• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Census finds record gap between rich and poor

phattonez said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
phattonez said:
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%)
Click to expand...

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
 
ender1 said:
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
Click to expand...

Personal attacks have no bearing on the validity of an argument.
 
ender1 said:
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
Click to expand...

Template:US income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
phattonez said:
Personal attacks have no bearing on the validity of an argument.
Click to expand...

we are dealing with an interesting strain of libertarianism I suspect.

income redistributive libertarian.

sort of like Christ isn't divine Roman Catholicism?
 
phattonez said:
Personal attacks have no bearing on the validity of an argument.
Click to expand...

Its not a personal attack. Im being serious. If you say something that radical then your other statements come into judgement.
 
ender1 said:
Its not a personal attack. Im being serious. If you say something that radical then your other statements come into judgement.
Click to expand...

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
 
ender1 said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
TurtleDude said:
we are dealing with an interesting strain of libertarianism I suspect.

income redistributive libertarian.

sort of like Christ isn't divine Roman Catholicism?
Click to expand...

Not at all. I just disagree with the current system and the beleif that its fair or unfair. My desire is for a smaller government. Then we would not fight as much about where it came from.
 
phattonez said:
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.
Click to expand...

I 100% agree with that. I just dont agree that the system is working or that the middle class is growing and prospering.
 
ender1 said:
I 100% agree with that. I just dont agree that the system is working or that the middle class is growing and prospering.
Click to expand...

I don't like corporatism, but I think that our capitalist elements are beating out the regression that full corporatism would bring.
 
phattonez said:
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
Click to expand...

I am not attacking his character, I am saying that his statements call into good question his mental state. If I made a statment like "The color red is alive and eats the brains of children" you would think about that statement even when I talk about things not red or involving children.
 
phattonez said:
I don't like corporatism, but I think that our capitalist elements are beating out the regression that full corporatism would bring.
Click to expand...

I agree with the corporatism part. I would prefer to have that seperation of Coporate America and the state.
 
phattonez said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, it really doesn't. That's why your information didn't convince. And no, some are becoming richer, as the wealthier class is growing. no one's really disoputing that. And some are getting poorer. What is vanishing is the middle. That is the problem.

I also see above someone questioned Sowell. I told you I have read him before. He tends to let ideaology color his analysis. This tends to make him have different conclusions than others make. I have avoided mentioning this and simply tried to show you that what he claims isn't so, and by giving you a variety of sources showing the same thing. I suspect this won't convince you. Whether you suffer from the same problem as Sowell, I can't say. But the problenm you suuggest doesn't equal the conclusion you've drawn. More rich and more poor, and less middle means there is a gap between rich and poor.
 
phattonez said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
TurtleDude said:
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
Click to expand...

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
 
mertex said:
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
Click to expand...

you income redistributionists keep making that claim yet there is absolutely no proof of it

Direct aid to the poor and middle class is much higher than to the rich

your crap and yes its steaming crap-that the rich benefit more from the government is nonsense.
 
mertex said:
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
Click to expand...

did it ever occur to you that red state blue state is a moronic issue given states like mine go back and forth and that the rich pay far more than they use and the bottom 47% pay no income taxes but certainly use lots of the services the income tax pays for

West Virginia-two dem senators LOL including the king of pork and most of illinois is tax producers-its Chicago that makes it blue
 
Pardon me-the king of pork recently croaked but when was the last time WVa had republican senators?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom