[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

America Erupts… ICE Raids Takeover The Streets

AC/DC- Riff Raff + Go Down [VH1 Uncut, July 5, 1996]

Why is Peter Schiff calling Bitcoin a ‘giant cult’ and how does this impact market sentiment?

Esso Your Butt Buddy Horseshit jacks off to that shit

"The Addled Activist Mind"

"Don’t Stop with Harvard"

"Does the Biden Cover-Up Have Two Layers?"

"Pete Rose, 'Shoeless' Joe Reinstated by MLB, Eligible for HOF"

"'Major Breakthrough': Here Are the Details on the China Trade Deal"

Freepers Still Love war

Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump

"The Democrat Meltdown Continues"

"Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process"

"Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working"

"Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts"

"Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands

"Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies"

"Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk"

KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel

"Trade should work for America, not rule it"

"The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP"

"How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap"

‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’

Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible"

"Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!"

"If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think"

"Ending EPA Overreach"

Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built

Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew

The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED!

Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing!

Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy?

Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia)

"Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department"

Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent

"Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail"

Any suggestion that the USA and NATO are "Helping" or have ever helped Ukraine needs to be shot down instantly

"Real problem with the Palestinians: Nobody wants them"

ACDC & The Rolling Stones - Rock Me Baby

Magnus Carlsen gives a London System lesson!

"The Democrats Are Suffering Through a Drought of Generational Talent"

7 Tactics Of The Enemy To Weaken Your Faith

Strange And Biblical Events Are Happening

Every year ... BusiesT casino gambling day -- in Las Vegas

Trump’s DOGE Plan Is Legally Untouchable—Elon Musk Holds the Scalpel

Palestinians: What do you think of the Trump plan for Gaza?

What Happens Inside Gaza’s Secret Tunnels? | Unpacked

Hamas Torture Bodycam Footage: "These Monsters Filmed it All" | IDF Warfighter Doron Keidar, Ep. 225

EXPOSED: The Dark Truth About the Hostages in Gaza

New Task Force Ready To Expose Dark Secrets


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Economy
See other Economy Articles

Title: Scary New Wage Data
Source: TAX.com
URL Source: http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.n ... alink/UBEN-8AGMUZ?OpenDocument
Published: Oct 25, 2010
Author: David Cay Johnston
Post Date: 2010-10-28 00:38:05 by lucysmom
Keywords: Reaganomics, wealth distribution, unemployment
Views: 35484
Comments: 46

Every 34th wage earner in America in 2008 went all of 2009 without earning a single dollar, new data from the Social Security Administration show. Total wages, median wages, and average wages all declined, but at the very top, salaries grew more than fivefold.

...

The number of Americans making $50 million or more, the top income category in the data, fell from 131 in 2008 to 74 last year. But that’s only part of the story.

The average wage in this top category increased from $91.2 million in 2008 to an astonishing $518.8 million in 2009. That’s nearly $10 million in weekly pay!

You read that right. In the Great Recession year of 2009 (officially just the first half of the year), the average pay of the very highest-income Americans was more than five times their average wages and bonuses in 2008. And even though their numbers shrank by 43 percent, this group’s total compensation was 3.2 times larger in 2009 than in 2008, accounting for 0.6 percent of all pay. These 74 people made as much as the 19 million lowest-paid people in America, who constitute one in every eight workers.

...

[Author from comments section]

Noel Chun, I think the generosity of millions of American blue collar workers who willingly and deliberately gave up their jobs so the poor in the police state called China and in the democracy called India, as well as other impoverished nations, can have a better economic life is the greatest untold story of human kindness in history.

Oh, but wait, they didn’t act out of altruism. In fact, they did not act at all. They were fired.

The trade rules, like tax rules, tend to be read by very few people and to be shaped mostly by campaign contributions to politicians, who pass laws and approve treaties. The subsidies for moving work offshore come from our elected officials, who depend on those getting the subsidies for the money to get elected.

The duty of a sovereign government is first to its own people, not to the people of another country. Read Adam Smith on policies that benefit the majority being by their nature good policies. What is going on here is not Darwinian economics, but bought-and-paid for economics.

Jim O., I am sure you appreciate my satirical comments above, but you also make an important point without quite explicitly stating it, capitalism and freedom are not linked (see China and Singapore) nor are capitalism and democracy (see India), no matter how much some people say they are.

Click for Full Text!

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-5) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#6. To: Capitalist Eric (#3)

capitalism and freedom are not linked

Pure horse-shit.

You must be totally ignorant of Pinochet, the brutal dictator, and how he teamed up with the "Chicago boys" to transform Chile into a Milton Friedman style free market economy.

Clearly, your greatest accomplishment is being a sperm receptacle.

I'm not your mother.

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson

lucysmom  posted on  2010-10-28   8:10:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: lucysmom (#0)

Owe-bama is very good for 'fat cats'.

Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.

Badeye  posted on  2010-10-28   9:07:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: lucysmom (#0)

The average wage in this top category increased from $91.2 million in 2008 to an astonishing $518.8 million in 2009. That’s nearly $10 million in weekly pay!

Only possible with the Oct 07 BailOut that at least 85% of America was/is against.

Class War moving to the real thing.

"

mcgowanjm  posted on  2010-10-28   9:32:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Badeye (#7)

Owe-bama is very good for 'fat cats'.

Then why are "fat cats" spending so much money to oppose his programs and support Republican candidates?

Proponents of that measure pointed to reports that health insurance providers funneled at least $10 million to the chamber last year, all of it anonymously, to oppose President Obama’s health care legislation.

...

The chamber’s increasingly aggressive role — including record spending in the midterm elections that supports Republicans more than 90 percent of the time — has made it a target of critics...

...others praise its leading role against Democrat-backed initiatives, like health care, financial regulation and climate change, which they argue will hurt American businesses.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/us/politics/22chamber.html

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson

lucysmom  posted on  2010-10-28   10:34:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: mcgowanjm (#8)

Class War moving to the real thing.

Shhhh - we're not supposed to talk about that.

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson

lucysmom  posted on  2010-10-28   10:36:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: lucysmom (#10)

Class War moving to the real thing.

Shhhh - we're not supposed to talk about that.

;}

What I find LOLfunny is how history puts the future right in our face and we still can't see it. A Cosmic Joke.

France. Mexico. Russia lead the way.

California hot on their heels.

mcgowanjm  posted on  2010-10-28   10:56:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: lucysmom (#10)

We're gonna get local. fast. watch your election results. ;}

mcgowanjm  posted on  2010-10-28   10:57:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: lucysmom (#0) (Edited)

The average wage in this top category increased from $91,200,000 in 2008 to an astonishing $518,800,000 in 2009. That’s nearly $10,000,000 in weekly pay!

The Democrats "solution" is to raise taxes on "rich" people who make a lousy $250,000 year. Therein lies the problem.


"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." -- Thomas Jefferson

jwpegler  posted on  2010-10-28   11:00:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: lucysmom (#9)

Owe-bama is very good for 'fat cats'. Then why are "fat cats" spending so much money to oppose his programs and support Republican candidates?

Because they need access to the next Congress, which will feature a GOP Speaker, and possibly a GOP SML.

No surprise you need 'how things work' explained to ya, goofy....(chuckle)

Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.

Badeye  posted on  2010-10-28   11:34:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: lucysmom (#9)

Then why are "fat cats" spending so much money to oppose his programs and support Republican candidates?

Once again, the actual numbers do not support your assertions. I've combined Obama's top contributor list with McCain's from Open Secrets. Obama received $13,467,800 from "fat cats" while McCain received $3,877,965.
Organization McCain Obama
University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $230,095 $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $322,051 $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $228,107 $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $192,493 $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $273,452 $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $208,379 $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835
Merrill Lynch $373,595
AT&T Inc $201,438
Wachovia Corp $195,063
Credit Suisse Group $183,353
PricewaterhouseCoopers $167,900
US Army $167,820
Bank of America $166,026
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher $159,596
Blank Rome LLP $154,226
Greenberg Traurig LLP $146,437
US Dept of Defense $144,105
FedEx Corp $131,974
Bear Stearns $117,498
Lehman Brothers $114,357
Total $3,877,965 $13,467,800


"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." -- Thomas Jefferson

jwpegler  posted on  2010-10-28   12:49:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: jwpegler (#13)

The Democrats "solution" is to raise taxes on "rich" people who make a lousy $250,000 year. Therein lies the problem.

A lousy quarter of a million bucks a year - can you imagine what that sounds like to the guy making the median wage, $26,261?

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson

lucysmom  posted on  2010-10-28   19:28:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: jwpegler (#15)

This year Republican candidates are raking in twice as much dough as Democrats.

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson

lucysmom  posted on  2010-10-28   19:31:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Badeye (#14)

Because they need access to the next Congress, which will feature a GOP Speaker, and possibly a GOP SML.

Maybe they want to make sure they have a Republican Congress 'cause they think they can get a better deal from them than they've gotten from Democrats.

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson

lucysmom  posted on  2010-10-28   19:33:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: jwpegler (#13)

The Democrats "solution" is to raise taxes on "rich" people who make a lousy $250,000 year. Therein lies the problem.

in the last 30 years we've seen wealth increasingly concentrated at the top, the GOP approach is to cut aid to the less well-off to preserve tax breaks on income over $250k.

Do you not see a problem with so much income concentrated in the hands of so few?


On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.

go65  posted on  2010-10-28   19:45:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: lucysmom (#18)

Because they need access to the next Congress, which will feature a GOP Speaker, and possibly a GOP SML. Maybe they want to make sure they have a Republican Congress 'cause they think they can get a better deal from them than they've gotten from Democrats.

Its more about access than anything else.

Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.

Badeye  posted on  2010-10-29   8:43:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: go65 (#19) (Edited)

$250,000 is not $518,000,000. People making $250,000 are not rich.

The very rich can buy off politicians to write special tax breaks for them. Raising the tax rate on the "rich" does not actually raise taxes on the rich. It raises taxes on the upper-middle class, many of whom are small business people.

Make the cut off for the top tax bracket $5 million or $10 million a year, and then we can talk, otherwise forget it.


"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." -- Thomas Jefferson

jwpegler  posted on  2010-10-29   10:12:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: jwpegler (#21)

$250,000 is not $518,000,000. People making $250,000 are not rich.

The very rich can buy off politicians to write special tax breaks for them. Raising the tax rate on the "rich" does not actually raise taxes on the rich. It raises taxes on the upper-middle class, many of whom are small business people.

Make the cut off for the top tax bracket $5 million or $10 million a year, and then we can talk, otherwise forget it.

A realistic compromise would be to restore the pre-2001 top tax rate to income over $500k, but the GOP will not accept any tax hikes whatsoever, so what we will see next year is restoration of the Bush tax cuts at the expense of social programs for the poor.


On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.

go65  posted on  2010-10-29   10:16:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: go65 (#22)

...what we will see next year is restoration of the Bush tax cuts at the expense of social programs for the poor.

The poor deserve to be poor so it doesn't matter anyway.

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson

lucysmom  posted on  2010-10-29   10:54:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: lucysmom (#23)

The poor deserve to be poor so it doesn't matter anyway.

Exactly!


On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.

go65  posted on  2010-10-29   11:00:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: go65 (#24)

Exactly!

That's why we're circling the drain.

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson

lucysmom  posted on  2010-10-29   11:03:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: go65 (#22)

A realistic compromise would be to restore the pre-2001 top tax rate to income over $500k, but the GOP will not accept any tax hikes whatsoever

Actually, I've heard that some Dems and Republicans are talking about adjusting the top bracket to start at $1 million. I still think that it too low, but it is better than $250K.

This could be done in the lame duck session after the election. But if there really is a GOP blowout, then the Democrats will just let all of the tax cuts expire Jan 1 and let the GOP deal with it when they are sworn in later in January.


"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." -- Thomas Jefferson

jwpegler  posted on  2010-10-29   13:00:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: jwpegler (#26)

This could be done in the lame duck session after the election. But if there really is a GOP blowout, then the Democrats will just let all of the tax cuts expire Jan 1 and let the GOP deal with it when they are sworn in later in January.

That approach is already wreaking havoc with withholding tables for next year. It's going to be a mess.


On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.

go65  posted on  2010-10-29   13:02:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: go65 (#22)

what we will see next year is restoration of the Bush tax cuts

If the GOP has a big majority, watch for a push to reform taxes to lower rates and eliminate many deductions. The same kind of thing that Bill Bradley and Reagan did in 96 where they lowered the top tax rate 50% to 28%


"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." -- Thomas Jefferson

jwpegler  posted on  2010-10-29   13:03:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: go65 (#27)

That approach is already wreaking havoc with withholding tables for next year. It's going to be a mess.

Yes it is. I'll bet that the lame duck Congress doesn't do anything about taxes.


"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." -- Thomas Jefferson

jwpegler  posted on  2010-10-29   13:22:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: jwpegler (#28)

If the GOP has a big majority, watch for a push to reform taxes to lower rates and eliminate many deductions. The same kind of thing that Bill Bradley and Reagan did in 96 where they lowered the top tax rate 50% to 28%

I'd still like to see a push for a NST.


On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.

go65  posted on  2010-10-29   13:55:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: jwpegler (#21)

People making $250,000 are not rich.

Correct, the vast majority are small business owners. And they are the ones responsible for 80% of all 'new jobs' created the past two decades.

The assertion Owe-bama 'gave tax cuts to small business' is flat out absurd. It simply didn't happen because IT WAS DESIGNED NOT TO HAPPEN.

For example, a '$6,000 tax cut' was offered to small business's that 'hired a person that had been unemployed for two or more years'.

Hiring a full time employee COSTS AT LEAST $24,000 minimum for most small business's. Where in the hell are you supposed to get the other $18,000 in this economy?

Why would you hire anyone if you don't have the SALES in the first place?

Its all bullshit designed for the mainstream media to report 'technically accurate'. But in reality, there simply hasn't been a single 'Owe-bama tax cut' thats 'real'.

The irony? This is whats doomed his Presidency to failure. He won't ever admit it, but thats the 'reality'.

Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.

Badeye  posted on  2010-10-29   14:00:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: go65 (#30)

I'd still like to see a push for a NST

Thats putting a gun into the mouth of the economy, and pulling the trigger TWICE.

Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.

Badeye  posted on  2010-10-29   14:01:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: Badeye (#31)

Hiring a full time employee COSTS AT LEAST $24,000 minimum for most small business's. Where in the hell are you supposed to get the other $18,000 in this economy?

Why would you hire anyone if you don't have the SALES in the first place?

Nice diatribe against supply-side economics.


On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.

go65  posted on  2010-10-29   14:04:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: Badeye (#32)

Thats putting a gun into the mouth of the economy, and pulling the trigger TWICE.

How so? I'd argue that replacing all income-based taxes on businesses and consumers with a national sales tax would be the biggest shot in the arm we could give the economy.

(CATO agrees).


On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.

go65  posted on  2010-10-29   14:05:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: go65 (#33)

Poor spin away from the fact I noted here.

Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.

Badeye  posted on  2010-10-29   14:13:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: go65 (#34)

How so? I'd argue that replacing all income-based taxes on businesses and consumers with a national sales tax would be the biggest shot in the arm we could give the economy.

Hmmm. I"m willing to try that.

The problem is most on your side of the aisle won't, and we both know it.

Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.

Badeye  posted on  2010-10-29   14:14:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: go65 (#30)

I'd still like to see a push for a NST.

That is what I favor as well, but I don't want a flat rate sales tax. I'd like to see a variable rate sales tax where basic necessities (groceries, medicine, etc) are taxed at a low rate and other things (tobacco, alcohol, gas at the pump, etc.) are taxed at a higher rate.


"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." -- Thomas Jefferson

jwpegler  posted on  2010-10-29   14:19:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: Badeye (#36)

The problem is most on your side of the aisle won't, and we both know it.

Your side as well Badeye, remember, Bush didn't do anything to reform the tax code when the GOP controlled Congress.


On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.

go65  posted on  2010-10-29   14:26:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: jwpegler (#37)

That is what I favor as well, but I don't want a flat rate sales tax. I'd like to see a variable rate sales tax where basic necessities (groceries, medicine, etc) are taxed at a low rate and other things (tobacco, alcohol, gas at the pump, etc.) are taxed at a higher rate.

you could exempt things like food/rent/medicine, or pay a rebate every year of something like $3k per person.

I don't think we want to exempt fuel from taxes if we still have a national goal of weaning the country off of imported oil.


On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.

go65  posted on  2010-10-29   14:27:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: jwpegler (#39) (Edited)

FYI:

In any case, an NST plan can be made progressive through a rebate mechanism that would shelter low- income people from paying the tax. One manner in which the NST could be made less regressive would be to exempt certain necessities--such as food and clothing--from the tax. That approach would exempt, however, the most expensive food (lobster and caviar) and the most expensive clothing ($1,000 designer suits). It is a very inefficient means of providing tax relief to lower and middle income Americans and would necessitate a much higher overall rate. [41] A more neutral and less distortive approach is to simply provide each family a level of consumption free of tax by providing a rebate of the tax on expenditures up to the poverty level. That is the device we recommend and the approach chosen by Representatives Schaefer and Tauzin in H.R. 3039. [42]

The rebate could work as follows: A family consumption refund would be established for each household at an amount equal to the sales tax rate times the poverty level. The poverty level is defined by the Department of Health and Human Services guidelines and should be raised by the sales tax rate. [43] For a family of four, the HHS poverty level for 1996 is $15,800, so the sales tax poverty level would be $18,588. The annualized rebate, which would be refundable for households with earnings below the poverty level, would therefore be $2,788. Assuming the head of household was paid 26 times per year, the rebate amount included in each paycheck would be $107.23. Earnings would be reported to the Social Security Administration. Employers would pay less payroll tax, and the Treasury would reimburse the SSA for the rebate amounts provided to families in order to ensure that the balance in the trust funds was unchanged. [44] Only the source of the payments to the trust funds would change. [45]

Families with no annual wages and salaries would apply directly to the Social Security Administration for a rebate check. Table 4 indicates the applicable poverty thresholds and maximum rebates for 1996 assuming a 15 percent national sales tax rate. [46]

All workers would receive a rebate up to the maximum rebate amount shown in the table. Thus, the average tax rate for a family of four earning and spending $37,176 would be 7.5 percent. The average tax rate for a family of four earning and spending $74,352 would be 11.25 percent. Figure 1 illustrates how the average tax rate increases with spending. This assumes that the sales tax falls on the consumer. The view that it falls on the factors of production is commonly, though by no means universally, held by economists.

The family consumption allowance approach has several effects. First, it makes the sales tax applicable only to consumption beyond the necessities of life. Second, it makes the tax in effect progressive, not only because it is based on consumption, a better index of true ability to pay, but because--if one wants to continue to view progressivity through an income tax lens--it entirely exempts lower income workers. Third, unlike most state taxes, it does not undertake the complex and politicized task of determining what to tax and what to exempt, thereby minimizing administrative and compliance questions and economic distortions.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-272.html


On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.

go65  posted on  2010-10-29   14:29:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: go65 (#38)

Your side as well Badeye, remember, Bush didn't do anything to reform the tax code when the GOP controlled Congress.

'My' side? My side doesn't have those idiots - DeLay and Hastert, nor Bush - involved this time around.

And one more time, stop pretending that I wasn't highly pissed off with the GOP in 2006.

You know I was. You know I didn't support the GOP in that election cycle over these specific issues.

Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.

Badeye  posted on  2010-10-29   14:38:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: Badeye (#41)

'My' side? My side doesn't have those idiots - DeLay and Hastert, nor Bush - involved this time around.

It has McConnell, Boehner and Cantor, all of whom voted for Medicare Part D and TARP.


On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.

go65  posted on  2010-10-29   14:40:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: go65 (#42)

It has McConnell, Boehner and Cantor, all of whom voted for Medicare Part D and TARP.

You can cite Medicare Part D til the cows come home, has nothing to do with what Boehner in particular will do as Speaker.

He won't spend 5 trillion like Pelosi did, for example. Nor will Cantor go along with that.

And for the umpteenth time, I don't have any use for McConnell.

Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.

Badeye  posted on  2010-10-29   14:55:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: Badeye (#43)

You can cite Medicare Part D til the cows come home, has nothing to do with what Boehner in particular will do as Speaker.

He won't spend 5 trillion like Pelosi did, for example. Nor will Cantor go along with that.

And for the umpteenth time, I don't have any use for McConnell.

Let's see what happens when the debt ceiling is reached.

Again, you can't cut $1.2 trillion from $421 billion while cutting taxes. At some point reality will get in the way.


On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.

go65  posted on  2010-10-29   14:57:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: go65 (#44)

Again, you can't cut $1.2 trillion from $421 billion while cutting taxes.

Nobody accepts your premise, so the point you try to make is 'moot'.

Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.

Badeye  posted on  2010-10-29   15:12:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: Badeye (#45) (Edited)

Nobody accepts your premise, so the point you try to make is 'moot'.

It's not my premise - it's simple reality. Balancing the budget requires $1.2 trillion in cuts (see your OWN tag line). The GOP has only $441 billion on the table as it has already said it won't cut Medicare, SS, and Defense. It can't cut interest either.

So that's the math equation that you don't seem to want to accept, but it's still real.

And, early next year the government will bump into its legal debt ceiling. At that time the Republicans can either raise it or not. If they don't, they need to cut $1.2 billion right away since they will no longer be able to add to the debt. That means the budget must immediately be balanced.

We'll know very soon if the GOP is serious about "Starving the beast"


On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.

go65  posted on  2010-10-29   15:28:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com