn't anything illegal or immoral about being an asshole. It isn't even unethical.

[Wild Cobra]

Yeah. That could be.

There isn't anything illegal or immoral about being an asshole. It isn't even unethical.
But your stupidity level is increasing too.

I have a pretty good history of being able to back up my words.

You really look foolish at times.

[ElNono]

I have a pretty good history of being able to back up my words.

No you don't. You have a pretty good history of deflecting shit when you are flat out wrong and get called out for it.

[ElNono]

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/Table1aEffectiveIndividualIncomeTax.jpg

What part of this graph you don't understand?

Furthermore, let's see the same graph based on actual money not percentages. Because besides calling my source 'biased' you still have not stated where they're wrong.

You do realize that a 10% cut on a person making 1,000 is a lot less than a 10% cut on a person making 1,000,000, right?

or you need me to graph it for you? My god indeed!

[spursncowboys]

The point is el nono is everyone got a tax cut. So it was dishonest of you to say it was a tax for the rich. Because the rich weren't the only benefactors.

[ElNono]

The point is el nono is everyone got a tax cut. So it was dishonest of you to say it was a tax for the rich. Because the rich weren't the only benefactors.

I never claimed other people didn't get a tax cut. What's undeniable is who benefited the most from those specific cuts: the rich. I call a spade a spade. If you think that's dishonest, that's your problem not mine.

[TeyshaBlue]

You do realize that a 10% cut on a person making 1,000 is a lot less than a 10% cut on a person making 1,000,000, right?


Is it your opinion that when the cuts were handed out, it should've been set by income levels?

You realize that by your deduction above, that when a rich person pays 1%, it's more money than the poor guy paying 10%, right? Why would we suddenly reverse this when it comes time to give taxpayers their money back?

[Wild Cobra]

I didn't leave any information out.
What's dishonest is to claim that the tax breaks were even handed because the poor had a bigger percentage of the break. That's what he tried to do. He was wrong and got called out for it.
Liar.

No you don't. You have a pretty good history of deflecting shit when you are flat out wrong and get called out for it.
I never made no claim the tax breaks were even. Therefore, what you think you called me out on reflects your own idiocy.

What part of this graph you don't understand?

The one in the propaganda you linked, or mine? Could you elaborate, or do you think I'm psychic to what you mean?

I see the graph you linked as showing the top 1% getting about the following tax breaks:

2001 8%
2002 20%
2003 19%
2004 24%
2005 22%

Actual:

2001 0.04%
2002 2.1%
2003 15.7%
2004 18.6%
2005 19.8%

Now if we compare these to 1990 levels:

2001 21% increase
2002 19% increase
2003 3% increase
2004 1% cut
2005 2.5% cut

How about the bottom 20% since 1990:

2001 4.6% tax benefits increase
2002 5.0% tax benefits increase
2003 5.0tax benefits increase
2004 5.1% tax benefits increase
2005 5.4% tax benefits increase

Why the fuck should the poor get more and more of OTHER PEOPLES MONEY?

[ElNono]

Is it your opinion that when the cuts were handed out, it should've been set by income levels?

You realize that by your deduction above, that when a rich person pays 1%, it's more money than the poor guy paying 10%, right? Why would we suddenly reverse this when it comes time to give taxpayers their money back?

What's your point? That the rich deserved a bigger cut? That's not what we're discussing here.

[ElNono]

I never made no claim the tax breaks were even. Therefore, what you think you called me out on reflects your own idiocy.


Tax cuts for the elite?

Are you really that stupid?

The working poor who pay taxes had their marginal rate drop by 33%. From 15% of taxable income to 10%. Some paying the 28% shifted to 15%, other to 25%.



Liar.

[TeyshaBlue]

What's your point? That the rich deserved a bigger cut? That's not what we're discussing here.

No, not at all. I was exploring the notion of scale. It's like the argument that insurance companies only have a profit margin of 5%, as if that were something horrible. To say the rich receive more or less is irrelevant. It's damned near impossible to create a equal tax cut.

[ElNono]

No, not at all. I was exploring the notion of scale. It's like the argument that insurance companies only have a profit margin of 5%, as if that were something horrible. To say the rich receive more or less is irrelevant. It's damned near impossible to create a equal tax cut.

That's because we already have a fucked up tax system. I personally subscribe to the notion that everyone should be taxed the same. We shouldn't penalize wealth. But with the current system, any tax cut is mostly to benefit the elite. There's no two ways to look at it.

[TeyshaBlue]

That's because we already have a fucked up tax system. I personally subscribe to the notion that everyone should be taxed the same. We shouldn't penalize wealth. But with the current system, any tax cut is mostly to benefit the elite. There's no two ways to look at it.

I wouldn't disagree with that assessment other than to say that "elite" is a difficult to define word and in this context is obviously loaded. The "elite"/rich/wealthy will always reap a bigger reward by virtue of the scaling of what they pay in.

How could everybody be taxed the same? You can't possibly mean flat-tax, because that's absolutely the last thing it does.

[Wild Cobra]

That's because we already have a fucked up tax system. I personally subscribe to the notion that everyone should be taxed the same. We shouldn't penalize wealth. But with the current system, any tax cut is mostly to benefit the elite. There's no two ways to look at it.
Perhaps that's because now, if you look at the quintile averages, the bottom two classes get more money back than they pay in.

No net taxes paid, how can they get a tax cut?

What logic are you using?

The middle fifth pays a 3% income tax rate by 2005 numbers. To cut that by 50% means it is only a 1.5% rate. If you look at total federal liability, that becomes 14.2%, but that is including SS/medicare, capital gains, and probably not factoring in things like credits.

Now if we look at those numbers instead, the Top 1% rates decreased by:

2001 0.6%
2002 0.6%
2003 3.9%
2004 4.8%
2005 5.5%

The bottom 20% income tax rates decreased by:

2001 20.3%
2002 26.6%
2003 28.1%
2004 32.8%
2005 32.8%

[ElNono]

I wouldn't disagree with that assessment other than to say that "elite" is a difficult to define word and in this context is obviously loaded. The "elite"/rich/wealthy will always reap a bigger reward by virtue of the scaling of what they pay in.

How could everybody be taxed the same? You can't possibly mean flat-tax, because that's absolutely the last thing it does.

Yes, I do mean a flat-tax. Why should anybody be penalized for being successful? Why is government taxing the only way to level the playing field between poor and rich?

[ElNono]

Perhaps that's because now, if you look at the quintile averages, the bottom two classes get more money back than they pay in.

No net taxes paid, how can they get a tax cut?

What logic are you using?

The middle fifth pays a 3% income tax rate by 2005 numbers. To cut that by 50% means it is only a 1.5% rate. If you look at total federal liability, that becomes 14.2%, but that is including SS/medicare, capital gains, and probably not factoring in things like credits.

Now if we look at those numbers instead, the Top 1% rates decreased by:

2001 0.6%
2002 0.6%
2003 3.9%
2004 4.8%
2005 5.5%

The bottom 20% income tax rates decreased by:

2001 20.3%
2002 26.6%
2003 28.1%
2004 32.8%
2005 32.8%

You're still talking percentages. Give me dollar figures or shut up.

[TeyshaBlue]

Yes, I do mean a flat-tax. Why should anybody be penalized for being successful? Why is government taxing the only way to level the playing field between poor and rich?

On the surface, I like the concept. But a, say, 20% chunk of my income would kill me right now. Mr. CEO, not so much. It seems like to me, that it hurts the low to middle income earners.

[ElNono]

On the surface, I like the concept. But a, say, 20% chunk of my income would kill me right now. Mr. CEO, not so much. It seems like to me, that it hurts the low to middle income earners.

Yeah, but you have the same voting power as Mr CEO. And Mr CEO would be more than happy to help you get your voice out to get taxes down to 15%.
On top of that, government wouldn't have as much money to go around either.
Let me ask you, would you rather Mr CEO have the money (and maybe, if you're lucky start a new business and hire you) or Nancy Pelosi?

The current tax system already penalizes the poor and middle-class. Rich guys send money overseas and don't pay taxes either way. At least get some of that money back in the country and put it on production.

[spursncowboys]

On the surface, I like the concept. But a, say, 20% chunk of my income would kill me right now. Mr. CEO, not so much. It seems like to me, that it hurts the low to middle income earners.
It would be 16% of new sales. No income tax.

[TeyshaBlue]

It would be 16% of new sales. No income tax.

A 16% sales tax? On top of 8.25%?

I'm out.

[Wild Cobra]

You're still talking percentages. Give me dollar figures or shut up.

OK...

Low income workers can receive more than $3,000 earned income credit, with an already tax liability of ZERO, and also get Child Tax credits.

They get money. Not pay any.

Why should they get more?

Who gives a damn how much less the rich people pay? Congress already spend too much money they shouldn't. Make congress spend withing it's means rather than demonizing the rich.

[spursncowboys]

A 16% sales tax? On top of 8.25%?

I'm out.
No 16 even.

[ElNono]

OK...

Low income workers can receive more than $3,000 earned income credit, with an already tax liability of ZERO, and also get Child Tax credits.

They get money. Not pay any.

Why should they get more?

Who gives a damn how much less the rich people pay? Congress already spend too much money they shouldn't. Make congress spend withing it's means rather than demonizing the rich.

How much money did the 1% top earners saved for every one of those $3,000 that are handed out based on those tax cuts? Dollar figures please.

If you don't know, don't answer please. I'm tired of your incessant bitching and constant deflection on the topic.

[Wild Cobra]

How much money did the 1% top earners saved for every one of those $3,000 that are handed out based on those tax cuts? Dollar figures please.

Who the fuck cares. I'm shouldn't do your homework. You are really pissing me off by going into trivial tangents.

Beside, what you liberals fail to comprehend is that the math doesn't work that way. It's not static because those of wealth vary their income depending of various factors, including tax rates.


If you don't know, don't answer please. I'm tired of your incessant bitching and constant deflection on the topic.

I'm tired of you petty class warfare. You make me want to bitch-slap you.

Want numbers?

Average taxes paid by the top 1% (pretax income minus after tax income from table 1c):

2000 $482,600
2001 $379,700
2002 $336,300
2003 $346,200
2004 $407,700
2005 $487,000

Are you too lazy to look them up and throw them in my face?

Thing is, the more you tax, the more they shelter, and less revenue is collected.

Funny how the revenues came back up at a lower tax rate, huh...

Wonder how much more money the rich circulated in the economy because if a lower effective tax rate?

Ever get a job from a poor person?

[ElNono]

Who the fuck cares. I'm shouldn't do your homework. You are really pissing me off by going into trivial tangents.

I'm tired of you petty class warfare. You make me want to bitch-slap you.

Want numbers?

Average taxes paid by the top 1% (pretax income minus after tax income from table 1c):

2000 $482,600
2001 $379,700
2002 $336,300
2003 $346,200
2004 $407,700
2005 $487,000

Are you too lazy to look them up and throw them in my face?

Thank you for making my point. :lmao

Now go ahead and keep on whining about class warfare on your soapbox...

[Wild Cobra]

Thank you for making my point. :lmao

Now go ahead and keep on whining about class warfare on your soapbox...
You are the one propagating class warfare. I'm the one calling you out on it.

[ElNono]

Yes, I do mean a flat-tax. Why should anybody be penalized for being successful? Why is government taxing the only way to level the playing field between poor and rich?


You are the one propagating class warfare. I'm the one calling you out on it.

-------- <- This thread

O
/|\ <- You
/ \

[ChumpDumper]

Average taxes paid by the top 1% (pretax income minus after tax income from table 1c):

2000 $482,600
2001 $379,700
2002 $336,300
2003 $346,200
2004 $407,700
2005 $487,000How much did they make in the first place?

[ElNono]

How much did they make in the first place?

He doesn't get it. He's bitching about a $3,000 handoff, when a 1% cut on those numbers he provided don't even amount to that much.

[Wild Cobra]

How much did they make in the first place?
I'm tired of pasting information. Here it is though:

2000 $1,460,600
2001 $1,156,000
2002 $1,024,100
2003 $1,092,800
2004 $1,299,300
2005 $1,558,500

Look at the link I supplied earlier.

[Wild Cobra]

He doesn't get it. He's bitching about a $3,000 handoff, when a 1% cut on those numbers he provided don't even amount to that much.
No, I get it.

I just hate people with a passion who have the entitlement mentality, and ask our government to steal more from producers, for them.

[ElNono]

No, I get it.

I just hate people with a passion who have the entitlement mentality, and ask our government to steal more from producers, for them.

I do? How?

[Winehole23]

I'm tired of pasting information.You got tired of waving at it? We're tired of you waving at it, too.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm tired of pasting information. Here it is though:

2000 $1,460,600
2001 $1,156,000
2002 $1,024,100
2003 $1,092,800
2004 $1,299,300
2005 $1,558,500

Look at the link I supplied earlier.And that has nothing to do with any capital gains or alternative compensation, right?

[Wild Cobra]

He doesn't get it. He's bitching about a $3,000 handoff, when a 1% cut on those numbers he provided don't even amount to that much.
Besides, 1% of the Top 1% earners income is less than the benefits the 20% receive. Care to compare that to the maximum $5657 Earned Income Credit multiplied by more than 20 times the numbers of the top 1%, plus the $400 Making Work Pay credit, plus other Child Care credits?

When I said more than $3,000, did you think it stopped shortly after that? I'll bet the average for 30% of the population well exceeds $3,000. Therefore, if you just ask the 1% class to pay for maybe 30% of the people at an average $3,000, then that is $90,000 each. 1% of the average 2005 income is only $15,585. You have to take almost 2% of the top 10% wage earners to redistribute this money.

[Wild Cobra]

And that has nothing to do with any capital gains or alternative compensation, right?
Can't you bring the link up yourself, or do you not have Excel to load it into?

Here is what is says:


Comprehensive household income equals pretax cash income plus income from other sources. Pretax cash income is the sum of wages, salaries, self-employment income, rents, taxable and nontaxable interest, dividends, realized capital gains, cash transfer payments, and retirement benefits plus taxes paid by businesses (corporate income taxes and the employer's share of Social Security, Medicare, and federal unemployment insurance payroll taxes) and employee contributions to 401(k) retirement plans. Other sources of income include all in-kind benefits (Medicare, Medicaid, employer-paid health insurance premiums, food stamps, school lunches and breakfasts, housing assistance, and energy assistance). Households with negative income are excluded from the lowest income category but are included in totals.

[Wild Cobra]

And that has nothing to do with any capital gains or alternative compensation, right?
Remember, it's an average of the top 1% earners. Some will make several million more than the average, and pay even more taxes.

[ElNono]

Besides, 1% of the Top 1% earners income is less than the benefits the 20% receive. Care to compare that to the maximum $5657 Earned Income Credit multiplied by more than 20 times the numbers of the top 1%, plus the $400 Making Work Pay credit, plus other Child Care credits?

When I said more than $3,000, did you think it stopped shortly after that? I'll bet the average for 30% of the population well exceeds $3,000. Therefore, if you just ask the 1% class to pay for maybe 30% of the people at an average $3,000, then that is $90,000 each. 1% of the average 2005 income is only $15,585. You have to take almost 2% of the top 10% wage earners to redistribute this money.

I don't ask anybody to pay anything, what part of that you don't understand?

Under the current progressive tax system, the one you love to bitch and complain about, tax hikes hit the richer people the hardest, and inherently, tax cuts benefit the rich people the most. This is a fact. There's nothing to argue about.

You keep on coming over with the strawman that I somehow support the current progressive tax system, when I already posted that I'm actually on the camp that do not like it and would rather see a more fair system.

Despite that, you keep getting up on your soapbox and making speeches none of which contradict the point I called you out for. So please, knock yourself out yapping about a different subject, just leave me out of it.

[Wild Cobra]

I do? How?
By a combination of things, starting with that propaganda piece you linked.

How about going back, and reading your responses from an unbiased viewpoint, and consider what the tone is. Maybe you meant something else, but you sure have slammed the rich.

[ElNono]

By a combination of things, starting with that propaganda piece you linked.

How about going back, and reading your responses from an unbiased viewpoint, and consider what the tone is. Maybe you meant something else, but you sure have slammed the rich.

You still haven't shown how that 'piece' is 'biased'. Are the numbers wrong? What are the 'good' numbers?

[Wild Cobra]

I don't ask anybody to pay anything, what part of that you don't understand?

I don't believe that's your intent. I think you backed out of your original line of thinking.


Under the current progressive tax system, the one you love to bitch and complain about, tax hikes hit the richer people the hardest, and inherently, tax cuts benefit the rich people the most. This is a fact. There's nothing to argue about.

Agreed. So why do you point out the obvious, as if it's a sin?


You keep on coming over with the strawman that I somehow support the current progressive tax system, when I already posted that I'm actually on the camp that do not like it and would rather see a more fair system.

Then what was the purpose of the link you posted? What intent do you think that has? Talk about strawman... That is all that link is!


Despite that, you keep getting up on your soapbox and making speeches none of which contradict the point I called you out for. So please, knock yourself out yapping about a different subject, just leave me out of it.

You keep contradicting mine. Apparently, you point is unclear to us. I did see where you prefer a flat tax, but then you seem to complain the poor get screwed on the tax breaks. A flat tax would make then pay even more. You seem hypocritical.

[Winehole23]

One mistake might have been thinking WC was talking to you in particular, ElNono.

It all might be a soliloquy. WC's casual disdain for details of the conversation betrays his casual self absorption, at least, and his casual abuse of posters is as unthinking as it is over the top and sometimes obscene.

[Wild Cobra]

You still haven't shown how that 'piece' is 'biased'. Are the numbers wrong? What are the 'good' numbers?
Yes I did. Sorry you didn't understand.

[ElNono]

I don't believe that's your intent. I think you backed out of your original line of thinking.

No, really. I didn't ask anybody to pay for anything. I dare you finding a quote where I said so.


Agreed. So why do you point out the obvious, as if it's a sin?

Because when somebody pointed out that the tax cuts were for the rich (which is inherently true), your retarded persona came out playing all butt hurt to the comment. I called you out on that.


Then what was the purpose of the link you posted? What intent do you think that has? Talk about strawman... That is all that link is!

The purpose of the link I posted is to show the DOLLAR FIGURE of what each portion of the tax paying citizens are set to save with the cuts. It clearly shows what anybody with half a brain knows: The top 1% benefits the most from tax cuts.



You keep contradicting mine. Apparently, you point is unclear to us. I did see where you prefer a flat tax, but then you seem to complain the poor get screwed on the tax breaks. A flat tax would make then pay even more. You seem hypocritical.

Apparently, everybody else but you understood what I was saying just fine.
The poor do get screwed on tax breaks. Again, inherently part of the current tax system.

And now I'm hypocritical because I want the poor and the rich to pay the same share? :lol

[ElNono]

Yes I did. Sorry you didn't understand.

The problem is that the numbers you posted support my claim... and confirm the 'biased piece'...

[Wild Cobra]

Because when somebody pointed out that the tax cuts were for the rich (which is inherently true), your retarded persona came out playing all butt hurt to the comment. I called you out on that.
You mean this:

I thought tax-cuts for the elite spurred job growth....
I only pointed out that everyone got a break. You assumed what you wanted to assume, and in calling me out on a incorrect assumption, had me thinking your intents were other than you claim now. If I was wrong about your viewpoint, it's because of the way you did things.


The purpose of the link I posted is to show the DOLLAR FIGURE of what each portion of the tax paying citizens are set to save with the cuts. It clearly shows what anybody with half a brain knows: The top 1% benefits the most from tax cuts.

Yes, projections upon projections.

A 2002 article, which is not adjusted for current facts, and based on assumed 2010 dollars.

Very, very lame to submit almost 8 years later, when the predictions are now dispelled.


Apparently, everybody else but you understood what I was saying just fine.
The poor do get screwed on tax breaks. Again, inherently part of the current tax system.

No they don't.

How can you get a tax break if in reality, you don't pay taxes?


And now I'm hypocritical because I want the poor and the rich to pay the same share? :lol

No, hypocritical because you want a flat tax, but want a larger redistribution of wealth to the poor.

[ElNono]

You mean this:

No, I mean this:


Tax cuts for the elite?

Are you really that stupid?


Yes, projections upon projections.
A 2002 article, which is not adjusted for current facts, and based on assumed 2010 dollars.Very, very lame to submit almost 8 years later, when the predictions are now dispelled.


You already provided the adjusted numbers. They support my point.


No they don't. How can you get a tax break if in reality, you don't pay taxes?

This is where your strawman begins. The non-rich do pay taxes. I'm not in the top 1% and I pay taxes. What percentage of the entire tax-paying population falls in your $3,000 handout scenario? Even those guys are set to gain, at the most, $3,000, which is a drop in the bucket for what the rich save with the cuts. As a matter of fact, the more you make the more you benefit with any kind of cut.


No, hypocritical because you want a flat tax, but want a larger redistribution of wealth to the poor.

quote please.

[Wild Cobra]

The problem is that the numbers you posted support my claim... and confirm the 'biased piece'...
Only by looking at the casual coincidence, and disregard for how far some are off.

They are too far off to be statistically acceptable for a 2010 prediction. The 2005 number is the closest at an 11.1% error. The first two years are way off, which should have been the closest to predict. 2003 is 21% off and 2004 is 29% off.

[ElNono]

Only by looking at the casual coincidence, and disregard for how far some are off.

They are too far off to be statistically acceptable for a 2010 prediction. The 2005 number is the closest at an 11.1% error. The first two years are way off, which should have been the closest to predict. 2003 is 21% off and 2004 is 29% off.

It doesn't matter how far off they are, the point they make is that under the current tax system, the rich benefit the most from tax cuts. Even 'corrected' projections do not dispel that.

[Wild Cobra]

No, hypocritical because you want a flat tax, but want a larger redistribution of wealth to the poor.
quote please.
I give up. You complain about the other income taxes not getting as large a tax break when their tax rates are less than 1990 levels, and the top rates are coming back down to 1990 levels. We move into the discussion of the bottom two brackets not paying taxes, but getting money back, then you change the argument again when I point out they pay no taxes to reduce.

Yep, I give up. No way to answer someone who keeps changing the debate.

[Wild Cobra]

It doesn't matter how far off they are, the point they make is that under the current tax system, the rich benefit the most from tax cuts. Even 'corrected' projections do not dispel that.
And you ignore my reference to the 1990 levels, how much more the lower brackets pay compared to the top brackets.

The upper bracket tax burdens unfairly went up in the 90's. Why is it wrong to restore them to sane levels?

[ElNono]

I give up. You complain about the other income taxes not getting as large a tax break when their tax rates are less than 1990 levels, and the top rates are coming back down to 1990 levels. We move into the discussion of the bottom two brackets not paying taxes, but getting money back, then you change the argument again when I point out they pay no taxes to reduce.

Yep, I give up. No way to answer someone who keeps changing the debate.


And you ignore my reference to the 1990 levels, how much more the lower brackets pay compared to the top brackets.

The upper bracket tax burdens unfairly went up in the 90's. Why is it wrong to restore them to sane levels?

This is from page 2:


What's dishonest is to claim that the tax breaks were even handed because the poor had a bigger percentage of the break. That's what he tried to do. He was wrong and got called out for it.

That's what were debating here until you finally conceded that the rich do indeed get the bigger benefit of tax cuts under the current system.
You changed your tune a long time ago. You may proceed with your new topic, just leave me out of it.

[Winehole23]

See, I don't think WC perceived your outlines too well to begin with, ElNono. In principle there's no way you can be stuck in a conversation some dude is having with himself.

[ElNono]

See, I don't think WC perceived your outlines too well to begin with, ElNono. In principle there's no way you can be stuck in a conversation some dude is having with himself.

Echo chamber?

[Winehole23]

Reading is a very mysterious process.

[TeyshaBlue]

Reading this thread is baffling the hell outta me.:depressed

[Winehole23]

But yeah, there's the cultural shit storm, too. Compounded by voluntary hyperexposure to the sources.

[Wild Cobra]

What's dishonest is to claim that the tax breaks were even handed because the poor had a bigger percentage of the break. That's what he tried to do. He was wrong and got called out for it.That's what were debating here until you finally conceded that the rich do indeed get the bigger benefit of tax cuts under the current system.

Liar.

I never said or implied they were even handed. Saying that everyone benefited from the tax break is not saying it was fair in everyone's perception. I especially never used any words to imply "even-handed."

Understand definitions like this: A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square.

Don't associate your ASSumptions with my statements.

That's the problem. You keep attacking points I never made.

Will you please stop asking me to waste my time anymore. Post something relevant, or be ignored. I'm tired of trying to debate a twit.

[ElNono]

Liar.

I never said or implied they were even handed. Saying that everyone benefited from the tax break is not saying it was fair in everyone's perception. I especially never used any words to imply "even-handed."

Understand definitions like this: A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square.

Don't associate your ASSumptions with my statements.

That's the problem. You keep attacking points I never made.

Will you please stop asking me to waste my time anymore. Post something relevant, or be ignored. I'm tired of trying to debate a twit.


Reading is a very mysterious process.