Corporate Profits At All Time High: - Page 3

The Central Scrutinizer · 2nd December 2012, 06:23 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Corporate Profits After Tax (CP)

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/1...ateprofits.png

Waiting for the trickle down to start. Any day now that money has to start making it's way down to the rest of us. That is how it works right?

Plenty of it is making its way down to me and a lot of other people.

Jorghnassen · 2nd December 2012, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by hodgy

One thing this graph does clearly show is a correlation of earnings and risk - which is something that I would expect from a (fair) functioning capitalist system. The top x% gain disproportionately but they also lose disproportionately - your curves make that very clear. The lower curves are fairly flat and predictable (low risk), the higher curves are ever more extreme in variation (higher risk). Behind the scenes of these curves are people that have made and lost thousands / millions / billions, the fact that it doesn't smooth out tells a tale with respect to the pattern of risk as it moves up the reward chain.

But that's not taking into account aggregating and scale. The top 1% are only a twentieth of the bottom quintile, thus, even with the same population volatility at all levels, the mean standard deviation will be 4.47 larger comparing any group comprising 1% of the population to any group of 20% of the population.

Second, they're not losing disproportionately, they always gain disproportionately, but that gain fluctuates more because there's a lot more room to manoeuver, and because we're comparing a group 20 times smaller. The bottom quintile can't lose thousands/millions/billions. But market/monetary risk is also not the whole story for them. Behind that "steady predictable" bottom quintile line are many more stories of people and families losing their jobs, home, livelihood, insurance, health with no golden parachute. When that top line dips on the graphs, for every top 1%er who "lost everything", there's easily 20 bottom fifth earners who lost everything too. But there's a social safety net that prevents their contribution to the graph from dipping too much. And society ends up paying for that "risk" the top guys took.

RandFan · 2nd December 2012, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by Caper

Never in the history of the world has life been better... it actually seems to be going up like that line in the chart.

Originally Posted by Caper

I don't know... it should look something like the ability for you or I to spend 10 hours a day on an internet message board without falling over dead.

You are saying life is appreciably better since it was during Clinton? Things are getting better over the long haul but that has nothing to do with increased wealth among the rich. That's NOT been established at all. Progress isn't a smooth ramp and in this case the data does not favor you. It's actually the inverse.

RandFan · 2nd December 2012, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by Caper

According to the chart you posted they did.

Not in any significant sense. I'm kinda surprised that you think that is significant to the discussion. But I'll grant you the pedantic point.

RandFan · 2nd December 2012, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by Caper

Difficult times maybe..... but it has NEVER been less difficult. That's why people from Cuba and Mexico and Hatti risk their lives to go to a country where record profits are so high.

they come here because job prospects are better. They got nothing in their home town. Look, I'm not disparaging America. You can get off of that meme. I'm saying I find little to no correlation between increased wealth at the top of and bottom of the ladder.

Quote:

It's never been better to be rich in the US and it has never been better to be poor.

Oh wow. And upward mobility? How is that?

RandFan · 2nd December 2012, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by stevea

The OP is a Complete fail! It conflates several unrelated economic ideas adds a pinch of political spin terminology and creates a briar patch of illogic and political responses.

At best you've explained why we should not expect to see a correlation for trickle down. I disagree but that's fine. What is your evidence for a correlation to support trickle down economics?

RandFan · 2nd December 2012, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by stevea

Attempt to make the quote completely out of context, and then, apparently pretend that it has some relevance to the recent "eat the rich" populism merely demonstrates ignorance.

As a capitalist and Rand fan, I have no affinity for "eat the rich" populism but then I kinda doubt that it exists much. People want to go back to the days when the rich paid more in taxes and economic times were better. It's fair to argue that they are deluded and taxing the rich won't do anything but that's not the straw man you have erected for your opponents.

Skeptical Greg · 2nd December 2012, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by SezMe

Salary gains to track with productivity gains.

Most productivity gains can be attributed to automation, not increased performance by workers.

SezMe · 2nd December 2012, 01:13 PM

Doesn't matter. My reply to your question remains valid.

Kaosium · 2nd December 2012, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Not in any significant sense. I'm kinda surprised that you think that is significant to the discussion. But I'll grant you the pedantic point.

No, it is, those working the entry level jobs did see their income go up during that period, are you assuming that each year those categories are populated with the same exact people? Wouldn't you think that most started in the bottom one and moved up at least some during that period.

Just curious did you inquire just who comprises that top 1% of income? What sectors do they work in?

Aridas · 2nd December 2012, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

I'm more than happy to consider any data you have Darth. Seeing that you don't offer any and given that I've only stated that I have no data demonstrating a correlation and given that you won't provide any, I guess you don't have anything to offer.

Cheers indeed.

Hmm. Just eyeballing your graph for the separated brackets of after tax income gain... it looks to me like there is actually is a correlation, at the level of general rising and falling. Between the top and bottom, it's not a strong correlation, by the looks of it, but it is one.

RandFan · 2nd December 2012, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by Aridas

Hmm. Just eyeballing your graph for the separated brackets of after tax income gain... it looks to me like there is actually is a correlation, at the level of general rising and falling. Between the top and bottom, it's not a strong correlation, by the looks of it, but it is one.

Wouldn't it make sense that when the economy is improving that everyone benefits? I've already stipulated that there is a correlation tied to an improving economy. I see no evidence of a correlation that could justify supply side economics. Especially given current conditions. Increased profits and increased wealth has not translated into increased wealth for the lower tiers.

Kaosium · 2nd December 2012, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by DavidJames

Good luck with that.

Like I said in another thread. There don't seem to be any intellectually honest Republicans/conservatives left at JREF any more.

No, I think it's more along the lines of some people needing to look more skeptically at certain political websites, university departments and media outlets with an understanding that those who've already 'debunked' the opposition's positions probably don't even understand what the position actually is and guilt by association and 'outrage' is a piss-poor way of conducting a political debate.

Kaosium · 2nd December 2012, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Wouldn't it make sense that when the economy is improving that everyone benefits? I've already stipulated that there is a correlation tied to an improving economy. I see no evidence of a correlation that could justify supply side economics. Especially given current conditions. Increased profits and increased wealth has not translated into increased wealth for the lower tiers.

What do you mean when you say 'supply side economics?' I don't think it's the same thing I think of.

Aridas · 2nd December 2012, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Wouldn't it make sense that when the economy is improving that everyone benefits? I've already stipulated that there is a correlation tied to an improving economy. I see no evidence of a correlation that could justify supply side economics. Especially given current conditions. Increased profits and increased wealth has not translated into increased wealth for the lower tiers.

Unless I recall incorrectly... correlation isn't causation. Why it happened isn't specifically relevant to whether there's a correlation, for that matter. Two things with no real connection could easily have a correlation, for that matter, over some period of time. Some of the "Bizarre election predictors" come to mind, as an example.

As a note, I'm not attempting to dispute the more relevant points that you've raised, given my lack of expertise on the subjects involved. I am only questioning how proper it is to say that there's no correlation at all, rather than a weak correlation that is better explained by other means.

RandFan · 2nd December 2012, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by Aridas

Unless I recall incorrectly... correlation isn't causation.

We must at least establish correlation. If there is no correlation there is nothing to look at. If there is no correlation we can all go home.

Quote:

Why it happened isn't specifically relevant to whether there's a correlation, for that matter. Two things with no real connection could easily have a correlation, for that matter, over some period of time. Some of the "Bizarre election predictors" come to mind, as an example.

If I make the claim that there is a correlation between increased ice cream sales and increased swimming I ought to in the least be able to demonstrate that correlation, right? Now that would not demonstrate cause and effect but it would establish that there is some possible relationship.

Quote:

As a note, I'm not attempting to dispute the more relevant points that you've raised, given my lack of expertise on the subjects involved. I am only questioning how proper it is to say that there's no correlation at all, rather than a weak correlation that is better explained by other means.

THIS ^^^

It wasn't my intent to disprove supply side economics with the OP. However my rhetoric, as little of it as there was of it, did me no favors. I concede there is a correlation but the parsimonious answer as to why both rise and fail is primarily due to a rising and falling economy. To then assert that the rise and fall are, in part or in whole, due to supply side economics would require a model with explanatory and predictive power. Just like the relationship between summer and ice cream sales, or summer and swimming.

In this case we need to consider parsimony. What is the simplest explanation for this ever so small correlation? Isn't the rise and fall of the economy the prosaic answer? Hasn't the relationship always been the same regardless of tax rates? Didn't the fortunes of rich and poor both rise in good times and both fall in bad times?

What we need is a control. We need to see if the correlation between the rising wealth of rich and poor are stronger when taxes are low and weaker when they are high.

Here's my point: Tax rates are at near record lows and have been for more than 10 years and I see no evidence that the fortunes of the poor are rising any faster than they have been in the past.

Her's my question: If supply side economics worked wouldn't we see a greater rise in the wealth of the bottom tiers of society than we have in the past?

Caper · 2nd December 2012, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

People want to go back to the days when the rich paid more in taxes and economic times were better.

Do you think if the Rich paid more in taxes the economy would get better?

RandFan · 2nd December 2012, 05:28 PM

Happy birthday BTW:

Originally Posted by Caper

Do you think if the Rich paid more in taxes the economy would get better?

I don't know. I know that David Stockman (Reagan's budget director) thinks it can as it did under Reagan. I know that Ben Stein (a conservative economist) thinks it's necessary. I know that two Nobel Prize winning economists (Stiglitz and Krugman) are calling for increased tax rates for the rich. We tried lowering the rates for 10 years. I would hope that we could raise them back to where they were under Clinton.

balrog666 · 2nd December 2012, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by Caper

Do you think if the Rich paid more in taxes the economy would get better?

There is no limit to the stupid things people can believe in ...

Kaosium · 2nd December 2012, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Happy birthday BTW:

I don't know. I know that David Stockman (Reagan's budget director) thinks it can as it did under Reagan. I know that Ben Stein (a conservative economist) thinks it's necessary. I know that two Nobel Prize winning economists (Stiglitz and Krugman) are calling for increased tax rates for the rich. We tried lowering the rates for 10 years. I would hope that we could raise them back to where they were under Clinton.

Was it this thread where you posted the collection of economists who were pretty sure income tax rates being lowered wouldn't increase revenues five years down the road? Following that link they also were more inclined to think the economy would grow more if income tax rates were lowered; those are two different concepts there, the budget problem, and the growth in the economy. The theories and evidence for that is separate, as you can gather from the differences in their responses.

RandFan · 2nd December 2012, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by balrog666

There is no limit to the stupid things people can believe in ...

There's no limit to the stupid things people will say without so much as a single argument.

SezMe · 2nd December 2012, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by Caper

Do you think if the Rich paid more in taxes the economy would get better?

I think if the rich (no capitalizatiion) paid more in taxes the deficit would be decreased. Everybody thinks that is a good idea.

Caper · 3rd December 2012, 12:33 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Happy birthday BTW:

I don't know. I know that David Stockman (Reagan's budget director) thinks it can as it did under Reagan. I know that Ben Stein (a conservative economist) thinks it's necessary. I know that two Nobel Prize winning economists (Stiglitz and Krugman) are calling for increased tax rates for the rich. We tried lowering the rates for 10 years. I would hope that we could raise them back to where they were under Clinton.

I don't have any answers... but I wonder. There are so many different factors now then when Clinton was president, beyond anyones control. There is an aging population... when Clinton was president the baby boomers were hitting their stride.... now they are retiring. Foreign competition wasn't near as strong and the abilities to move entire industries not as possible as it is today..... I'm sure it's not going to hurt to much to raise taxes to where they were in the Clinton years.... But I really think there are a million more things that could be done... I don't know what they are... but I like them when I see them.... I didn't mind the small tax on trades idea.... though I'm not familiar with trading.

Caper · 3rd December 2012, 12:34 AM

I think I'll post some Carolla on the thread

stevea · 3rd December 2012, 02:40 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

At best you've explained why we should not expect to see a correlation for trickle down. I disagree but that's fine. What is your evidence for a correlation to support trickle down economics?

No - you've missed my point completely.

Trickle-down is a dismissive term for the reasonable idea that if the state 'advantages' the producers (at a low enough cost), that this will have a beneficial economic effect for the general economy.

Corporate profits are not some boon given by the state to producers, so the graph is irrelevant to any discussion of trickle-down.

Originally Posted by RandFan

As a capitalist and Rand fan, I have no affinity for "eat the rich" populism but then I kinda doubt that it exists much.

Then how do you explain constant tendency on the Left to heap taxes ever more disproportionately on the wealthy ? It is the very core of contention in the current budget crisis. Your out of context Smith quote suggests you might believe this too.

Explain it to us - why does Bill Gates (personally) owe a dime more to the social costs of the US Federal government that you do ? If the top 10% paying 71% of all federal taxes is not sufficient - then what fraction is sufficient ? What sort of healthy egalitarian democracy can we have when almost 50% of filers pay no federal tax, except that which supports their own retirement & medicare insurance ?

It's nonsense to suggest that the Left has no animus toward the wealthy. Read Obama's speeches filled with wealth-warfare and inciting envy.

Quote:

People want to go back to the days when the rich paid more in taxes and economic times were better. It's fair to argue that they are deluded and taxing the rich won't do anything but that's not the straw man you have erected for your opponents.

I've erected no strawman at all (do you understand the term?).

Really ? I strongly suggest that you investigate exactly how little of that wealth was confiscated by the 90% rates pre-Kennedy. Before the AMT there were massive loopholes broadly available. Today there is very little income, almost nothing, that can escape the AMT 28% floor rate.

The main examples of class warfare demagoguery offered by Obama are people who have very little regular income. Warren Buffet can structure his companies to makes all his revenue from cap gains. The 2 lawyer family, or your dry cleaner operator or McD franchiser making $400k cannot. OTOH if your retired granny was a good saver then it's likely she is paying the cap-gain rates too.

Increasing the tax on cap gains will indeed harm Mr.Buffet, but it will also harm investment and markets a lot more. Its idiotic except to the mindless wealth-haters out there.

Yes, if I was trying to devastate the economy as President, I'd bump up the CapGains tax rates which greatly reduces risk capital and curbs growth, I'd derail any budget talks with farcical extra-constitutional demands that I set spending caps, and I'd make sure that interest rates increase. 2 out of 3 and counting.

Skeptical Greg · 3rd December 2012, 03:44 AM

Originally Posted by SezMe

I think if the rich (no capitalizatiion) paid more in taxes the deficit would be decreased. Everybody thinks that is a good idea.

That wasn't the question..

RandFan · 3rd December 2012, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by Caper

I don't have any answers... but I wonder. There are so many different factors now then when Clinton was president, beyond anyones control. There is an aging population... when Clinton was president the baby boomers were hitting their stride.... now they are retiring. Foreign competition wasn't near as strong and the abilities to move entire industries not as possible as it is today..... I'm sure it's not going to hurt to much to raise taxes to where they were in the Clinton years.... But I really think there are a million more things that could be done... I don't know what they are... but I like them when I see them.... I didn't mind the small tax on trades idea.... though I'm not familiar with trading.

I'm really not sure what your point is. It sounds like you are wedded to small tax rates for the rich though you really don't know why. Is that correct?

RandFan · 3rd December 2012, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by stevea

Then how do you explain constant tendency on the Left to heap taxes ever more disproportionately on the wealthy ?

This is so illustrative of the kind of religous mentality for conservative thought. I don't know how to tell you this steve but the trend in taxes is ever less and not ever more. If you look at the overall picture for effective tax rates you will see that it is decreasing and not increasing. It rarely increases so you are making a claim that is simply false. The two sides have been in a tug of war over the tax rate for some time. Dems typically want it higher (but they know there is a point of diminishing returns and there is a point that you can't raise it any higher). The Republicans want it lower and even most of them agree that it shouldn't be zero.

So, you are laboring under a false frame given you by the puppet masters.

Quote:

It's nonsense to suggest that the Left has no animus toward the wealthy. Read Obama's speeches filled with wealth-warfare and inciting envy.

This is really embarrassingly poor. It demonstrates that you have swallowed the GOP kool-aid and you actually buy into the rhetoric. While Obama's cronyism isn't as bad a Bush's he damn well pals around with bankers and wall street types and has lots rich ahole friends. Further he likes to put those rich idiots in important jobs in his administration. Obama is in many ways right of center. I don't mind that. I do very much mind that you pretend the guy is a leftist when that's BS.

Since moving to the left a year ago I've started listening to more leftist voices (though I don't share much leftist ideology). I have a little bit of bad news for you. Many on the left hate Obama because he is too damn deferential to rich people and the status quo. If Obama had animus for the wealthy his priorities would be very, very different. It's true that many on the left see Obama as more useful than any Republican but they don't at all like his failures to fight harder against the corrupt rich folks who are ruining this nation.

Seriously improve your game or I'm just going to put you on ignore. Your post is just vacuous propaganda.

WildCat · 3rd December 2012, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

BTW your chart implies that corporate profits were negligible prior to 1970. You should find numbers that have been adjusted for inflation.

Indeed, it is very dishonest in an economics debate to post numbers that are not in constant dollars, adjusted for inflation. And in this case there should also be some per-capita adjustment as well.

WildCat · 3rd December 2012, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by SezMe

I think if the rich (no capitalizatiion) paid more in taxes the deficit would be decreased.

But not by very much. 80% of the Bush tax cuts were for the middle class, not the rich.

You'd have to raise those taxes too to make a sgnificant dent in the deficit/debt, but neither party is interested in that.

The Central Scrutinizer · 3rd December 2012, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by stevea

Corporate profits are not some boon given by the state to producers, so the graph is irrelevant to any discussion of trickle-down.

Not only that, but corporate profits belong to the shareholders of that corporation. The subject is completely irrelevant to anyone who isn't a shareholder. But the whiners on the left seem to think that because Apple is sitting on $50 billion in cash (or whatever), that somehow some portion of that should be given to them, even though they don't own shares. How dare Apple have that much money!!!

The Central Scrutinizer · 3rd December 2012, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

The two sides have been in a tug of war over the tax rate for some time. Dems typically want it higher...

But only for evil rich people.

Skeptical Greg · 3rd December 2012, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

But not by very much. 80% of the Bush tax cuts were for the middle class, not the rich.

You'd have to raise those taxes too to make a significant dent in the deficit/debt, but neither party is interested in that.

It may have just been speculative rhetoric, but I have heard numbers that indicate that if the top 10% income earners paid all of their income in taxes, it wouldn't make much of a dent in the deficit..

Speaking of fair, what would be nice, would be if the 46% of people who filed tax reports, actually paid a little tax, and if we stopped refunding taxes to people who didn't pay any ..

RandFan · 3rd December 2012, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

It may have just been speculative rhetoric, but I have heard numbers that indicate that if the top 10% income earners paid all of their income in taxes, it wouldn't make much of a dent in the deficit..

Speaking of fair, what would be nice, would be if the 46% of people who filed tax reports, actually paid a little tax, and if we stopped refunding taxes to people who didn't pay any ..

Why would that be fair? If human capability is evenly distributed and the age old idea of a caste system is complete BS (and it is) then what is the thesis that people who were born disadvantaged should pay some tax even if they are struggling to survive?

The Central Scrutinizer · 3rd December 2012, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

It may have just been speculative rhetoric, but I have heard numbers that indicate that if the top 10% income earners paid all of their income in taxes, it wouldn't make much of a dent in the deficit.

True.

We could tax the rich at 200% and it still wouldn't make a dent. If you want to really make a dent, you need to raise taxes on all people. But somehow most people are against that. They just want to tax the rich. That will solve everything.

respect · 3rd December 2012, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

This is so illustrative of the kind of religous mentality for conservative thought. I don't know how to tell you this steve but the trend in taxes is ever less and not ever more. If you look at the overall picture for effective tax rates you will see that it is decreasing and not increasing. It rarely increases so you are making a claim that is simply false. The two sides have been in a tug of war over the tax rate for some time. Dems typically want it higher (but they know there is a point of diminishing returns and there is a point that you can't raise it any higher). The Republicans want it lower and even most of them agree that it shouldn't be zero.

So, you are laboring under a false frame given you by the puppet masters.

This is really embarrassingly poor. It demonstrates that you have swallowed the GOP kool-aid and you actually buy into the rhetoric. While Obama's cronyism isn't as bad a Bush's he damn well pals around with bankers and wall street types and has lots rich ahole friends. Further he likes to put those rich idiots in important jobs in his administration. Obama is in many ways right of center. I don't mind that. I do very much mind that you pretend the guy is a leftist when that's BS.

Since moving to the left a year ago I've started listening to more leftist voices (though I don't share much leftist ideology). I have a little bit of bad news for you. Many on the left hate Obama because he is too damn deferential to rich people and the status quo. If Obama had animus for the wealthy his priorities would be very, very different. It's true that many on the left see Obama as more useful than any Republican but they don't at all like his failures to fight harder against the corrupt rich folks who are ruining this nation.

Seriously improve your game or I'm just going to put you on ignore. Your post is just vacuous propaganda.

No, it has merit. The constant whining about how unfair tax rates are is an emotional appeal and nothing else. I would like to see Obama make his case on the grounds of what he expects positive and negative results of tax hikes will be and why he thinks that the positives make it a worthwhile tradeoff for the negatives. I do not give a **** if he holds a moral value judgement that it isn't fair that Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. His moral views and constant appeals to emotion about them are a poor substitute for arguments based on policy outcomes. And you are simply being delusional if you think he has not been deliberately and knowingly making emotional appeals about "fairness".

ETA-I think in the case of repealing the top rate tax cut from Bush he can make a valid argument that it would be good policy, not so much on the long term capital gains tax rate though. But he doesn't seem to be very concerned about making a valid case for either.

RandFan · 3rd December 2012, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Why would that be fair? If human capability is evenly distributed and the age old idea of a caste system is complete BS (and it is) then what is the thesis that people who were born disadvantaged should pay some tax even if they are struggling to survive?

It's unfair to be born disadvantaged. That's not controversial. But when any attempt is made to improve the standing of the poor the rich scream bloody murder. How UNFAIR! Go **** yourself. You were born advantaged. THAT'S unfair. So we try to make the playing field a little more fair to the poor and otherwise disadvantaged. Nothing is more dishonest than a rich person screaming "unfair". As if the rich person truly gives a damn about fairness. BS.

The Central Scrutinizer · 3rd December 2012, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by respect

No, it has merit. The constant whining about how unfair tax rates are is an emotional appeal and nothing else. I would like to see Obama make his case on the grounds of what he expects positive and negative results of tax hikes will be and why he thinks that the positives make it a worthwhile tradeoff for the negatives. I do not give a **** if he holds a moral value judgement that it isn't fair that Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. His moral views and constant appeals to emotion about them are a poor substitute for arguments based on policy outcomes. And you are simply being delusional if you think he has not been deliberately and knowingly making emotional appeals about "fairness".

ETA-I think in the case of repealing the top rate tax cut from Bush he can make a valid argument that it would be good policy, not so much on the long term capital gains tax rate though. But he doesn't seem to be very concerned about making a valid case for either.

You make a good point. Tell us exactly (+/- a few billion) how much you*** expect increased rates on the upper income earners will bring in. Then do something no politician will ever do - at the end of the year, write one of those giant checks like they give to lottery winners and PGA golfers made out to the US Treasury. But they won't - it's extra revenue. They only know how to do one thing with that - spend it.

***By "you" I mean the POTUS, not you.

The Central Scrutinizer · 3rd December 2012, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

It's unfair to be born disadvantaged. That's not controversial. But when any attempt is made to improve the standing of the poor the rich scream bloody murder. How UNFAIR! Go **** yourself. You were born advantaged. THAT'S unfair. So we try to make the playing field a little more fair to the poor and otherwise disadvantaged. Nothing is more dishonest than a rich person screaming "unfair". As if the rich person truly gives a damn about fairness. BS.

Wait, wait, wait.....

You're saying all rich people were born advantaged? Really?

respect · 3rd December 2012, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

It may have just been speculative rhetoric, but I have heard numbers that indicate that if the top 10% income earners paid all of their income in taxes, it wouldn't make much of a dent in the deficit..

Speaking of fair, what would be nice, would be if the 46% of people who filed tax reports, actually paid a little tax, and if we stopped refunding taxes to people who didn't pay any ..

This may surprise a lot of people but negative tax rates are the brainchild of evil right wing capitalist extraordinaire Milton Friedman and a very compelling argument can be made to expand them.

The gist is that all welfare transfers are essentially negative taxes, the bureaucratic costs of all the various welfare schemes around the nation can be greatly reduced by replacing them into streamlined direct negative tax payments rather than the mess we have now. While this obviously hasn't been fully realized, the earned income tax credit is based on the idea and has been quite successful.

A little more here.

2nd December 2012, 06:23 AM	#81
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Pither Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,273	Originally Posted by RandFan Corporate Profits After Tax (CP) http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/1...ateprofits.png Waiting for the trickle down to start. Any day now that money has to start making it's way down to the rest of us. That is how it works right? Plenty of it is making its way down to me and a lot of other people.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

2nd December 2012, 07:12 AM	#82
Jorghnassen Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: The realm of ideas Posts: 3,881	Originally Posted by hodgy One thing this graph does clearly show is a correlation of earnings and risk - which is something that I would expect from a (fair) functioning capitalist system. The top x% gain disproportionately but they also lose disproportionately - your curves make that very clear. The lower curves are fairly flat and predictable (low risk), the higher curves are ever more extreme in variation (higher risk). Behind the scenes of these curves are people that have made and lost thousands / millions / billions, the fact that it doesn't smooth out tells a tale with respect to the pattern of risk as it moves up the reward chain. But that's not taking into account aggregating and scale. The top 1% are only a twentieth of the bottom quintile, thus, even with the same population volatility at all levels, the mean standard deviation will be 4.47 larger comparing any group comprising 1% of the population to any group of 20% of the population. Second, they're not losing disproportionately, they always gain disproportionately, but that gain fluctuates more because there's a lot more room to manoeuver, and because we're comparing a group 20 times smaller. The bottom quintile can't lose thousands/millions/billions. But market/monetary risk is also not the whole story for them. Behind that "steady predictable" bottom quintile line are many more stories of people and families losing their jobs, home, livelihood, insurance, health with no golden parachute. When that top line dips on the graphs, for every top 1%er who "lost everything", there's easily 20 bottom fifth earners who lost everything too. But there's a social safety net that prevents their contribution to the graph from dipping too much. And society ends up paying for that "risk" the top guys took.
	__________________ "Help control the local pet population: teach your dog abstinence." -Stephen Colbert "My dad believed laughter is the best medicine. Which is why several of us died of tuberculosis."- Unknown source, heard from Grey Delisle on Rob Paulsen's podcast

2nd December 2012, 09:43 AM	#83
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,203	Originally Posted by Caper Never in the history of the world has life been better... it actually seems to be going up like that line in the chart. Originally Posted by Caper I don't know... it should look something like the ability for you or I to spend 10 hours a day on an internet message board without falling over dead. You are saying life is appreciably better since it was during Clinton? Things are getting better over the long haul but that has nothing to do with increased wealth among the rich. That's NOT been established at all. Progress isn't a smooth ramp and in this case the data does not favor you. It's actually the inverse.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

2nd December 2012, 09:46 AM	#84
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,203	Originally Posted by Caper According to the chart you posted they did. Not in any significant sense. I'm kinda surprised that you think that is significant to the discussion. But I'll grant you the pedantic point.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

2nd December 2012, 09:48 AM	#85
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,203	Originally Posted by Caper Difficult times maybe..... but it has NEVER been less difficult. That's why people from Cuba and Mexico and Hatti risk their lives to go to a country where record profits are so high. they come here because job prospects are better. They got nothing in their home town. Look, I'm not disparaging America. You can get off of that meme. I'm saying I find little to no correlation between increased wealth at the top of and bottom of the ladder. Quote: It's never been better to be rich in the US and it has never been better to be poor. Oh wow. And upward mobility? How is that?
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

2nd December 2012, 09:52 AM	#86
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,203	Originally Posted by stevea The OP is a Complete fail! It conflates several unrelated economic ideas adds a pinch of political spin terminology and creates a briar patch of illogic and political responses. At best you've explained why we should not expect to see a correlation for trickle down. I disagree but that's fine. What is your evidence for a correlation to support trickle down economics?
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

2nd December 2012, 09:56 AM	#87
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,203	Originally Posted by stevea Attempt to make the quote completely out of context, and then, apparently pretend that it has some relevance to the recent "eat the rich" populism merely demonstrates ignorance. As a capitalist and Rand fan, I have no affinity for "eat the rich" populism but then I kinda doubt that it exists much. People want to go back to the days when the rich paid more in taxes and economic times were better. It's fair to argue that they are deluded and taxing the rich won't do anything but that's not the straw man you have erected for your opponents.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 2nd December 2012 at 10:27 AM.

2nd December 2012, 10:42 AM	#88
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873	Originally Posted by SezMe Salary gains to track with productivity gains. Most productivity gains can be attributed to automation, not increased performance by workers.
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

2nd December 2012, 01:13 PM	#89
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,369	Doesn't matter. My reply to your question remains valid.

2nd December 2012, 02:06 PM	#90
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,293	Originally Posted by RandFan Not in any significant sense. I'm kinda surprised that you think that is significant to the discussion. But I'll grant you the pedantic point. No, it is, those working the entry level jobs did see their income go up during that period, are you assuming that each year those categories are populated with the same exact people? Wouldn't you think that most started in the bottom one and moved up at least some during that period. Just curious did you inquire just who comprises that top 1% of income? What sectors do they work in?
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,293	__________________ "Honi soit qui mal y pense."

2nd December 2012, 03:03 PM	#91
Aridas Crazy Little Green Dragon Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,107	Originally Posted by RandFan I'm more than happy to consider any data you have Darth. Seeing that you don't offer any and given that I've only stated that I have no data demonstrating a correlation and given that you won't provide any, I guess you don't have anything to offer. Cheers indeed. Hmm. Just eyeballing your graph for the separated brackets of after tax income gain... it looks to me like there is actually is a correlation, at the level of general rising and falling. Between the top and bottom, it's not a strong correlation, by the looks of it, but it is one.
	__________________ So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

2nd December 2012, 03:12 PM	#92
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,203	Originally Posted by Aridas Hmm. Just eyeballing your graph for the separated brackets of after tax income gain... it looks to me like there is actually is a correlation, at the level of general rising and falling. Between the top and bottom, it's not a strong correlation, by the looks of it, but it is one. Wouldn't it make sense that when the economy is improving that everyone benefits? I've already stipulated that there is a correlation tied to an improving economy. I see no evidence of a correlation that could justify supply side economics. Especially given current conditions. Increased profits and increased wealth has not translated into increased wealth for the lower tiers.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

2nd December 2012, 03:17 PM	#93
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,293	Originally Posted by DavidJames Good luck with that. Like I said in another thread. There don't seem to be any intellectually honest Republicans/conservatives left at JREF any more. No, I think it's more along the lines of some people needing to look more skeptically at certain political websites, university departments and media outlets with an understanding that those who've already 'debunked' the opposition's positions probably don't even understand what the position actually is and guilt by association and 'outrage' is a piss-poor way of conducting a political debate.
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,293	__________________ "Honi soit qui mal y pense." Last edited by Kaosium; 2nd December 2012 at 04:23 PM.

2nd December 2012, 03:21 PM	#94
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,293	Originally Posted by RandFan Wouldn't it make sense that when the economy is improving that everyone benefits? I've already stipulated that there is a correlation tied to an improving economy. I see no evidence of a correlation that could justify supply side economics. Especially given current conditions. Increased profits and increased wealth has not translated into increased wealth for the lower tiers. What do you mean when you say 'supply side economics?' I don't think it's the same thing I think of.
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,293	__________________ "Honi soit qui mal y pense."

2nd December 2012, 04:00 PM	#95
Aridas Crazy Little Green Dragon Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,107	Originally Posted by RandFan Wouldn't it make sense that when the economy is improving that everyone benefits? I've already stipulated that there is a correlation tied to an improving economy. I see no evidence of a correlation that could justify supply side economics. Especially given current conditions. Increased profits and increased wealth has not translated into increased wealth for the lower tiers. Unless I recall incorrectly... correlation isn't causation. Why it happened isn't specifically relevant to whether there's a correlation, for that matter. Two things with no real connection could easily have a correlation, for that matter, over some period of time. Some of the "Bizarre election predictors" come to mind, as an example. As a note, I'm not attempting to dispute the more relevant points that you've raised, given my lack of expertise on the subjects involved. I am only questioning how proper it is to say that there's no correlation at all, rather than a weak correlation that is better explained by other means.
	__________________ So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

2nd December 2012, 04:36 PM	#96
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,203	Originally Posted by Aridas Unless I recall incorrectly... correlation isn't causation. We must at least establish correlation. If there is no correlation there is nothing to look at. If there is no correlation we can all go home. Quote: Why it happened isn't specifically relevant to whether there's a correlation, for that matter. Two things with no real connection could easily have a correlation, for that matter, over some period of time. Some of the "Bizarre election predictors" come to mind, as an example. If I make the claim that there is a correlation between increased ice cream sales and increased swimming I ought to in the least be able to demonstrate that correlation, right? Now that would not demonstrate cause and effect but it would establish that there is some possible relationship. Quote: As a note, I'm not attempting to dispute the more relevant points that you've raised, given my lack of expertise on the subjects involved. I am only questioning how proper it is to say that there's no correlation at all, rather than a weak correlation that is better explained by other means. THIS ^^^ It wasn't my intent to disprove supply side economics with the OP. However my rhetoric, as little of it as there was of it, did me no favors. I concede there is a correlation but the parsimonious answer as to why both rise and fail is primarily due to a rising and falling economy. To then assert that the rise and fall are, in part or in whole, due to supply side economics would require a model with explanatory and predictive power. Just like the relationship between summer and ice cream sales, or summer and swimming. In this case we need to consider parsimony. What is the simplest explanation for this ever so small correlation? Isn't the rise and fall of the economy the prosaic answer? Hasn't the relationship always been the same regardless of tax rates? Didn't the fortunes of rich and poor both rise in good times and both fall in bad times? What we need is a control. We need to see if the correlation between the rising wealth of rich and poor are stronger when taxes are low and weaker when they are high. Here's my point: Tax rates are at near record lows and have been for more than 10 years and I see no evidence that the fortunes of the poor are rising any faster than they have been in the past. Her's my question: If supply side economics worked wouldn't we see a greater rise in the wealth of the bottom tiers of society than we have in the past?
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 2nd December 2012 at 04:40 PM.

2nd December 2012, 05:17 PM	#97
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946	Originally Posted by RandFan People want to go back to the days when the rich paid more in taxes and economic times were better. Do you think if the Rich paid more in taxes the economy would get better?
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946

2nd December 2012, 05:28 PM	#98
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,203	Happy birthday BTW: Originally Posted by Caper Do you think if the Rich paid more in taxes the economy would get better? I don't know. I know that David Stockman (Reagan's budget director) thinks it can as it did under Reagan. I know that Ben Stein (a conservative economist) thinks it's necessary. I know that two Nobel Prize winning economists (Stiglitz and Krugman) are calling for increased tax rates for the rich. We tried lowering the rates for 10 years. I would hope that we could raise them back to where they were under Clinton.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 2nd December 2012 at 05:32 PM.

2nd December 2012, 06:18 PM	#99
balrog666 Eigenmode: Cynic Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,527	Originally Posted by Caper Do you think if the Rich paid more in taxes the economy would get better? There is no limit to the stupid things people can believe in ...
	__________________ A person who won't think has no advantage over one who can't think. - (paraphrased) Mark Twain Diversity--When all colors and creeds believe exactly as liberals want them to. Or Else! -Coyote Last edited by balrog666; 2nd December 2012 at 06:20 PM. Reason: i just had to make it more racist!

2nd December 2012, 06:25 PM	#100
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,293	Originally Posted by RandFan Happy birthday BTW: I don't know. I know that David Stockman (Reagan's budget director) thinks it can as it did under Reagan. I know that Ben Stein (a conservative economist) thinks it's necessary. I know that two Nobel Prize winning economists (Stiglitz and Krugman) are calling for increased tax rates for the rich. We tried lowering the rates for 10 years. I would hope that we could raise them back to where they were under Clinton. Was it this thread where you posted the collection of economists who were pretty sure income tax rates being lowered wouldn't increase revenues five years down the road? Following that link they also were more inclined to think the economy would grow more if income tax rates were lowered; those are two different concepts there, the budget problem, and the growth in the economy. The theories and evidence for that is separate, as you can gather from the differences in their responses.
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,293	__________________ "Honi soit qui mal y pense."

2nd December 2012, 06:28 PM	#101
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,203	Originally Posted by balrog666 There is no limit to the stupid things people can believe in ... There's no limit to the stupid things people will say without so much as a single argument.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

2nd December 2012, 07:16 PM	#102
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,369	Originally Posted by Caper Do you think if the Rich paid more in taxes the economy would get better? I think if the rich (no capitalizatiion) paid more in taxes the deficit would be decreased. Everybody thinks that is a good idea.

3rd December 2012, 12:33 AM	#103
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946	Originally Posted by RandFan Happy birthday BTW: I don't know. I know that David Stockman (Reagan's budget director) thinks it can as it did under Reagan. I know that Ben Stein (a conservative economist) thinks it's necessary. I know that two Nobel Prize winning economists (Stiglitz and Krugman) are calling for increased tax rates for the rich. We tried lowering the rates for 10 years. I would hope that we could raise them back to where they were under Clinton. I don't have any answers... but I wonder. There are so many different factors now then when Clinton was president, beyond anyones control. There is an aging population... when Clinton was president the baby boomers were hitting their stride.... now they are retiring. Foreign competition wasn't near as strong and the abilities to move entire industries not as possible as it is today..... I'm sure it's not going to hurt to much to raise taxes to where they were in the Clinton years.... But I really think there are a million more things that could be done... I don't know what they are... but I like them when I see them.... I didn't mind the small tax on trades idea.... though I'm not familiar with trading.
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946

3rd December 2012, 12:34 AM	#104
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946	I think I'll post some Carolla on the thread
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946

3rd December 2012, 02:40 AM	#105
stevea Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,121	Originally Posted by RandFan At best you've explained why we should not expect to see a correlation for trickle down. I disagree but that's fine. What is your evidence for a correlation to support trickle down economics? No - you've missed my point completely. Trickle-down is a dismissive term for the reasonable idea that if the state 'advantages' the producers (at a low enough cost), that this will have a beneficial economic effect for the general economy. Corporate profits are not some boon given by the state to producers, so the graph is irrelevant to any discussion of trickle-down. Originally Posted by RandFan As a capitalist and Rand fan, I have no affinity for "eat the rich" populism but then I kinda doubt that it exists much. Then how do you explain constant tendency on the Left to heap taxes ever more disproportionately on the wealthy ? It is the very core of contention in the current budget crisis. Your out of context Smith quote suggests you might believe this too. Explain it to us - why does Bill Gates (personally) owe a dime more to the social costs of the US Federal government that you do ? If the top 10% paying 71% of all federal taxes is not sufficient - then what fraction is sufficient ? What sort of healthy egalitarian democracy can we have when almost 50% of filers pay no federal tax, except that which supports their own retirement & medicare insurance ? It's nonsense to suggest that the Left has no animus toward the wealthy. Read Obama's speeches filled with wealth-warfare and inciting envy. Quote: People want to go back to the days when the rich paid more in taxes and economic times were better. It's fair to argue that they are deluded and taxing the rich won't do anything but that's not the straw man you have erected for your opponents. I've erected no strawman at all (do you understand the term?). Really ? I strongly suggest that you investigate exactly how little of that wealth was confiscated by the 90% rates pre-Kennedy. Before the AMT there were massive loopholes broadly available. Today there is very little income, almost nothing, that can escape the AMT 28% floor rate. The main examples of class warfare demagoguery offered by Obama are people who have very little regular income. Warren Buffet can structure his companies to makes all his revenue from cap gains. The 2 lawyer family, or your dry cleaner operator or McD franchiser making $400k cannot. OTOH if your retired granny was a good saver then it's likely she is paying the cap-gain rates too. Increasing the tax on cap gains will indeed harm Mr.Buffet, but it will also harm investment and markets a lot more. Its idiotic except to the mindless wealth-haters out there. Yes, if I was trying to devastate the economy as President, I'd bump up the CapGains tax rates which greatly reduces risk capital and curbs growth, I'd derail any budget talks with farcical extra-constitutional demands that I set spending caps, and I'd make sure that interest rates increase. 2 out of 3 and counting.
stevea Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,121	Last edited by stevea; 3rd December 2012 at 02:45 AM.

3rd December 2012, 03:44 AM	#106
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873	Originally Posted by SezMe I think if the rich (no capitalizatiion) paid more in taxes the deficit would be decreased. Everybody thinks that is a good idea. That wasn't the question..
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

3rd December 2012, 09:45 AM	#107
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,203	Originally Posted by Caper I don't have any answers... but I wonder. There are so many different factors now then when Clinton was president, beyond anyones control. There is an aging population... when Clinton was president the baby boomers were hitting their stride.... now they are retiring. Foreign competition wasn't near as strong and the abilities to move entire industries not as possible as it is today..... I'm sure it's not going to hurt to much to raise taxes to where they were in the Clinton years.... But I really think there are a million more things that could be done... I don't know what they are... but I like them when I see them.... I didn't mind the small tax on trades idea.... though I'm not familiar with trading. I'm really not sure what your point is. It sounds like you are wedded to small tax rates for the rich though you really don't know why. Is that correct?
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

3rd December 2012, 09:59 AM	#108
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,203	Originally Posted by stevea Then how do you explain constant tendency on the Left to heap taxes ever more disproportionately on the wealthy ? This is so illustrative of the kind of religous mentality for conservative thought. I don't know how to tell you this steve but the trend in taxes is ever less and not ever more. If you look at the overall picture for effective tax rates you will see that it is decreasing and not increasing. It rarely increases so you are making a claim that is simply false. The two sides have been in a tug of war over the tax rate for some time. Dems typically want it higher (but they know there is a point of diminishing returns and there is a point that you can't raise it any higher). The Republicans want it lower and even most of them agree that it shouldn't be zero. So, you are laboring under a false frame given you by the puppet masters. Quote: It's nonsense to suggest that the Left has no animus toward the wealthy. Read Obama's speeches filled with wealth-warfare and inciting envy. This is really embarrassingly poor. It demonstrates that you have swallowed the GOP kool-aid and you actually buy into the rhetoric. While Obama's cronyism isn't as bad a Bush's he damn well pals around with bankers and wall street types and has lots rich ahole friends. Further he likes to put those rich idiots in important jobs in his administration. Obama is in many ways right of center. I don't mind that. I do very much mind that you pretend the guy is a leftist when that's BS. Since moving to the left a year ago I've started listening to more leftist voices (though I don't share much leftist ideology). I have a little bit of bad news for you. Many on the left hate Obama because he is too damn deferential to rich people and the status quo. If Obama had animus for the wealthy his priorities would be very, very different. It's true that many on the left see Obama as more useful than any Republican but they don't at all like his failures to fight harder against the corrupt rich folks who are ruining this nation. Seriously improve your game or I'm just going to put you on ignore. Your post is just vacuous propaganda.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 3rd December 2012 at 10:05 AM.

3rd December 2012, 10:12 AM	#109
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,008	Originally Posted by psionl0 BTW your chart implies that corporate profits were negligible prior to 1970. You should find numbers that have been adjusted for inflation. Indeed, it is very dishonest in an economics debate to post numbers that are not in constant dollars, adjusted for inflation. And in this case there should also be some per-capita adjustment as well.

3rd December 2012, 10:29 AM	#110
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,008	Originally Posted by SezMe I think if the rich (no capitalizatiion) paid more in taxes the deficit would be decreased. But not by very much. 80% of the Bush tax cuts were for the middle class, not the rich. You'd have to raise those taxes too to make a sgnificant dent in the deficit/debt, but neither party is interested in that.

3rd December 2012, 10:38 AM	#111
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Pither Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,273	Originally Posted by stevea Corporate profits are not some boon given by the state to producers, so the graph is irrelevant to any discussion of trickle-down. Not only that, but corporate profits belong to the shareholders of that corporation. The subject is completely irrelevant to anyone who isn't a shareholder. But the whiners on the left seem to think that because Apple is sitting on $50 billion in cash (or whatever), that somehow some portion of that should be given to them, even though they don't own shares. How dare Apple have that much money!!!
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him. Last edited by The Central Scrutinizer; 3rd December 2012 at 11:29 AM.

3rd December 2012, 10:39 AM	#112
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Pither Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,273	Originally Posted by RandFan The two sides have been in a tug of war over the tax rate for some time. Dems typically want it higher... But only for evil rich people.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

3rd December 2012, 11:10 AM	#113
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873	Originally Posted by WildCat But not by very much. 80% of the Bush tax cuts were for the middle class, not the rich. You'd have to raise those taxes too to make a significant dent in the deficit/debt, but neither party is interested in that. It may have just been speculative rhetoric, but I have heard numbers that indicate that if the top 10% income earners paid all of their income in taxes, it wouldn't make much of a dent in the deficit.. Speaking of fair, what would be nice, would be if the 46% of people who filed tax reports, actually paid a little tax, and if we stopped refunding taxes to people who didn't pay any ..
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

3rd December 2012, 11:14 AM	#114
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,203	Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg It may have just been speculative rhetoric, but I have heard numbers that indicate that if the top 10% income earners paid all of their income in taxes, it wouldn't make much of a dent in the deficit.. Speaking of fair, what would be nice, would be if the 46% of people who filed tax reports, actually paid a little tax, and if we stopped refunding taxes to people who didn't pay any .. Why would that be fair? If human capability is evenly distributed and the age old idea of a caste system is complete BS (and it is) then what is the thesis that people who were born disadvantaged should pay some tax even if they are struggling to survive?
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

3rd December 2012, 11:52 AM	#115
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Pither Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,273	Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg It may have just been speculative rhetoric, but I have heard numbers that indicate that if the top 10% income earners paid all of their income in taxes, it wouldn't make much of a dent in the deficit. True. We could tax the rich at 200% and it still wouldn't make a dent. If you want to really make a dent, you need to raise taxes on *all* people. But somehow most people are against that. They just want to tax the rich. That will solve everything.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.