• 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!

what do YOU consider "middle class"?

what do you consider "middle class"?

  • 25k - 50k

    Votes: 2 5.6%

  • 25k - 75k

    Votes: 5 13.9%

  • 40k - 100k

    Votes: 12 33.3%

  • 50k - 100k

    Votes: 5 13.9%

  • 50k - 125k

    Votes: 12 33.3%

  • 500k +

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    36
zgoldsmith23 said:
Taxes are drastically lowered.
Click to expand...

You mean since we put our military spending on the credit card for the last 30 years? Doesn't that debt have to be paid back?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Not true at all.
Statutory tax rates are drastically lower, but effective tax rates are modestly lower.
Click to expand...

Well I can't find any data about effective tax rates prior to the 1970s. I am not disagreeing but simply trying to verify.

Catawba said:
You mean since we put our military spending on the credit card for the last 30 years? Doesn't that debt have to be paid back?
Click to expand...

Indeed it does.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Well I can't find any data about effective tax rates prior to the 1970s. I am not disagreeing but simply trying to verify.
Click to expand...

Wiki said:
A predecessor Minimum Tax was enacted by the Tax Reform Act of 1969[SUP][14][/SUP] and went into effect in 1970. Treasury Secretary Joseph Barr prompted the enactment action with an announcement that 155 high-income households had not paid a dime of federal income taxes.[SUP][15][/SUP] The households had taken advantage of so many tax benefits and deductions that reduced their tax liabilities to zero.[SUP][16][/SUP] Congress responded by creating an add-on tax on high-income households, equal to 10% of the sum of tax preferences in excess of $30,000 plus the taxpayer’s regular tax liability.[SUP][17]
Click to expand...

Alternative Minimum Tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What that means is that during that time period, there were wealth people not paying any taxes at all.
Even when the statutory tax rates were higher than 50%.

So the explanation that higher tax rates made everything more equal is bunk.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Of course but then you claimed that,"hat we had much higher tax rates for the wealthy and we had no economic cataclysm."
Click to expand...

Right, we had no economic cataclysm attributable to the higher taxes for the wealthy.



The effective tax rates before Reagan was even elected were marginally higher than they are today.
The total effective tax rate for the top 10% was 29.6 as opposed to 26.7 in 2007.

The biggest spread was 37% in 1979 compared to 29.5 in 2007, for the top 1%.

You think this is what caused the problem, seriously?
Oh and before you go off on my libertarian source, it's a liberal think tank. ;)

Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates for All Households
Click to expand...

"But the superrich don't pay as much as they used to—and thanks to a combination of tax cuts and preferential tax policies, their tax obligations can be less demanding than the so-called little people's. In fact, the very wealthiest Americans' tax burden has been steadily dropping for years, even as they've enjoyed astounding income growth not seen by the vast majority of Americans."

"Tax rates for the wealthy have fallen substantially since they peaked in the 1940s. During the past 30 years, they have been cut at a much faster rate than middle- and low-income taxpayers'."

"Just how much of a windfall are tax cuts for the wealthy? The extension of the Bush tax cuts passed last year will provide $146,000 in annual tax savings, on average, to each of the wealthiest 0.1% of Americans."


"The superrich get an additional boost from relatively low tax rates on capital gains. Income from long-term investments, which makes up a larger portion of wealthier taxpayers' incomes than middle- and low-income taxpayers', is taxed at lower rates than wages."

Only Little People Pay Taxes | Mother Jones


Nope, I mean that it's all the fault of Republicans and Reaganomics, all the fault of rich people, all the fault of the top 1%.
You know, all your ridiculous, unfounded, claims.
Click to expand...

We have had 30 years to document the failure of trickle down economics. It is hardly an unfounded claim.
 
Catawba said:
Right, we had no economic cataclysm attributable to the higher taxes for the wealthy.
Click to expand...

Prove it.
I've shown with data, that those higher taxes were marginal, at best.



Catawba said:
"But the superrich don't pay as much as they used to—and thanks to a combination of tax cuts and preferential tax policies, their tax obligations can be less demanding than the so-called little people's. In fact, the very wealthiest Americans' tax burden has been steadily dropping for years, even as they've enjoyed astounding income growth not seen by the vast majority of Americans."

"Tax rates for the wealthy have fallen substantially since they peaked in the 1940s. During the past 30 years, they have been cut at a much faster rate than middle- and low-income taxpayers'."

"Just how much of a windfall are tax cuts for the wealthy? The extension of the Bush tax cuts passed last year will provide $146,000 in annual tax savings, on average, to each of the wealthiest 0.1% of Americans."


"The superrich get an additional boost from relatively low tax rates on capital gains. Income from long-term investments, which makes up a larger portion of wealthier taxpayers' incomes than middle- and low-income taxpayers', is taxed at lower rates than wages."

Only Little People Pay Taxes | Mother Jones
Click to expand...

Effective tax rates are marginally lower, as shown by the data I presented, from a liberal leaning source.
Mother Jones, is making the same fail argument that you are, conflating statutory tax rates as effective tax rates.

The link I provided complete disproves Mother Jones claims by showing that, the lowest quintile have had their tax rates cut in half, the second has been reduced by 1/3rd, the middle by 1/4th and the 4th quintile by nearly 1/4th.
Only the highest quintile had a tax reduction of less than 1/4th, the lowest effective tax reduction of all quintiles.

So sad.

Catawba said:
We have had 30 years to document the failure of trickle down economics. It is hardly an unfounded claim.
Click to expand...

Taxes were being cut before Trickle down economics became the popular theory.
And you once again can't come to terms that effective tax rates are in total, modestly lower for the rich than you originally claimed.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Military spending in the 1940's was higher, than it is now and was on credit.

U.S. expenditures for defense and education, 1940-2009
Click to expand...

The true cost of the war on terror is higher than any in our history:

"Indeed, when Linda Bilmes and I calculated America’s war costs three years ago, the conservative tally was $3-5 trillion. Since then, the costs have mounted further. With almost 50% of returning troops eligible to receive some level of disability payment, and more than 600,000 treated so far in veterans’ medical facilities, we now estimate that future disability payments and health-care costs will total $600-900 billion. But the social costs, reflected in veteran suicides (which have topped 18 per day in recent years) and family breakups, are incalculable."
The Price of 9/11 - Joseph E. Stiglitz - Project Syndicate
 
Antiderivative said:
The middle class was an American institution that lasted roughly after WW II to the 1970's. For example, if the 1979 middle income quintile average pre tax household income grew at a rate of 2% year, it would be at $94,189 rather than $64,500 (in 2007).
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/average_before-tax_income.pdf

The American middle class is a stagnating and decaying institution.
Click to expand...

Compensation, in these past decades, has been shifted towards untaxed benefits like, employer provided medical insurance and 401k contributions.
Something that is not normally presented in all the wealth disparity/income disparity graphs.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Prove it.
Click to expand...

I just did, and you agreed with me. Inflation in the 70's was not caused by the tax rates for the wealthy.


I've shown with data, that those higher taxes were marginal, at best.
Click to expand...

I've shown with data that effective tax rates, which include long term investment income, are substantially lower today than they were 30 years ago.
 
Catawba said:
Not sure how that is different than the last decade?
Click to expand...


Defense+spending+as+a+percent+of+gdp+1949+-+2009.gif


glad to help :)
 
Antiderivative said:
The middle class was an American institution that lasted roughly after WW II to the 1970's. For example, if the 1979 middle income quintile average pre tax household income grew at a rate of 2% year, it would be at $94,189 rather than $64,500 (in 2007).
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/average_before-tax_income.pdf

The American middle class is a stagnating and decaying institution.
Click to expand...

people keep saying so, but over in the thread where we've been trying to deny it, we've increasingly come to the conclusion that you really can't. :thinking
 
Catawba said:
I just did, and you agreed with me. Inflation in the 70's was not caused by the tax rates for the wealthy.
Click to expand...

You certainly have 0 proof that our current economic mess is caused by low tax rates for the wealthy.
Economic messes have a multitude of variables.
It's a gigantic mathematics equation, that can't be summed up with, "cuz wealthy peoples are richer."


Catawba said:
I've shown with data that effective tax rates, which include long term investment income, are substantially lower today than they were 30 years ago.
Click to expand...

So what, the total effective tax rates, which includes investment income in the 1970s were marginally higher.
The fact is that an 8% drop in total taxes paid by the top .1% isn't going to cause the bottom 50% to get poorer.

It's complete baloney built on conspiracy theory.
 
cpwill said:
Defense+spending+as+a+percent+of+gdp+1949+-+2009.gif


glad to help :)
Click to expand...

For future reference, an unlinked source is of no help.


The total costs

Looking only at the past in calculating the costs of 9/11 and not the future costs of the ongoing conflicts, especially in terms of veteran support and benefits, is a myopic view. Three years ago, Stiglitz estimated the wars' final costs at $3 trillion to $5 trillion. Last week, he wrote that latter estimate was probably substantially underestimated.



"With almost 50% of returning troops eligible to receive some level of disability payment, and more than 600,000 treated so far in veterans medical facilities, we now estimate that future disability payments and health care costs" will total $600 billion to $900 billion, he wrote. "But the social costs reflected in veteran suicides (which have topped 18 per day in recent years) and family breakups are incalculable."



Stiglitz's estimates were recently corroborated by a study conducted by the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University, which concluded the total cost of the two wars to date at $3.2 trillion to $4 trillion, including future veteran benefits. However, it didn't include an estimated half trillion dollars in additional war spending over the next few years, or another $1 trillion in interest payments on the increase in the national debt.

Cost of 9/11 and its aftermath: $5 trillion- MSN Money
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Compensation, in these past decades, has been shifted towards untaxed benefits like, employer provided medical insurance and 401k contributions.
Something that is not normally presented in all the wealth disparity/income disparity graphs.
Click to expand...

You are claiming that the $30k difference is made up in with insurance and $401k contributions?

Annual insurance premiums for families rose to $15,073 on average in 2011, up from an average of $13,770 last year and more than twice the cost of a decade ago, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust.
Cost of employer-provided health insurance up 9% in 2011 - Los Angeles Times

Assume that employers pick up 80%, that is $12,000 of the $30k. Now, you claim that 401k contributions make up the other 18K

The average total contribution rate was 10 percent of salary for employees in plans offering an employer contribution, compared with 7.4 percent for those in plans not offering an employer contribution.
Average 401(k) Contribution: 6.8%

The average employer contribution is 2.6%. Take the middle income quintile average pre tax household income of $64,500 and multiply it by 0.026 and you get $1,677. You still have to explain over a $16k difference.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
You certainly have 0 proof that our current economic mess is caused by low tax rates for the wealthy.
Click to expand...


Strawman alert ~ I never claimed that our current economic mess was caused by tax rates. I said the US wealth disparity growth over the last 30 years is due to 30 years of tax/regulation cuts for the wealthiest, trickle down economics.
 
Antiderivative said:
You are claiming that the $30k difference is made up in with insurance and $401k contributions?

Annual insurance premiums for families rose to $15,073 on average in 2011, up from an average of $13,770 last year and more than twice the cost of a decade ago, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust.
Cost of employer-provided health insurance up 9% in 2011 - Los Angeles Times

Assume that employers pick up 80%, that is $12,000 of the $30k. Now, you claim that 401k contributions make up the other 18K

The average total contribution rate was 10 percent of salary for employees in plans offering an employer contribution, compared with 7.4 percent for those in plans not offering an employer contribution.
Average 401(k) Contribution: 6.8%

The average employer contribution is 2.6%. Take the middle income quintile average pre tax household income of $64,500 and multiply it by 0.026 and you get $1,677. You still have to explain over a $16k difference.
Click to expand...

Income will not rise at a constant rate.
I can still extrapolate other sources of unpaid expenses, that were different then than they are now.

OSHA wasn't created until 1970.
Further business safety regulations, like the installation of addition safety devices on machinery, as well as further PPE and other safety items can cause a decrease in paid worker compensation.
That translates to less risk to the employee, less reward for work done.
That not mentioning the increase in technology, specifically in manufacturing with the introduction of automation and ergonomics, which translates to less workers needed + a better overall work environment.

Contrary to popular belief, regulations on business have increased in aggregate, training and keeping employees is more expensive now than before.

Edit:

Just to push this home, the average wage is approximately $20 an hour, but when you add benefits it comes to $28 an hour.
That's why the income stagnation argument is complete crap.

Private industry employers spent an average of $28.13 per hour worked for employee compensation
in June 2011, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Wages and salaries averaged
$19.81 per hour worked and accounted for 70.4 percent of these costs, while benefits averaged $8.32
and accounted for the remaining 29.6 percent. Total compensation costs for state and local government
workers averaged $40.40 per hour worked in June 2011. Total compensation costs for civilian workers,
which include private industry and state and local government workers, averaged $29.98 per hour worked
in June 2011.
Click to expand...

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
:) it gives the source at the bottom. The Office of Management and Budget. ;)
Click to expand...

Copyrighted Material - All material posted from copyrighted material MUST contain a link to the original work.
Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 US CODE: Title 17,107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Link definition - "A link, or hyperlink, refers to a piece of specially coded text that users can click on to navigate to the webpage or element of a webpage associated with that link's code."
Link Definition
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Income will not rise at a constant rate.
I can still extrapolate other sources of unpaid expenses, that were different then than they are now.

OSHA wasn't created until 1970.
Further business safety regulations, like the installation of addition safety devices on machinery, as well as further PPE and other safety items can cause a decrease in paid worker compensation.
That translates to less risk to the employee, less reward for work done.
That not mentioning the increase in technology, specifically in manufacturing with the introduction of automation and ergonomics, which translates to less workers needed + a better overall work environment.
Click to expand...

This is backwards logic. Safer working conditions and improvements in technology make workers more productive. Economists, politicians, and pundits have been claiming for years that a good way to increase wages is to increase labor productivity. Even when we tease out the capital and technological productivity changes during the last couple of decades, labor productivity has overall increased.
http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/charts/view/201

nfbbar.jpg
http://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm


Contrary to popular belief, regulations on business have increased in aggregate, training and keeping employees is more expensive now than before.
Click to expand...

I never argued against this point and didn't even know we were discussing it. Do you want to interject anymore strawmen and irrelevant information into this conversation?

Edit:

Just to push this home, the average wage is approximately $20 an hour, but when you add benefits it comes to $28 an hour.
That's why the income stagnation argument is complete crap.



Employer Costs for Employee Compensation news release text
Click to expand...

You are obviously going to believe what you want, despite overwhelming evidence that shows that the average laborer is becoming more productive, but wages have been severely lagging and roughly stagnant since 1964. You are unable to fully explain the differences with health insurance and $401k contributions.

CES0500000032_262658_1318706910611.jpg
Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
It was proven here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/110262-do-you-consider-middle-class-11.html#post1059873644


http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/110262-do-you-consider-middle-class-12.html#post1059873710

The protesters get it, even if you don't.
Click to expand...

You have done nothing to counter my argument but you put together a crappy argument using Mother Jones, which is making the same mistakes as you are.
Effective tax rates ≠ Statutory tax rates.
This is just something you seem to not understand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom