- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
What about Rocky?
He beat up bullwinkle in aeronautical competitions
What about Rocky?
http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/81991-following-income-some-problems.html#post1058996184
Sowell on Economic Facts and Fallacies | EconTalk | Library of Economics and Liberty
You still have refused to directly contradict these links.
He beat up bullwinkle in aeronautical competitions
Explain this data:
Overall $93,100 per household (+31%)
Top income quartile $422,400 per household (+97%)
Second income quartile $124,500 per household (+71%)
Third income quartile $44,740 per household (0%)
Bottom income quartile $9,960 per household (+5%)
Wasnt Sowell thet wacky guy who said stuff like "Obama's speech to students would create something similar to the Hitler Youth" and "the Democratic party uses race baiting and that this could lead to Rwanda-like slaughters". Ect ect. . Im not sure about his economics but when you make those kinds of statements its hard to take anything you say serious
Im not saying I agree or disagree with you but where do you get that information. I looked up the 2009 census information and found that those disagree.
Real median household income was $49,777 in 2009 a decline from the previous year and off over 5% from 1999 (the peak)
The median earnings of all workingmales 15 years old and over was $36,331 in 2009
No no. The boxer not the moose.
Personal attacks have no bearing on the validity of an argument.
ah the dude who took so many steroids he needs a pump to get it up?
Personal attacks have no bearing on the validity of an argument.
Yes, that one.
Its not a personal attack. Im being serious. If you say something that radical then your other statements come into judgement.
LOL. Your using the years when President Clinton was in office to support your cause. I LOVE that.
I used information from the 2009 Government Census.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60-238.pdf
we are dealing with an interesting strain of libertarianism I suspect.
income redistributive libertarian.
sort of like Christ isn't divine Roman Catholicism?
I don't mind using data from Clinton's presidency. I'm not a Republican supporter. Realize that you're dealing with someone who hates Republicans and Democrats.
I 100% agree with that. I just dont agree that the system is working or that the middle class is growing and prospering.
It is a personal attack because you're attacking the person who made the argument and not the actual argument. That's the definition of a personal attack. :doh
I don't like corporatism, but I think that our capitalist elements are beating out the regression that full corporatism would bring.
But it does, as I've shown in many links already! Here they are again!
http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/81991-following-income-some-problems.html#post1058996184
Sowell on Economic Facts and Fallacies | EconTalk | Library of Economics and Liberty
You still have refused to directly contradict these links.
How in the world do you figure?! That's no problem, that's progress! :slapme:
Except when you look at good quintiles then the middle class isn't shrinking. In fact, they are just becoming richer!
Explain this data:
Overall $93,100 per household (+31%)
Top income quartile $422,400 per household (+97%)
Second income quartile $124,500 per household (+71%)
Third income quartile $44,740 per household (0%)
Bottom income quartile $9,960 per household (+5%)
It seems obvious then to me that if you use static definitions of the middle class instead of looking at the actual middle class (from 75th percentile to 25th percentile) that of course you will see a shrinking middle class! It's MEDIAN INCOME HAS BEEN RISING WITH TIME!
As for this data, realize that although the third income has remained stagnant, that these are not the same people in that group.
To point out how significant this is, think about college students who make little money while in school (so classified as poor) but then get a job later and make a ton of money. Would you say that they were in poor while in school? Of course not! They took out loans banking on future success. They were never poor. They were not rich, but not poor.
That "common wealth" supports all of us, not just the rich. This is an argument for a flat tax, not a progressive tax. The "common wealth" helps the rich proportionally to how much it helps the poor.
Ah poor libs, so much envy, so little rational thought
I don't have a duty to provide you rent or transportation. If you are not valuable, then you have no right to expect that others should give you money
The rich benefit more from it. Progressive tax is the most fair.
"Progressive vs. Regressive Tax Structure". Faded.org - It is appallingly unfair because the rich are the ones who benefit the most from government. How do they benefit more? In almost every way. On the most basic level the government creates and enforces the laws that protect their property. The government invests in the nations infrastructure for things such as national defense, public education, transportation, energy. Without this infrastructure in place *and maintained*, the rich would not have been able to become rich, or be able to maintain it. I read too many comments from people who think that the rich made their money in a vacuum. The welfare of their workers, and the welfare of their society depend on these taxes.
We're not talking about putting the rich into the poor house. We're talking about 4.3% (no slippery slope arguments here please.) With the rich disproportionately benefiting from what government and society in general are providing, it only makes sense that a progressive tax system is proportional and fair. You can argue all day long that our government is wasteful, and needs reform. On those arguments I'll likely be right beside you (depending of course on what you're considering wasteful). However, you can not ignore the functions that government, and taxes do provide.
Argument: Wealthy benefit more from system, so owe a greater tax debt - Debatepedia
Ah, poor conservatives and their myths.
Did it ever occur to you that Red States pay less taxes and yet receive more from the Federal Government than they pay in, yet the Blue states pay more and receive less. So much for your assumptions!
Curtis S. Dubay
Economist
Tax Foundation Introduction
The Tax Foundation’s annual federal tax burden and expenditure study clarifies the
geographical patterns of income redistribution that federal tax and spending policies cause each year. The results of the study have been controversial for years because they show that the nation is not only redistributing income from the prosperous to the poor, but from the middle-income residents of high-cost states to the middle-income residents of low-cost states. Thanks to a steeply progressive federal income tax, states with higher incomes pay vastly higher federal taxes, payments that are unlikely ever to be matched by federal spending directed to those states. Ironically, most of these high-paying states are the so-called blue states that have generally elected politicians who support a more steeply progressive tax system even though their own constituents bear a greater share of the burden as the code gets more progressive. All categories of federal taxes, including income taxes on individuals and businesses, social insurance taxes, excise taxes, estate and gift taxes, customs duties and all other taxes, are tabulated and the total tax burden of each state is determined. This figure is compared to the flow of federal funds back to each state, bringing the two sides of federal fiscal operations together. West Virginia, Mississippi and North Dakota received substantially more from the federal government than they paid in taxes, while New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Minnesota and Illinois paid much more in taxes than they received in spending.
Tax burdens for fiscal year (FY) 2004, which starts October 1, 2003 and ends Sep- tember 30, 2004, are used in this study because the most recent state-level federal expenditure data released by the Census Bureau, to which the tax burdens are compared, is for FY 2004.
The Tax Foundation - Federal Tax Burdens and Expenditures by State