Printable View
If fiscal conservatism is both good policy (which we already know) and good politics (not to mention the enormous boost that the novice is giving every republican candidate)
Point of clarification, I am a republican not a Republican. The latter is a political affiliation while the former is an advocate of the republic, which I might point out is founded upon the Constitution (of course that includes the Bill of Rights) and related founding documents.
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]At Newport trying to hone my skills[/QUOTE]With the soccer matches on, and the South Americans winning, you and Newport must be really humming.
[QUOTE=Black Shirt]With the soccer matches on, and the South Americans winning, you and Newport must be really humming.[/QUOTE]I was at Catto's (my first ever visit there) years ago and Argentina was playing (I think against Paraguay in the Copa) The chicas wouldn't engage in discussions until halftime.
Just a quick FYI on who pays taxes in the US:
[url]http://cnsnews.com/news/article/68094[/url]
The table at the bottom tells you all you need to know. I believe this means that approximately 5.41% of US workers pay 68.9% of US taxes.
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]Just a quick FYI on who pays taxes in the US:
[url]http://cnsnews.com/news/article/68094[/url]
The table at the bottom tells you all you need to know. I believe this means that approximately 5.41% of US workers pay 68.9% of US taxes.[/QUOTE]Huh? Not sure about your numbers, at least if they're derived from that article. According to the table in the article you linked, the top 20% pay 68.9% of taxes. But, I believe those numbers are understated. And, the article tries to make the point that the "middle class" pays over half of taxes. They define middle class as those who make between $34,000 and $141,000 in annual income. I submit that this is a questionable proposition, at best.
A far more detailed analysis can be found here: [url]http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html[/url]
The data in the first table here shows that in 2007 the top 1% pays just over 40% of all income taxes, and the top 5% accounts for over 60% of all income taxes. The problem with the data on the table you linked, and the discussion as well, is that the authors divided the quintiles into five "roughly equal" portions, but there's no indication of how "rough" the inequality was. That might explain, for example, several divergences:
Your article shows that the top 1% pay 28.1% of all taxes. Everything else I've seen (including on the link above) shows a much larger percentage of over 40% for this same top 1%.
The dollar cut-offs for income levels also is quite different. The link above shows that top 1% means AGI of $410,000 per year, and top 5% means AGI of $160,000 per year. The article you linked as the top 1% cutoff at $352,000. One possible source of discrepancy is that the discussion linked above uses AGI, while the article you linked doesn't indicate what it's measuring other than "income," so it may just be looking at W-2 income.
Here's the point: If the stuff linked above is accurate, then there's no way the "middle class" is paying over 50% of all taxes, at least not by the definition of that article. That's because the top 5% (over $160,000 AGI) is already paying over 60% of taxes. I've also seen the above numbers reported in a number of publications, including the WSJ and USA Today. That doesn't make them accurate. It may just mean that others have made the same mistake as I have, assuming it is a mistake.
Finally, if the point is that all this talk about "tax fairness" is a bunch of rubbish, well, then point well taken. All studies show that high income earners pay a far disproportionate measure of taxes under any measure, including: (a) proportion they earn compared to proportion of taxes paid (28% vs. Over 60%); or (be) proportion they pay historically, which has risen for the last 30 years. All of this puts the lie to all the Obama "tax fairness" bullsh*t, and all of the class warfare the left constantly attempts to foment.
Sorry Stan:
Sorry for the sloppiness caused by my haste. I made a couple mistakes in my quick post. First, I should have mentioned that you should skip the article, it is bullsh*t and it intentionally skews the statistics to support its point of view. Second, 5.84% of US income earners pay 49.5% of total tax revenue. Since there are 116.9mm workers, that means that 2.02% of the population pays 49.5% of the total federal tax receipts. That means that 97.8% of the US population pays 50.5% taxes. 26.66% of income earners (10.05% of the population) pay the 68.9% of fed tax receipts, attributed to the top quintile.
The article gleefully highlights that an arbitrarily formed subset of Americans (created by grouping people from four of the five quintiles (very questionable quintiles) together) to comprise its middle class pay 50.5% of federal tax revenue, while ignoring who pays the other 49.5% and that 68% of the tax income comes from the 5th quintile alone and 85.4% comes from the top two quintiles. Therefore the bottom three quintiles combined pay 14.6%.
Further, according to this article, the middle class includes 72.5% of all US income earners; 92.8% of all US tax payers and strikingly 78.5% of the population included in the 5th quintile.
This is sheer lunacy and absolute junk statistic cherry picking.
[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]Huh? Not sure about your numbers, at least if they're derived from that article. According to the table in the article you linked, the top 20% pay 68.9% of taxes.[/quote]
One might be led to believe that. However, when it comes to distorting the US income distribution and who pays taxes, that assumption is incorrect. The 'quintiles' refer to five separate, arbitrary income brackets.
"The CBO divided the 116.9 million American households of 2007 into five roughly equal parts (quintiles) graded by income. The income range for the lowest quintile was $0 to $20,500; the second quintile, $20,500 to $34,300; the third quintile, $34,300 to $50,000; the fourth quintile, $50,000 to $74,700; and the fifth quintile, $74,700 and above."
[quote=]But, I believe those numbers are understated. And, the article tries to make the point that the "middle class" pays over half of taxes. They define middle class as those who make between $34,000 and $141,000 in annual income. I submit that this is a questionable proposition, at best. [/QUOTE]You are absolutely correct (questionable practices) another set of frequently used quintiles is: ($0-$25k; $25k-$50k, $50k-$75k; $75k-$100k; and $100k and above) into which income earners are divided. Interesting that in the CBO numbers, the income ranges are not the same size, nor are they divided by equal populations. What methodology is given for how the quintiles were determined? I would bet that the former set selected because it can be better manipulated to support of the Agenda in Chief.
[quote=]A far more detailed analysis can be found here: [url]http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html[/url][/QUOTE]Yes, much better source.
[quote=]Finally, if the point is that all this talk about "tax fairness" is a bunch of rubbish, well, then point well taken. All studies show that high income earners pay a far disproportionate measure of taxes under any measure, including: (a) proportion they earn compared to proportion of taxes paid (28% vs. Over 60%); or (be) proportion they pay historically, which has risen for the last 30 years. All of this puts the lie to all the Obama "tax fairness" bullsh*t, and all of the class warfare the left constantly attempts to foment.[/QUOTE]Thanks for make excellent points in the wake of my woefully under articulated post.
We're on the same page. Their use of quintiles and "income," with no indication of what they mean by that, is what throws everything off. I think you're right about the prefatory paragraph. And, I think the authors were really trying to make the point that it's not the upper income brackets that pay most of the taxes. Instead, they claim that it's the "middle class," but they can only get there with ill-defined quintiles. I agree with your main point. I just think your point is much stronger point than the author of that article depicts.
I hope to be down there some day when you and Miami Bob are around. We'd have some good conversations, even if we don't agree on everything. As matters stand, I've been mostly in Brazil lately -- not a bad consolation prize, but I do miss Buenos Aires a bit.
Enjoy reading your posts.
[QUOTE=Jackson]68% of the country didn't even watch the President's first Oval Office address to the Nation. I think your boy is losing his mojo.
Anyway, what struck me most about the speach, and you'd think that I'd be used to this president's bald-face whoppers, was this:
"[I]After all, oil is a finite resource," he said. The United States consumed more than 20 percent of the world's oil, but had less than 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, "and that's part of the reason why oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean. Because we are [b]running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water[/b].[/i]"
Really? Mr. President, you need to call your own Minerals Management Service and get a second opinion.
We have abundant supplies of oil in this country, but they have all been put off limits by Democrats who are intent on forcing us to adhere to a flawed environmental premise.
We have plenty of oil! Potentially 85 billion barrels of oil offshore alone.[/QUOTE]Obama's not my 'boy', thanks.
As far as running out of places to drill, that's just what the oil companies themselves were saying today. They argued against the drilling moratorium because the world needs the oil that comes from deepwater drilling. There is wide agreement here.
Like many, I'm not convinced about global warming. But this shouldn't be considered the main point behind getting away from carbon. The main point is irrefutable: [i]oil is a finite resource[/i].
The GOP lacks the vision and sense of urgency to make serious inroads into renewable energy. They give lip service to it, but they are wedded to big oil. They say "let the free market take care of it" but that philosophy is hugely irresponsible with a finite resource like oil.
A US energy policy that does not put a major emphasis on getting out of oil into renewable is short-sighted, irresponsible and even dangerous IMO. In addition there is a huge opportunity for the US to become a leader and major economic player in renewable energy. Frankly this is a no-brainer. It shouldn't even be a political debate. We should see some significant developments on this in the next few years with Obama in office, unless the right puts up roadblocks for their political advantage.
[QUOTE=Esten]As far as running out of places to drill, that's just what the oil companies themselves were saying today. They argued against the drilling moratorium because the world needs the oil that comes from deepwater drilling. There is wide agreement here.
Like many, I'm not convinced about global warming. But this shouldn't be considered the main point behind getting away from carbon. The main point is irrefutable: [I]oil is a finite resource[/i].[/QUOTE]That's actually most likely not true. I learned about this around three years ago by a Chevron petroleum engineer. For some reason, this news doesn't propogate. Oil company conspiracy (as some believe) or conspiracy of those who news like this would at least half destroy their whole green movement (the other half to be destroyed when enough people finally accept the fact that man-made global warming is horseshit)
BTW, as an aside, I used to work in the oilfield. Actually, I worked for the company, R & B Falcon, that built the Deepwater Horizon and its sister drillship the Deepwater Frontier in the late 90s. I visited both of those rigs shortly after they were built while they were in the shipyard getting additional work done. I have since worked in the oilfield in various capacities as a consultant - software, true, but much of my work has had to do with petroleum engineering situations.
I was talking with my engineer liason at Chevron one day, asking him what he thought we were going to do one day when we actually run out of oil. He chuckled and told me that was probably not going to happen. He told me (and my memory agrees) that we have been told ever since the early 70s by "green" organizations that we were only X years away from the point where we are producing less than the previous year because the world's reserves are dwindling.
Funny how that has never happened (much like global warming destroying everything - or was that global freezing - or was that the ozone layer falling apart? In fact, it's funny how oil reserves in many places seem to REPLENISH THEMSELVES! Hmmm. Could that be? Has El Queso gone off the deep end yet again (like he has, according to others, as relates to AIDs and global warming)
[url]http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Theory/SustainableOil/[/url]
I don't really know anything about that particular website (just did a quick search) but they have a bunch of links and information related to the theory of the abiotic generation of oil, which is pretty much against anything most of the world believes. Now, most people think that the dinosaurs and the plantlife that was around at that time actually are the basis of the creation of oil "reserves" and therefore is a finite resource. We all know there is only so much biotic mass, after all, in those times some 150 million to 65 million years ago.
Like humans tend to do, they get one paradigm that seems to explain a lot, ignore the inconsistancies because they're inconvenient and don't relate to the HERE and NOW, until someone points out that reality doesn't behave like whatever theory we are talking about would have us believe.
Like the fact that oil reservoirs magically seem to replenish themselves after they have been pumped dry. Like the fact that the "science" that supports global warming has never been duplicated and doesn't actually follow what they measure in the real world. Etc.
So, if oil was a renewable resource, what else do we have to talk about to keep us from using the only known substance that gives us our transportation, power and fabrication abilities at a low cost, while NO OTHER ENERGY SOURCE we have experimented with can yet do so at anywhere near the cost?
Well, of course, global warming. Which is a load of hooey.
It should not be the reason to completely destroy the world economy because it would be the only way to assuage the consciences of those who think we are no better than animals, and are an evil that is destroying the world. In other words, the market cannot support "green" industry (as has been shown time and again) and the only way to get it going is to spend billions of dollars that no one has.
[QUOTE=Esten]The GOP lacks the vision and sense of urgency to make serious inroads into renewable energy. They give lip service to it, but they are wedded to big oil. They say "let the free market take care of it" but that philosophy is hugely irresponsible with a finite resource like oil.[/QUOTE]"Horse hockey", as the famous character Colonel Potter used to exclaim.
If oil isn't such a finite resource, then it's the liberals with their hand-wringing "we have to save the world" and "give everyone the money of the rich so no one has to work" philosophy (because "it's just not fair") that is destroying things.
The GOP is portrayed as evil, malignant and in bed with Big Oil.
Ever heard of George Soros? He's in bed pretty heavily with the Obama administration and he just invested nearly a billion dollars in Petrobras, the Basilian government-run oil company. Petrobras, who just happened to receive a nice guarantee of 2 billion dollars from the US government (Barack Obama's administration, not GW's) about the same time the same administration tried to shut down all deepwater drilling (500 feet or more - what a crock - deepwater isn't "deep" until you get over a couple of thousand feet) in the Gulf of Mexico, threatening to severly curtail US domestic drilling but for some reason happy to invest in Petrobras and have them continue to drill.
Yeah, those evil GOP guys. So in bed with Big Oil. Big Oil is just so evil.
[QUOTE=Esten]A US energy policy that does not put a major emphasis on getting out of oil into renewable is short-sighted, irresponsible and even dangerous IMO. In addition there is a huge opportunity for the US to become a leader and major economic player in renewable energy. Frankly this is a no-brainer. It shouldn't even be a political debate. We should see some significant developments on this in the next few years with Obama in office, unless the right puts up roadblocks for their political advantage.[/QUOTE]If you want the US to be a leader in the future, try getting us into space. The Chinese are doing it, the Japanese are doing it, the Indians for christ's sake are doing it. We are sitting back and asking for rides now from Russia.
What is short-sighted is everyone thinking that the only way to advance is to "take care of all of our troubles here before we try to expand", for example. You want plentiful energy? Try power satellites that can actually collect as much or more sunlight and transmit them down to Earth in concentrated beams that would actually make solar collectors function at the level of a coal-burning electrical plant.
Give me a break - all of the politicians, but PARTICULARLY the "liberals" and "progressives", aren't able to think about that because they are so wrapped up in their own lies (people like Al Gore, for example) that they can't do what's really going to make a difference.
Had Obama spent 800 billion dollars on providing grants and incentives to develop a cheap space access sytem (as an example) we would be on the way to being the leaders of the freaking SOLAR SYSTEM, much less the world. Instead, he spent it on a bunch of crap that kept states and government agencies functioning when they couldn't afford to because they are inefficient and over-blown and the fact that that is not creating JOBS, but rather saving BUREAUCRACY is lied about by the wonderful Obama team.
Maybe this is BS, but I would like to say it anyway.
We all like to live well, and everyone's standard of living well is quite diverse. From a personal perspective, I know that I need less of most basic consumer products as I get older. But still, I buy more than I really need in terms of food, clothes, gadgets, travel, etc. So why? One big reason is that we live in a consumer society, we are told that we need X products to be happier / successful via mass media. Remember, when you went to the supermarket for toilet paper and came back with 5 other products. The malls are packed to a frenzy most weekends not only in Europe and the US, but everywhere in the world. And now, if we stop buying, the world will come to an end.
Thanks for letting me rant. Don't take it too seriously, we are never going to run out of anything, even money.
[QUOTE=Esten]As far as running out of places to drill, that's just what the oil companies themselves were saying today. They argued against the drilling moratorium because the world needs the oil that comes from deepwater drilling. There is wide agreement here.[/QUOTE]Well then it is settled science. The world is running out of oil.
The fact that oil companies are running out of places to drill is because the US govt. Has put some of the world's largest reserves off limits to drilling. If we had access to our own onshore oil and gas reserves, we could eliminate our dependency on Arabian oil.
[quote=]The main point is irrefutable: 'oil is a finite resource.'[/QUOTE]So is water.
[quote=]The GOP lacks the vision and sense of urgency to make serious inroads into renewable energy. They give lip service to it, but they are wedded to big oil. They say "let the free market take care of it" but that philosophy is hugely irresponsible with a finite resource like oil.
A US energy policy that does not put a major emphasis on getting out of oil into renewable is short-sighted, irresponsible and even dangerous IMO. In addition there is a huge opportunity for the US to become a leader and major economic player in renewable energy. Frankly this is a no-brainer. It shouldn't even be a political debate. We should see some significant developments on this in the next few years with Obama in office, unless the right puts up roadblocks for their political advantage.[/QUOTE]Your opinion is based on an ill-formed premise. We are not running out of oil and we should not misappropriate billions of taxpayer dollars for nonviable technologies or solutions. When a viable solution comes around, the money will follow. Our "renewable energy policy" is to artificially restrict the availability of America's natural resources and deliberately drive the price of carbon fuels up via taxes and restrictive policies in order to make the price of renewables appear to reasonable.
Why then is FIFA fixing matches to eliminate the US team from moving into the round of 16?
The tar baby is Washington politics. Unfortunately, the general provides the perfect foil for the administrations attempt to create a distraction, designed to draw America's attention away from both his agenda and the colossal failure of his administration. There is not a single, objectionable quote directly attributed to the general in the RS article. It just happened to be a good opportunity for the administration to throw out this decoy.
They needed to create a scenario, the outcome of which they can completely control, whereby the President can show that he is in control, has great power and attempt to exhibit some leadership qualities. At the same time, they want people worried about the war in Afghanistan and not focused on his domestic agenda (health care debacle, possible executive order granting amnesty to more than 18 million illegals, nationalizing private assets and socializing the nation) and his nominee to the Supreme Court.
They know that the country is currently focused on his many weaknesses (incompetence, devout Marxism, inexperience, and lack of any leadership qualities) failures (ignoring the Constitution, not listening to the American public, breaking the law (Sestak, etc) silencing the EPA report that says the climate will COOL through 2030, etc.) And ongoing catastrophes (allowing the oil spill disaster to be much worse than need be (for the benefit of his personal agenda an to detriment of the entire nation) and his ongoing dismantling of the Constitution).
The general did the right thing, separate from the tar baby.
It is over with. We are doomed. Did someone make this story up?
[quote]More than 1,200 prison inmates, including 241 serving life sentences, defrauded the government of $9.1 million in tax credits reserved for first-time homebuyers, according to a Treasury Department report released Wednesday.[/QUOTE][url]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-30-million-stolen-from-cnnm-2424087185.html?x=0[/url]
[QUOTE=Damman]It is over with. We are doomed. Did someone make this story up?
[url]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-30-million-stolen-from-cnnm-2424087185.html?x=0[/url][/QUOTE]The Dirty MotherFucking SockSuckers.
Exon