- Joined
- Sep 29, 2014
- Messages
- 8,208
- Reaction score
- 4,028
- Location
- UK
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Bull. Wages have stagnated in real terms for at least 30 years. Do you know what 'in real terms' means?
-
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!
Progressive taxation
- Thread starter Lafayette
- Start date
Bull. Wages have stagnated in real terms for at least 30 years. Do you know what 'in real terms' means?
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2015
- Messages
- 9,594
- Reaction score
- 2,072
- Location
- France
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
You don't have a viable argument in rebuttal, so you are playing games with words.
The Census Bureau keeps tabs on the Poverty Threshold because it is a spurious effort?
That's the BS you are trying to make us believe here.
Copycat. Your arguments are inconsistent and highly biased, which surprises no one.
Replicants are devoid of any cogent explanation of why taxation is grossly unfair in the US.
Take your argument to the Census Bureau, and ask them why they are wasting "taxpayer money" on wrong-headed statistics regarding American poverty.
National Productivity is an index of key importance. You are treating it childishly.
PS: Nice try, though. Your argumentation shows some thought, of which most Replicant Troglodytes are incompetent. Why? Because they are knee-jerking at the altar of Wealth out of blind-faith ...
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2015
- Messages
- 9,594
- Reaction score
- 2,072
- Location
- France
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2015
- Messages
- 9,594
- Reaction score
- 2,072
- Location
- France
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2015
- Messages
- 9,594
- Reaction score
- 2,072
- Location
- France
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Your wasting your time responding to a Wall Of Statistical Ignorance ...
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2015
- Messages
- 9,594
- Reaction score
- 2,072
- Location
- France
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
YOUR MOST GRIEVOUS ERROR
Get your accounting straight. Here-follows how.
The wealth of the nation (belonging to its people) is Net After-tax Income. Where does NAtI come from is the right question to be asked. It comes from tax-rates applied to Gross Income reported to the tax-authorities.
From where does Gross Income derive? THAT is the question we should be asking?
And answering: For a wage earner, Net Income is the residual amount of earnings after all deductions have been taken from gross pay, such as payroll taxes, garnishments, and retirement plan contributions. What remains is Taxable Personal Income.
TPI at present applicable for Married taxpayers filing jointly:
Taxable income in USD (Tax rate)
0-19,050 .............(10%)
19,051-77,400 ... (12%)
77,401-165,000 ....(22%)
165,001-315,000 (24%)
315,001-400,000 (32%)
400,001-600,000 (35%)
600,001+ ...........(37%)
The above is progressive, yes, but insufficiently progressive! Howzat?
Here's why:
*Presume the base is the first level of taxation (>19K$), with the rate at 10%
*The highest tax-rate (>600K$) is at 37% which is four times greater.
*And yet, the difference in income-level is 60-to-1!!!
Any numb-skull can/should understand the basic disparity of income-taxation in the US.
Which leads to this bit of factual economic research conducted by the UofCal (Saez, Guzman, Piketty):
Even you, try harder ...
Get your accounting straight. Here-follows how.
The wealth of the nation (belonging to its people) is Net After-tax Income. Where does NAtI come from is the right question to be asked. It comes from tax-rates applied to Gross Income reported to the tax-authorities.
From where does Gross Income derive? THAT is the question we should be asking?
And answering: For a wage earner, Net Income is the residual amount of earnings after all deductions have been taken from gross pay, such as payroll taxes, garnishments, and retirement plan contributions. What remains is Taxable Personal Income.
TPI at present applicable for Married taxpayers filing jointly:
Taxable income in USD (Tax rate)
0-19,050 .............(10%)
19,051-77,400 ... (12%)
77,401-165,000 ....(22%)
165,001-315,000 (24%)
315,001-400,000 (32%)
400,001-600,000 (35%)
600,001+ ...........(37%)
The above is progressive, yes, but insufficiently progressive! Howzat?
Here's why:
*Presume the base is the first level of taxation (>19K$), with the rate at 10%
*The highest tax-rate (>600K$) is at 37% which is four times greater.
*And yet, the difference in income-level is 60-to-1!!!
Any numb-skull can/should understand the basic disparity of income-taxation in the US.
Which leads to this bit of factual economic research conducted by the UofCal (Saez, Guzman, Piketty):
Even you, try harder ...
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2015
- Messages
- 9,594
- Reaction score
- 2,072
- Location
- France
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
And, to close the circle, "Why should we implement higher Income Taxation, even confiscatory?"
Because the present system of low upper-income taxation has demonstrated aptly the predominance of income owned by a highly select and minuscule part of the American population (0.01%). Which is tantamount to Gross Unfairness.
Much higher taxation of the rich can achieve two key social changes in America by generating tax revenues enabling the following measures:
*A National Health Care system that will cover broadly all American citizens with a coverage worth mentioning. The present system is - in a hallucinatory manner - far too expensive for far too little in terms of life-span. (The only real criteria of judgement for any healthcare system on earth. See here.)
*Tertiary Education that is free, gratis and for nothing as proposed by Hillary/Bernie in the last elections. Only this measure will enhance the level of competence and ability in our workforce to confront the challenge evident in the "Change of Ages" - that is, from the Industrial Age that we are exiting, to the Information Age that we are entering.
This latest Change-of-Ages is inexorable/unavoidable, just as the last one in the middle of the 19th century when the world exited the Agricultural Age and entered into the Industrial Age ...
Because the present system of low upper-income taxation has demonstrated aptly the predominance of income owned by a highly select and minuscule part of the American population (0.01%). Which is tantamount to Gross Unfairness.
Much higher taxation of the rich can achieve two key social changes in America by generating tax revenues enabling the following measures:
*A National Health Care system that will cover broadly all American citizens with a coverage worth mentioning. The present system is - in a hallucinatory manner - far too expensive for far too little in terms of life-span. (The only real criteria of judgement for any healthcare system on earth. See here.)
*Tertiary Education that is free, gratis and for nothing as proposed by Hillary/Bernie in the last elections. Only this measure will enhance the level of competence and ability in our workforce to confront the challenge evident in the "Change of Ages" - that is, from the Industrial Age that we are exiting, to the Information Age that we are entering.
This latest Change-of-Ages is inexorable/unavoidable, just as the last one in the middle of the 19th century when the world exited the Agricultural Age and entered into the Industrial Age ...
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2013
- Messages
- 57,470
- Reaction score
- 14,587
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
then why can't you address the argument instead of these mindless deflection and ad hominems?
yet you do this all time every time your arguments are challenged and you can't support them.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2013
- Messages
- 57,470
- Reaction score
- 14,587
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Yea it is a cherry picked term that you want to use in order to try and support a failing argument.
The fact is that wages have increased.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House...US_Real_Household_Median_Income_thru_2014.png
While median wages took a hit from the recession the graph is still moving upward in a positive direction and it has recovered.
https://www.advisorperspectives.com...9/u-s-household-incomes-a-50-year-perspective.
there is your actual wage growth. it has been growing and increasing except during recession years which is expected.
however in growth years it has recovered and people's wages have increased more than what they were.
There is your in real terms. This was a simple google search that took me all of 5 minutes.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 22,166
- Reaction score
- 808
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
near
perfect liberal insanity!! We already have several national health care systems that cost 5 times what a Republican capitalist system would cost. The last thing it needs is a few more $trillions to waste every year.