« First « Previous Comments 2 - 41 of 101 Next » Last » Search these comments
Has to be something unspoken in the stats there when we are just below Kuwait, which is 26th.
The article is hysterical liberalism, but many of the points are well taken anyway.
We need to boost our middle class, not enslave them with debt, and reduce the influence of financial-i-zation and wealth segregation in or system, or there will be rebellion.
Points out to me that Americans are consumers rather than savers. Whether they CAN save or not is a matter of opinion. I see a lot of monster trucks and Hummers, can't imagine why anybody would want one of those. A working class guy at a service station told me his egregious tricked out Hummer got 10 miles to the gallon, that's just plain stupid.
That's certainly true.
As to
something unspoken in the stats
I don't know. We have a very large underclass. This lowers the median. The size of the underclass can certainly reflect badly on the middle class, if the median is what's used to define "middle class." Still, I would argue that it's true.
As for the working class guy with the hummer. Is the wasteful consumption on the hummer offset by poor savings ? OR does he pick up the difference by living with room mate, or parents, or having a lessor apartment, or by eating more crappy fast food, or depriving himself in other areas, to pay for his hummer ?
Big Lie: America Doesn't Have #1 Richest Middle-Class in the World
Ever see that the so called Middle Class in many parts of Europe or Asia live like.
Oh.. its far better here.. at least when home prices were reasonable.
From the article...
"This opulence is supposed to trickle down to the rest of us, improving the lives of everyday Americans. At least that's what free-market cheerleaders repeatedly promise us.
Unfortunately, it's a lie, one of the biggest ever perpetrated on the American people."
Look at Silicon Valley .... trickle down in fucking spades asshole! Yes it works!
we went from farm lands to several hundred technology companies...
So why didnt this happen in them Liberal states of the North East ? Why didnt it happen in those crazy ass Socialist govt in Europe. Thats the question you need to ask.
What a sad fucking excuse... Lets be like the socialist govt of Europe and spend on the Arts and Poetry...
Points out to me that Americans are consumers rather than savers. Whether they CAN save or not is a matter of opinion. I see a lot of monster trucks and Hummers, can't imagine why anybody would want one of those.
the problem isnt Monster trucks.. thats something we can live with. The real issues continues to be the Real Estate Mania which is overpricing homes and sucking savings infavor of spending. Thats the real issues at hand.
Remember that middle class from years ago with reasonable home prices who also had the massive RV for summer vacations ? Yes they too managed to save for a retirement.
Just how much does the Liberal Arts careers pay anyway?
Think China focus on Liberal Arts?
This article is propagand Marcuses' constant search for the straw man continues...
I don't have time to scrutinize the source "global wealth data book 21"
But a couple of trick these sources use are:
To not point out that the people of any one quintile changes often especially at the top and the bottom
They use household income as a metric but fail to mention that the makeup of households has changed a lot over the last 30 years. In other words if a household goes through a divorce it's income is cut in half.
There was a report a while back from a couple of Berkley idiots (economists) named piketty and saez who reported how the rich were making huge gains in wealth. The reality was that they did not report how tax law changes simply encouraged the rich to report income as a sub hapter S instead of a C corp which made the same income look greater. While at the same time they did not include government transfers including SS which changed the income of the poor by 35%.
It seems to me that if these disingenuous types are doing something similar now it would have to do with government transfers at the top of the income quintile by not showing the bailouts or how low interest rates benefit them in making purchases ahead of inflation. We know this is true as we see huge
inflation at the top of the market, including real estate.
The real straw man is the government. In other words look at the man behind the curtain. Of course this does not help Marcus' agenda but I get tired of hearing about the poor abused public sector.
Subchapter S was enacted in 1958. Income inequality has been increasing most quickly since the 1980s. How do you explain increasing income among the rich from 1980 to 2013? Subchapter S was in place before 1980 and it is still in place...
Subchapter S requires less than 100 employees. I can almost fucking promise that very little income growth among the rich can be attributed to that.
You really think that many small business owners have incomes of $5MM+? $50MM+?
Besides if this were true there would be a corresponsing decrease in corporate income tax revenues.
Which there isn't.
Besides, if this were true you would see a corresponding fall in Corporate income tax receipts.
Of course this does not help Marcus' agenda but I get tired of hearing about the poor abused public sector.
I did not mention the public sector here or even think about it.
But since you mentioned it, and agendas, it is true that there are those, such as Mish and you who would love to see the public sector paid less.
It doesn't take rocket science to understand, that the public sector is huge, and if as a class of workers, you lower their pay, this allows pay to be lower in general in the corporate world too, since the private sector competes with the public sector for workers.
I get it. You think that the middle class needs to do worse in this country and that the wealth gap needs to grow. Now that unions in the private sector are down to something like 7%, we need to move on to killing unions in the the public sector.
The thing you don't seem to realize is that your motto, "fuck the people," if taken as policy, has to backfire eventually, in multiple ways. Maybe this helps: Those middle class workers you want to see having less, are all consumers, and our economy is consumer driven.
Maybe you're thinking we need to deal with the the severe pain and dislocation for a few generations so that we can come out at the other end (with shanty towns and grand gated communities) ready to compete with China in the 22nd century ? And meanwhile the rich get richer ?
Subchapter S was enacted in 1958. Income inequality has been increasing most quickly since the 1980s. How do you explain increasing income among the rich from 1980 to 2013? Subchapter S was in place before 1980 and it is still in place...
The tax law changes were in 1986 and in the 90s
Are you sure you don't mean100 shareholders? They used flow though tax returns as LLC or Partner or S corp.david1 says
Besides if this were true there would be a corresponsing decrease in corporate income tax revenues.
Which there isn't.
Show me
They use household income as a metric but fail to mention that the makeup of households has changed a lot over the last 30 years. In other words if a household goes through a divorce it's income is cut in half.
The reality was that they did not report how tax law changes simply encouraged the rich to report income as a sub hapter S instead of a C corp which made the same income look greater. While at the same time they did not include government transfers including SS which changed the income of the poor by 35%.
Try actually reading the article. It clearly says per adult not per household. It also clearly says wealth, as in assets minus liabilities, not income. Government transfers are not relevant nor is S corp. By what accounting method does reporting as an S corp make income look greater than a C corp. Are you using thomaswrong as your accountant??
It clearly says per adult not per household.
I was talking about other reports. Elizabeth Warren goes on and on about household income as a tool for her political agenda.
But none the less by looking at the global wealth data book 21 it is peppered with household numbers. What does that do to the numbers on the balance sheet when you subtract a 30yr mortgage compared to Japan when they pay cash for a house?
People who oppose unions are more dangerous than al qaeda to an american middle class member from standpoint of realistic damage that they can inflict on the individual over the course of their lifespan.
The tax law changes were in 1986 and in the 90s
See the link below dated 1966, talking about 1371-77 subchapter S enacted in 1958.
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3426&context=fss_papers
Are you sure you don't mean100 shareholders? They used flow though tax returns
as LLC or Partner or S corp
Yes, my mistake.
Show me
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=203
The tax law changes were in 1986 and in the 90s
See the link below dated 1966, talking about 1371-77 subchapter S enacted in 1958.
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3426&context=fss_papers
No I was talking about tax law changes that encouraged people to change the way they reported their taxes from C to S or LLC
Show me
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=203
What you have to consider is the tax revenue increased at 1986 through 2000 as a result of the lower tax laws.
Don't make the mistake that a lower marginal tax rate means less revenue, it actually equates to a higher revenue because of more commerce being encouraged.
Don't make the mistake that a lower marginal tax rate means less revenue, it actually equates to a higher revenue because of more commerce being encouraged.
This is such total bullshit. IT's only true if tax rates are high enough to prohibit business before the reduction, and they would probably need to be way too high, if lowering rates actually increased revenue.
This is the biggest fucking myth on the right. Gee, I can't imagine why they would hold that to be true ?
Is it by any chance because if they say that, it's a rationalization for lowering their taxes ?
Even Laffer claimed a optimal level for taxes. He didn't suggest that even when taxes are relatively low, that you could increase revenues by lowering rates.
ven Laffer claimed a optimal level for taxes.
Oh that is right he is one of the few who thinks Brown is not something that should be flushed. I disagree.
The U.S. does have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. I know you don't concern yourself with this, but this is related to jobs going off shore.
Marcus your "I always vote the party line" atomaton
i travel a lot and have noticed in recent decades that the middle class in many other countries has surpassed us, only my opinion, but more important in what i see is that even the poor in other countries are better off than americans by the fact they have a more solid family unit. i compare the poor girl selling chicklets with her loving mother watching only 10 feet away, to the american child with one parent listening to crap from an iPod while pushing there nose deeper into a smart phone while talking filth. granted this is not all kids here, but they pool is growing. and it is a pool of pooh.
This is such total bullshit. IT's only true if tax rates are high enough to prohibit business before the reduction, and they would probably need to be way too high, if lowering rates actually increased revenue.
lower taxes...
greater consumption of capital equipment and production of capital equipment, thus higher employment and higher incomes.. more taxes. It does work.. your a living example of it as your fat greasy finders tap on that keyboard... ask yourself how did that happen ?
People who oppose unions are more dangerous than al qaeda to an american middle class
The unions did themself in because they ignored global competition. Other parties opposing unions had nothing to do with it. Go cry over your Toyota and Sony ...
i travel a lot and have noticed in recent decades that the middle class in many other countries has surpassed us, only my opinion,
Care to give us some facts with your anecdotal?
The U.S. does have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.
This is misleading, because they don't pay it.
Marcus your "I always vote the party line" atomaton
Have you ever heard about the pot and the kettle ? (and I assume you meant "you're an")
Here, let me educate you about the difference between stutory and effective corporate tax rates.
This is misleading, because they don't pay it.
Could you be anymore general? Show us some facts.
The truth is the consumer pays it.
Investment capital goes where it is treated best which is not here.
like i said just my opinion. revisiting countries i have once seen, i notice more people eating out and spending money more than they used to in more upscale settings. here i see just the opposite. more here going to fast food instead of typical middle class restaurants like olive garden and such. again just my opinion from my simple observances; no numbers to crunch, no facts.
Here, let me educate you about the difference between stutory and effective corporate tax rates.
effective corporate tax rates on GAAP disclosed numbers or undisclosed IRS tax return ? There is a difference.. The IRS ignores GAAP numbers and has its own way of figuring taxable income. Depreciation, non-taxable income, limited expenses, foreign taxes paid, compensation deduction, etc etc.
You can throw all the GAAP numbers away, because they are not used.
At the end of the day.. all corporations "are liable" at the statutory rates. Infact they pay the amounts in quarterly payments. Long long before individuals pay theirs.
Marcus your "I always vote the party line" atomaton
Have you ever heard about the pot and the kettle ? (and I assume you meant "you're an")
Here, let me educate you about the difference between stutory and effective corporate tax rates.
That is part of your problem you assume, I meant your. So you admit to being an automaton? But saying that is tautology isn't it, as you work for the government.
Regarding your graph the difference would also apply to other countries. Which still causes investment capital to go where it is treated best.
oh, having taught ESL for 10 years i did notice one interesting change. in my first few years the students, all adult from south america and mexico were very excited to be here. most begin taking ESL classes when the kids move on and they have time for themselves (females). the last few years i taught, these females were not happy here in the USA, and were saying how they were planning on going back to where they came from because they felt they would have a better life back home. my last year of teaching was in 2006.
ttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/06/most-profitable-corporations-tax-rate_n_1746817.html
disclosed GAAP numbers or undisclosed IRS tax returns ? which taxable income are we talking about... journalists are not the experts in this field.
like i said just my opinion.
It would seem likely that your observations would coincide with government overreach in this country.
were saying how they were planning on going back to where they came from because they felt they would have a better life back home. my last year of teaching was in 2006.
That is interesting. I wonder what they would say today?
Is the OECD journalists ?
In 1979, the U.S. had the 16th highest taxes as a percentage of GDP, out of 24 countries at that time.
In 2010, the U.S. had the 32nd highest taxes as a percentage of GDP, out of 34 OECD countries.
IT's pretty amazing that we are the worlds policeman, conducting multiple wars with the 32nd highest taxes as a percentage of gdp. I guess we are the only ones who have figured out how to get more with lower rates.
But no, oops. That's actual tax revenues collected as a percentage of gdp.
Is the OECD journalists ?
Ok Marcus you have somewhat (although I don't see how it gets from 39 to 24.8, which does not match your Goldman graph above) convinced me the taxes are not the issue.
What about the regulations?
What about the spending?
And most of all what Obama at the helm does to the confidence of the investors? Which turn decide to invest in the countries casandra speaks of.
IT's pretty amazing that we are the worlds policeman, conducting multiple wars with the 32nd highest taxes as a percentage of gdp. I guess we are the only ones who have figured out how to get more with lower rates.
But no, oops. That's actual tax revenues collected as a percentage of gdp.
It is called borrowing. Where have you been?
« First « Previous Comments 2 - 41 of 101 Next » Last » Search these comments
http://www.alternet.org/economy/americas-middle-class-27th-richest?paging=off