-
Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
the top 20%, quintile in household income starts at $88K :lol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househo...ates#Quintiles
'Middle-income' is $200K to $250K and less
Mitt Romney is promising to reduce taxes on middle-income Americans.
But how does he define "middle-income"? The Republican presidential nominee defined it Friday as income of $200,000 to $250,000 a year and less.
The definition of "middle income" or the "middle class" is politically charged as Romney and President Barack Obama fight to win over working-class voters. Romney would be among the wealthiest presidents, if elected, and Democrats have repeatedly painted him as out of touch with average people.
Obama also has set his definition for "middle class" as families with income of up to $250,000 a year.
Romney's comments came an interview broadcast Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America."
"No one can say my plan is going to raise taxes on middle-income people, because principle number one is (to) keep the burden down on middle-income taxpayers," Romney told host George Stephanopoulos.
"Is $100,000 middle income?" Stephanopoulos asked.
"No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less," Romney responded.
His campaign later clarified that Romney was referencing household income, not individual income.
The Census Bureau reported this week that the median household income -- the midpoint for the nation -- is just over $50,000.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...,6073358.story
Gecko, out of touch 1%er, unprepared for Presidency (doesn't do his homework, he's got $100Ms) and dumb as shit. :lol
He also said this week that he'd close the inequality gap by raising the 99% wages! :lol
The stupidity of his remarks perhaps exposes how well he realizes the ignorance of his base. or maybe not! He really is that stupid. :lol
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
boutons_deux
the top 20%, quintile in household income starts at $88K :lol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househo...ates#Quintiles
'Middle-income' is $200K to $250K and less
Mitt Romney is promising to reduce taxes on middle-income Americans.
But how does he define "middle-income"? The Republican presidential nominee defined it Friday as income of $200,000 to $250,000 a year and less.
The definition of "middle income" or the "middle class" is politically charged as Romney and President Barack Obama fight to win over working-class voters. Romney would be among the wealthiest presidents, if elected, and Democrats have repeatedly painted him as out of touch with average people.
Obama also has set his definition for "middle class" as families with income of up to $250,000 a year.
Romney's comments came an interview broadcast Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America."
"No one can say my plan is going to raise taxes on middle-income people, because principle number one is (to) keep the burden down on middle-income taxpayers," Romney told host George Stephanopoulos.
"Is $100,000 middle income?" Stephanopoulos asked.
"No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less," Romney responded.
His campaign later clarified that Romney was referencing household income, not individual income.
The Census Bureau reported this week that the median household income -- the midpoint for the nation -- is just over $50,000.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...,6073358.story
Gecko, out of touch 1%er, unprepared for Presidency (doesn't do his homework, he's got $100Ms) and dumb as shit. :lol
He also said this week that he'd close the inequality gap by raising the 99% wages! :lol
The stupidity of his remarks perhaps exposes how well he realizes the ignorance of his base. or maybe not! He really is that stupid. :lol
lol boutons, romney=obama, democrats=republicans, boutons=hypocrite
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
the rich's greatest trick was convincing the poor the middle class is rich
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
coyotes_geek
lol boutons, romney=obama, democrats=republicans, boutons=hypocrite
Context! http://homerecording.com/bbs/images/...s/facepalm.gif
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
angrydude
the rich's greatest trick was convincing the poor the middle class is rich
This
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
damn.
i should be on food stamps then.
*extends hand looking for handout*
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Don't ever stop talking, Mitt. :lol
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
"Obama also has set his definition for "middle class" as families with income of up to $250,000 a year."
Obama said he wants to raise taxes to 39% on incomes over $250K, ie, above "middle class".
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
It is upper middle income.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
the median is about $50K per family. $250K is the top 5%.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
boutons_deux
the median is about $50K per family. $250K is the top 5%.
So?
What is upper middle class then?
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househo...ates#Quintiles
if the median is about $50K, then upper-middle would be about the 4th quintile $55K-88K
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
boutons_deux
The classical definition doesn't go by quintiles. The upper middle class is considered to be working professionals that make from the high five digit incomes to the low six digit incomes.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
boutons_deux
So, in Boutons world, anyone making over 88K is rich?
:lmao
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CosmicCowboy
So, in Boutons world, anyone making over 88K is rich?
:lmao
Glad to know I'm rich!
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
you guys don't realize how The Wealthiest Country In The History of the Universe actually has 10Ms of poor people pulling down the median.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
boutons_deux
you guys don't realize how The Wealthiest Country In The History of the Universe actually has 10Ms of poor people pulling down the median.
Yes, we know people like you exist. You remind us on a daily basis.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CosmicCowboy
So, in Boutons world, anyone making over 88K is rich?
:lmao
Do you think 88k is not a lot? In San Antonio that is quite a bit. The average income for a household is something like 35k and the average family brings in about about 53k.
88k is a lot of money. How people use it to seem poor or rich is on them.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wild Cobra
Glad to know I'm rich!
and yet not a single person here wishes they were you
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Mitt Romney ran a marathon in 1 minute.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
DMX7 sets up a retarded strawman.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Vici
Do you think 88k is not a lot? In San Antonio that is quite a bit. The average income for a household is something like 35k and the average family brings in about about 53k.
88k is a lot of money. How people use it to seem poor or rich is on them.
Yeah, typical family, husband, wife, two kids, a dog. Daycare through college 88K is squeaking by. Stupid Breeders spitting out kids when they make 20K is a big part of what the fuck is wrong with this country.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wild Cobra
The classical definition doesn't go by quintiles. The upper middle class is considered to be working professionals that make from the high five digit incomes to the low six digit incomes.
what fuzzy wuzzy bullshit. I'll take the hard stats over your bullshit.
median household income is $50K
"The median U.S. wage in 2010 was just $26,363"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...bX0L_blog.html
the top quintile starts at about $90K.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CosmicCowboy
Yeah, typical family, husband, wife, two kids, a dog. Daycare through college 88K is squeaking by. Stupid Breeders spitting out kids when they make 20K is a big part of what the fuck is wrong with this country.
And for an accounting firm employing a dozen people it's squeaking by too. Good thing that's not what the figures are referring to.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
boutons_deux
For the second time, class isn't determined by quintile.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CosmicCowboy
Stupid Breeders spitting out kids when they make 20K is a big part of what the fuck is wrong with this country.
:tu
It's also a lot harder to advance in your career when you have 4 kids who need to be taken care of. 88k is a very healthy living if it's someone who's responsible.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
lol poor people thinking 250k is more than middle class.
lol poor people thinking they are middle class.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SnakeBoy
lol poor people thinking 250k is more than middle class.
lol poor people thinking they are middle class.
Where do you put the lower ceiling on the middle class?
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
This conversation is really pretty irrelevant unless you factor in geography.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
leemajors
Where do you put the lower ceiling on the middle class?
I'd put it at $100k give or take. Below that is working class.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spurminator
This conversation is really pretty irrelevant unless you factor in geography.
Agreed.
The actual annual salary varies partially by location.
It seems too many people don't understand the "class" part of "middle class." It's not the amount of money someone makes that determines their class, but their job and social network. Those in the upper middle class can easily make six figures, and still be middle class. Boutons seems to think "quintiles" matter.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
boutons_deux
the top 20%, quintile in household income starts at $88K :lol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househo...ates#Quintiles
'Middle-income' is $200K to $250K and less
Mitt Romney is promising to reduce taxes on middle-income Americans.
But how does he define "middle-income"? The Republican presidential nominee defined it Friday as income of $200,000 to $250,000 a year and less.
The definition of "middle income" or the "middle class" is politically charged as Romney and President Barack Obama fight to win over working-class voters. Romney would be among the wealthiest presidents, if elected, and Democrats have repeatedly painted him as out of touch with average people.
Obama also has set his definition for "middle class" as families with income of up to $250,000 a year.
Romney's comments came an interview broadcast Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America."
"No one can say my plan is going to raise taxes on middle-income people, because principle number one is (to) keep the burden down on middle-income taxpayers," Romney told host George Stephanopoulos.
"Is $100,000 middle income?" Stephanopoulos asked.
"No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less," Romney responded.
His campaign later clarified that Romney was referencing household income, not individual income.
The Census Bureau reported this week that the median household income -- the midpoint for the nation -- is just over $50,000.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...,6073358.story
Gecko, out of touch 1%er, unprepared for Presidency (doesn't do his homework, he's got $100Ms) and dumb as shit. :lol
He also said this week that he'd close the inequality gap by raising the 99% wages! :lol
The stupidity of his remarks perhaps exposes how well he realizes the ignorance of his base. or maybe not! He really is that stupid. :lol
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
"Obama also has set his definition for "middle class" as families with income of up to $250,000 a year."
where's Obama quote that $250K is middle class, when it's actual top 5%?
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Regardless, what's "middle class" is subjective while what's "middle income" is not.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wild Cobra
For the second time, class isn't determined by quintile.
class isn't determined by your opinion or ideology. Any household above the median $50K is upper something.
in your typical right-wing ideological self-imposed blindness and ignorance, you refuse to see how HUGE "wealth America's" sub-$50K, 2nd class population is, how the avg hourly wage is about $17/hour.
http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=773
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CosmicCowboy
Yeah, typical family, husband, wife, two kids, a dog. Daycare through college 88K is squeaking by. Stupid Breeders spitting out kids when they make 20K is a big part of what the fuck is wrong with this country.
88k for one person? Squeaking by?
Dude, I have three kids, one with special needs (15), one in private school (5), and one under 1 year old in day care. My wife and I *together* make 76k(pre tax). I own a 2300 sq ft house off of the northern part of bandera rd, a 2004 car with <85k miles (paid off), a 2007 van with <40k miles (13k left to pay), and a paid off 2006 motorcycle. I also have a dog.
I will admit, after a few bones to the investment account and 6% to my retirement (I know not enough), we squeeze by. We are comfortable, but we are squeezing. I also should say that I was making a little more money when we decided to have the last kid (lest you think I am too much of a moron).
Either way, if ONE of us was making 88k, that is most certainly rich. Shit, if I was making that much, I would let my wife stay home and do some bullshit home based business (she has done pampered chef in the past) until our son was in school. Then we would be back to upper middle class (an ENTIRE HOUSELHOLD making say 95k).
If a certain income level is in the top 5% it is most certainly NOT middle it is TOP. If you try to say that it is upper middle class then you are considering someone who makes 15k middle class too, just lower middle class. In this case the term means nothing.
Edit: Yes I realize that I made the classic Spurstalk mistake of revealing something about myself and now the vultures come. Oh well.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Drachen
88k for one person? Squeaking by?
Dude, I have three kids, one with special needs (15), one in private school (5), and one under 1 year old in day care. My wife and I *together* make 76k(pre tax). I own a 2300 sq ft house off of the northern part of bandera rd, a 2004 car with <85k miles (paid off), a 2007 van with <40k miles (13k left to pay), and a paid off 2006 motorcycle. I also have a dog.
I will admit, after a few bones to the investment account and 6% to my retirement (I know not enough), we squeeze by. We are comfortable, but we are squeezing. I also should say that I was making a little more money when we decided to have the last kid (lest you think I am too much of a moron).
Either way, if ONE of us was making 88k, that is most certainly rich. Shit, if I was making that much, I would let my wife stay home and do some bullshit home based business (she has done pampered chef in the past) until our son was in school. Then we would be back to upper middle class (an ENTIRE HOUSELHOLD making say 95k).
If a certain income level is in the top 5% it is most certainly NOT middle it is TOP. If you try to say that it is upper middle class then you are considering someone who makes 15k middle class too, just lower middle class. In this case the term means nothing.
Edit: Yes I realize that I made the classic Spurstalk mistake of revealing something about myself and now the vultures come. Oh well.
As I said before...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SnakeBoy
lol poor people thinking they are middle class.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
boutons_deux
"Obama also has set his definition for "middle class" as families with income of up to $250,000 a year."
where's Obama quote that $250K is middle class, when it's actual top 5%?
So is the middle class doing just fine or is the middle class vanishing as you have argued many times before?
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SnakeBoy
As I said before...
You don't know the meaning of the word poor you arrogant prick.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Th'Pusher
You don't know the meaning of the word poor you arrogant prick.
Grew up that way so yeah I do. You don't know the meaning of rich.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SnakeBoy
So is the middle class doing just fine or is the middle class vanishing as you have argued many times before?
with the median household at $50K (say $30 for the man, and $20k for mom), the middle class is pretty poor.
Real household income has been essentially flat for 35 years. 48K in 1980, and
$50K today.
Big question is how long this downward slope will continue downward
http://www.davemanuel.com/charts/med...old_income.gif
Note how Repug tax cutting did nothing for household income in the 2000s.
The Repugs/conservatives are simply lying about high taxes as a problem and tax cutting as a solution.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SnakeBoy
Grew up that way so yeah I do. You don't know the meaning of rich.
Sure I do. You have the nouveau riche like you and Then you have the truly wealthy who have accumulated their wealth over multiple generations.
:lol Romney/Ryan
:lol doing the bidding for the wealthy
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Th'Pusher
Sure I do. You have the nouveau riche like you
I'm not rich.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DUNCANownsKOBE
88k is a very healthy living if it's someone who's responsible.
At least we know who doesn't have any children. :lol
For a single person, or even a couple without children (or even one depending on locale), I'd agree though.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SnakeBoy
I'm not rich.
Well then you really have no reason to vote for Romney/Ryan.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Th'Pusher
Well then you really have no reason to vote for Romney/Ryan.
That is a 110%+ complete fail.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wild Cobra
That is a 110%+ complete fail.
Why? The Romney/Ryan plan is wildly skewed toward the rich. If you're not rich and vote for Romeny/Ryan you're voting against your own financial interest. So unless you're a single issue voter voting for something that won't change, you really have no reason to vote for Romney/Ryan.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Th'Pusher
Why? The Romney/Ryan plan is wildly skewed toward the rich. If you're not rich and vote for Romeny/Ryan you're voting against your own financial interest. So unless you're a single issue voter voting for something that won't change, you really have no reason to vote for Romney/Ryan.
So you believe in voting like a child? Someone who will provide for you?
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wild Cobra
So you believe in voting like a child? Someone who will provide for you?
Not really. I think voting for someone who is pledging to cut taxes across the Board by 20% when we have medium and long term debt issues while claiming it to be revenue neutral without specifying how it will be revenue neutral is voting like a child.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Th'Pusher
Not really. I think voting for someone who is pledging to cut taxes across the Board by 20% when we have medium and long term debt issues while claiming it to be revenue neutral without specifying how it will be revenue neutral is voting like a child.
Do you understand the theory behind the "Laffer Curve?"
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wild Cobra
Do you understand the theory behind the "Laffer Curve?"
:lol "proven" pro-growth policy. Shut the fuck up and go cast your vote against you're own financial interest.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Th'Pusher
:lol "proven" pro-growth policy. Shut the fuck up and go cast your vote against you're own financial interest.
It's not against my financial interest to vote against Obama.
Besides. That's the problem with our economy and debt.
People are voting for their selfish interest rather than what is best for us all collectively.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wild Cobra
It's not against my financial interest to vote against Obama.
Besides. That's the problem with our economy and debt.
People are voting for their selfish interest rather than what is best for us all collectively.
:lmao communist
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Th'Pusher
:lmao communist
Do you think such word association wins you anything in this type of debate?
OK, let's go with your self interest view.
What happens as we make more deductions for the poor, or the economy changes so that about 55% of tax filers pay no taxes? Isn't it in their self interest to vote for the politician who promises to give them everything they want?
Just where is that money going to come from?
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wild Cobra
Do you think such word association wins you anything in this type of debate?
OK, let's go with your self interest view.
What happens as we make more deductions for the poor, or the economy changes so that about 55% of tax filers pay no taxes? Isn't it in their self interest to vote for the politician who promises to give them everything they want?
Just where is that money going to come from?
Look WC, Romney/Ryan are proposing $5T in tax cuts over 10 years when we're $16T in debt. to deal with medium and long term debt, taxes are going to have to be raised across the board. That is reality.
Your team is calling it pro-growth, you reference the laffer curve. Anyone paying any sort of attention understands taxes need to be raised, entitlements need to be reformed. The difference is that one side is having a grown up conversation while the other side is actually talking about cutting taxes, which, as a percentage of GDP are at 1950's levels. IOW one side is bullshit crazy. That's your side.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
I see you do not understand the concept behind the "Laffer Curve."
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wild Cobra
I see you do not understand the concept behind the "Laffer Curve."
I understand it. Taxes can be raised in the medium and long term without a negative effect on the economy in order to reduce debt. Your side is unwilling to accept that reality.
Now go cast your vote against your own financial interest.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wild Cobra
Wrong.
Ok. Now go cast your vote again your own financial interest. Moron.
:lol laffer curve.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Th'Pusher
Ok. Now go cast your vote again your own financial interest. Moron.
:lol laffer curve.
I will cast my vote for mine and others financial interest by voting against Obama.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
u know u cant have a real measure of income, when u have ppl who earn millions part of the equation with low income earners pushin up the avg, what in fact not everyone earns the avg, hence the outlier of those clowns earning millions...
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Several analyses of Ryan's budget show it increasing national debt by about $5T over 10 years. He's a typical hardass Repug LIAR. "deficit hawk" really means destroy the social safety net, arts, science, regulatory agencies, while cutting taxes on the corps and wealthy.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
boutons_deux
Several analyses of Ryan's budget show it increasing national debt by about $5T over 10 years. He's a typical hardass Repug LIAR. "deficit hawk" really means destroy the social safety net, arts, science, regulatory agencies, while cutting taxes on the corps and wealthy.
There is no way to project better numbers without getting full employment back and more better paying jobs.
Again, we need more tax payers.
What does Obama's look like? His current $1.1T deficit and interest would easily be at least $12 trillion over 10 years.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wild Cobra
There is no way to project better numbers without getting full employment back and more better paying jobs.
Again, we need more tax payers.
What does Obama's look like? His current $1.1T deficit and interest would easily be at least $12 trillion over 10 years.
You Lie. There is no "Obama deficit".
It's the REPUG deficit from tax cuts, 2 Repug unnecessary, botched wars, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Part D, the conservative financial deregulation producing, as is always inevitable, a financial crisis of the Banksters Great Depression, corporate push for globalization that has destroyed Ms of good American jobs(taxpayers), 1%/UCA avoidance/evasion of taxes.
Gecko/Ryan have NO plans, specific or vague for increasing jobs, poor or good paying. Did you forget that Repug "hate/destroy govt" ideology says that govt can't create jobs or wealth or anything good at all (other than being owned and operated by and for the 1%'s enrichment).
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Mitt says something stupid once again, what's new?
250K is a whole lot of dough even living in LA or NYC
I'd say Middle Class is probably 60K - 200K.
BOth ROmney and Obama are out of touch with reality. But what's new?
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SnakeBoy
Grew up that way so yeah I do. You don't know the meaning of rich.
Sorry, but I'd have to think that your definitions are the ones that are off here. Rich doesn't mean private jet. Drachen's description of a lifestyle certainly isn't poor either. Not even close. If you grew up that way and you think thats poor then you certainly have not experienced being poor.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
I will say the upper end of the middle class gets really fuzzy but I certainly don't think making over 100k is nessecary to be middle class and certainly not by the way it has been defined in this country.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wild Cobra
Do you understand the theory behind the "Laffer Curve?"
Do you? Because you've never demonstrated any understanding of it.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Where does the Laffer curve bend?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr..._curve_be.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dudes Who Actually Study This Shit
Emmanuel Saez, E. Morris Cox professor of economics, University of California at Berkeley:
"The tax rate t maximizing revenue is: t=1/(1+a*e) where a is the Pareto parameter of the income distribution (= 1.5 in the U.S. and easy to measure), and e the elasticity of reported income with respect to 1-t which captures supply side effects. The most reasonable estimates for e vary from 0.12 to 0.40 (see conclusion page 47) so e=.25 seems like a reasonable estimate. Then t=1/(1+1.5*0.25)=73% which means a top federal income tax rate of 69% (when taking into account the extra tax rates created by Medicare payroll taxes, state income tax rates, and sales taxes) much higher than the current 35% or 39.6% currently discussed."
Joel Slemrod, Paul W. McCracken Collegiate Professor of Business Economics and Public Policy, University of Michigan:
"I would venture that the answer is 60% or higher.... The idea that we're on the wrong side has almost no support among academics who have looked at this. Evidence doesn't suggest we're anywhere near the other end of the Laffer curve.... The elasticity of response, which is the key parameter here, isn't some absolute parameter that we just have to deal with. It depends on policies. Let me be specific. There's an article about how the IRS has reorganized itself to crack down on tax evasion of high-income people and corporations moving their operations or assets offshore. That's the kind of policy initiative that can affect the elasticity of response by closing up a loophole. You want to raise tax rates at the same time you look at these kind of initiatives.... If we're talking about just deficit variations, we're not talking about what the government spending, the answer is no. It doesn't matter what this response is. If you're not changing government spending, any change in revenue now will have to offset by some change in revenue in the future. If that's the case, then if the responsiveness is high now, it's going to be high later, too."
A very well reasoned point that is often overlooked and/or misunderstood:
Quote:
Stephen Moore, senior economic writer and editorial board member, Wall Street Journal:
"The revenue maximizing rate is probably around 40 or 50 percent. But the growth maximizing rate, even given the current deficits, is probaby about 20 percent. So the goal is to get the rate down to 20 to 25 percent. For cap gains the revenue maximizing rate is between 15 and 20 percent."
The numbers Mr. Moore quotes are not relevant, but what is relevant (and dead on) is that revenue maximization rate is not the same as the growth maximization rate.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...-to-the-g-o-p/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Bartlett
The Laffer curve, named for the economist Arthur Laffer, posits that tax rates may be so high that a tax-rate reduction will raise revenue to the government and a tax-rate increase will lower revenue.
While no economist denies the theoretical possibility of a revenue-raising tax cut or revenue-losing tax increase, Republicans talk as if the United States is always on the high side of the Laffer curve – no matter what the tax rates are – so every tax cut will pay for itself and no tax increase could possibly ever raise net revenue and thus reduce the deficit.
...
My concern is that the Republican effort is just a smokescreen to incorporate phony-baloney factors into revenue estimates to justify unlimited tax cutting. How soon before the C.B.O. is required to incorporate estimates from the right-wing Heritage Foundation in its calculations?
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
But it's all just academic mumbo jumbo. Go back to your Religious adherence to the idea that merely saying the words "Laffer Curve" justifies flawed fiscal policy.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scott
But it's all just academic mumbo jumbo. Go back to your Religious adherence to the idea that merely saying the words "Laffer Curve" justifies flawed fiscal policy.
Took you a few posting to realize that.
The problem is, that there is the effect, but no real way to account for all the variable. You seem to be one that thinks reducing taxes will reduce revenues, when it may not be true. You seem to think tax rates have to be increased which may backfire.
The truth is, we don't really know.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
"Stephen Moore, senior economic writer and editorial board member, Wall Street Journal"
wants 20 - 25% for "maximum growth"
Murdoch toilet paper WSJ? :lol
Who actually "study shit"? :lol
USA had maximized growth FOR EVERYBODY in 1945 -1965 with 70% top bracket, Glass-Steagall, and strong unions.
Now max bracket is 35%, no glass-steagall, busted unions, right-to-work states with lower salaries than other states, and 8% unemployment understating Ms who have quit looking, and worse-than-3rd world tin-pot-dictator inequality.
and the VRWC, like WSJ and Repugs, aren't satisfied, aren't finished yet with fucking America to hell.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
boutons_deux
"Stephen Moore, senior economic writer and editorial board member, Wall Street Journal"
wants 20 - 25% for "maximum growth"
Murdoch toilet paper WSJ? :lol
Who actually "study shit"? :lol
USA had maximized growth FOR EVERYBODY in 1945 -1965 with 70% top bracket, Glass-Steagall, and strong unions.
Now max bracket is 35%, no glass-steagall, busted unions, right-to-work states with lower salaries that other states, and 8% unemployment undestating Ms who have quit looking, and worse-than-3rd world tin-pot-dictator inequality.
and the VRWC, like WSJ and Repugs, aren't satisfied, aren't finished yet with fucking America to hell.
And before the WTO.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
ah yes, those nefarious "world government" orgs that are going to take over America the Beautiful. Blame it all on UN, WTO, ILO, UNESCO, etc, etc.
The pitiful, puny, martyred Corporations are innocent! :lol
Corporations are above the law, supra-national, is one of the many reasons they've been pushing for, and have achieved, globalization over the past 35 years.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
You miss my point.
In the past, our tax collectors had a captive audience. Today, not only is trade global, but people are more mobile and can move outside of taxation. You end up only collecting more from the likes of Hollywood actors, Basketball players, etc. the big fish simple rearrange their money.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Explain your "point" that WTO contributes to tax evasion/avoidance?
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Not directly, but the same mechanisms that allow free trade of goods allow free movement of wealth. If you increase the taxation here, more will move their wealth to areas of lower taxation.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wild Cobra
Took you a few posting to realize that.
It's taken you nearly 31,000 posts to still not grasp the concept of sarcasm. Even toddlers get it better than you.
Quote:
The problem is, that there is the effect, but no real way to account for all the variable. You seem to be one that thinks reducing taxes will reduce revenues, when it may not be true. You seem to think tax rates have to be increased which may backfire.
The truth is, we don't really know.
Actually there are real ways to account for "the variable" that and "know" with a high degree of probability. It's called science, fucktard.
There are a lot of idiots running our fiscal policy, but I'm thankful none of them are as stupid as you.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wild Cobra
You miss my point.
In the past, our tax collectors had a captive audience. Today, not only is trade global, but people are more mobile and can move outside of taxation. You end up only collecting more from the likes of Hollywood actors, Basketball players, etc. the big fish simple rearrange their money.
There are fixes for that as well that go beyond "fuck it, guess we can't tax anyone!"
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
boutons_deux
ah yes, those nefarious "world government" orgs that are going to take over America the Beautiful. Blame it all on UN, WTO, ILO, UNESCO, etc, etc.
The pitiful, puny, martyred Corporations are innocent! :lol
Corporations are above the law, supra-national, is one of the many reasons they've been pushing for, and have achieved, globalization over the past 35 years.
You're implying that both schools of thought can't be equally right, B... both mega corporations AND organizations like the UN and WTO are doing some bad shit, tbh.... in fact, the WTO (and NAFTA) are closely tied in with the same corporation/special interest crooks that you're putting on blast...
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wild Cobra
People are voting for their selfish interest rather than what is best for us all collectively.
This attitude is exactly what's led to the total devolution of our political system into crook status-quo candidates with no original ideas, tbh.... what's actually best for us all collectively is for people to vote their conscience and stop making putting a fucking checkmark in a box into some huge guilt-trip/strategy game, tbh....
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
boutons_deux
"Stephen Moore, senior economic writer and editorial board member, Wall Street Journal"
wants 20 - 25% for "maximum growth"
Murdoch toilet paper WSJ? :lol
Who actually "study shit"? :lol
USA had maximized growth FOR EVERYBODY in 1945 -1965 with 70% top bracket, Glass-Steagall, and strong unions.
Now max bracket is 35%, no glass-steagall, busted unions, right-to-work states with lower salaries than other states, and 8% unemployment understating Ms who have quit looking, and worse-than-3rd world tin-pot-dictator inequality.
and the VRWC, like WSJ and Repugs, aren't satisfied, aren't finished yet with fucking America to hell.
The moronic Yin to Wild Cobra's idiotic Yang. Try to pay attention, bot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scott
The numbers Mr. Moore quotes are not relevant, but what is relevant (and dead on) is that revenue maximization rate is not the same as the growth maximization rate.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MannyIsGod
Sorry, but I'd have to think that your definitions are the ones that are off here. Rich doesn't mean private jet. Drachen's description of a lifestyle certainly isn't poor either. Not even close. If you grew up that way and you think thats poor then you certainly have not experienced being poor.
I have been busy all weekend, what with having to stand in line at the foodstamp place. I just need to be able to get it free with my EBT, so I haven't had a real chance to respond.
With all that being said, if what I described is "poor" to snakeboy, then he has lived an extremely privileged life. I expected a lot of responses, but that was not one of them. However, his response really shines a major light on his worldview. He makes a little more sense now. If that is what he thinks is poor, then of course it makes sense that he thinks that the "poor" shouldn't complain.
FWIW, because of my step-daughter (the 15 year old) we would actually qualify for SSI, but we have never taken it. Why? Because we can get by without it. Would it help? Sure, but there are actual poor people who that money should go to help.
Lastly,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Took you a few posting to realize that.
The problem is, that there is the effect, but no real way to account for all the variable. You seem to be one that thinks reducing taxes will reduce revenues, when it may not be true. You seem to think tax rates have to be increased which may backfire.
The truth is, we don't really know.
Jesus fucking Christ.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
"You seem to be one that thinks reducing taxes will reduce revenues, when it may not be true"
There is no evidence that cutting tax rates pays for itself with increased revenue. That's one of the lies the 1%/VRWC and their stink tanks spew.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scott
The moronic Yin to Wild Cobra's idiotic Yang. Try to pay attention, bot.
"revenue maximization rate is not the same as the growth maximization rate"
where's ANY historical evidence for either rate?
USA grew extremele well, and the wealth increase was widely, maybe even fairly, shared, 1945-70, when tax rates were MUCH HIGHER than the growth maximization rate above.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
boutons_deux
"revenue maximization rate is not the same as the growth maximization rate"
where's ANY historical evidence for either rate?
USA grew extremele well, and the wealth increase was widely, maybe even fairly, shared, 1945-70, when tax rates were MUCH HIGHER than the growth maximization rate above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scott
The numbers Mr. Moore quotes are not relevant, but what is relevant (and dead on) is that revenue maximization rate is not the same as the growth maximization rate.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
"where's ANY historical evidence for either rate?"
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
boutons_deux
"where's ANY historical evidence for either rate?"
So what you are trying to say here is that the best rate for growth and the best rate for revenue is the same?
Or are you arguing with yourself, since no one is arguing those rates?
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
"no one is arguing those rates"
really? for the rates to have ANY credibility, show us the evidence, not argumentation.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
boutons_deux
"no one is arguing those rates"
really? for the rates to have ANY credibility, show us the evidence, not argumentation.
I think you should take your argument to the author of that study (Moore). No one here argued for those rates so, in effect, you are yelling at yourself.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MannyIsGod
Sorry, but I'd have to think that your definitions are the ones that are off here. Rich doesn't mean private jet. Drachen's description of a lifestyle certainly isn't poor either. Not even close. If you grew up that way and you think thats poor then you certainly have not experienced being poor.
My dad made around $24k. With 2 kids, I'd say it was poor. Although growing up it really didn't feel poor since we always had food, clothing, shelter.
Drachen's lifestyle doesn't sound poor but if he considers me rich then he must be poor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Drachen
With all that being said, if what I described is "poor" to snakeboy, then he has lived an extremely privileged life.
Tbh, what you described is what I would consider the modern american working class...just getting by while making payments on a lifestyle you really can't afford.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
boutons_deux
"revenue maximization rate is not the same as the growth maximization rate"
where's ANY historical evidence for either rate?
USA grew extremele well, and the wealth increase was widely, maybe even fairly, shared, 1945-70, when tax rates were MUCH HIGHER than the growth maximization rate above.
Winning World Wars will do that for you. And although the stated rate was high, nobody paid that rate because of deductions.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
My dad made around $24k. With 2 kids, I'd say it was poor. Although growing up it really didn't feel poor since we always had food, clothing, shelter.
Income vs. year matters. $24k isn't much today, but was an awesome income 30 years ago.
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
"What cost $24000 in 1975 would cost $96150.65 in 2010.
Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2010 and 1975,
they would cost you $24000 and $5578.78 respectively."
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
-
Re: Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SnakeBoy
My dad made around $24k. With 2 kids, I'd say it was poor. Although growing up it really didn't feel poor since we always had food, clothing, shelter.
Drachen's lifestyle doesn't sound poor but if he considers me rich then he must be poor.
Tbh, what you described is what I would consider the modern american working class...just getting by while making payments on a lifestyle you really can't afford.
How long ago was that 24k? 24k when I was born was certainly not poor. Not exactly killing it, but yeah.