Incomes and Politics

Arkansas, for one.

 

Last year for which I had data. I'll see if I can find more... Ah, yes...

2004 was 5.5, again higher than Clinton's average.

Well, you're a good Bushista. "It's not my fault, it's _______'s fault." is the cry of the wild Dubya.

Well, let's compare apples with apples, shall we? Using a different yardstick for Bush and for Clinton may be a GOP habit, but it's not very honest.

True, but irrelevant. The point, remember was why the poor paid a higher percentage of total taxes under Clinton. Quite simple. As you see, more of them were working (and incidentally working more hours) and therefore made more money, which means they paid more taxes. Do you see how this is true?

I don't see how observing a demonstrable fact is "Bush-bashing." Your imagination is running away with you, again. It's just the way it is. People make more money, they tend to pay more taxes. If you studied economics at George Mason, I'd think you would know this. Many people who never studied economics at George Mason know it.

Last time I heard, the economy was doing OK, but hardly booming. As you just learned, unemployment has been higher in the Bush years. Whether or not it's a good thing, probably depends on whether or not you are out of work.

 

Are you really... Do you even read what you write or do you simply spew back what you have been given? We have been in full employment from 1994 until the present, with 2002 being right on the verge of going above that line.

I find it difficult that anyone can be as ignorant as you are acting, without acting that way intentionally.

Another way for the bottom 5% to be paying less in taxes is that there are fewer people in that bottom percentile because they've all moved out of it in the new booming economy.

No recessions, just three down quarters, and two of those are under Clinton's watch. They both should have done the right thing instead of trying to buy votes, but Bush-bashing in the face of reality only makes you look... well, willfully ignorant.

Edited to add: Since most economic policies take 6-18 months minimum to be felt, I highly suspect that Bush Sr's economic policies are why the unemployment was so high in Clinton's first year. But, I think the 9-11 attacks were probably a bigger factor in the Bush Jr's single quarter of downward economic trends, and only the first quarter that he was president would be directly affected by Clinton's policies.

 

(Barbarian points out that unemployment was higher in the Bush years than the Clinton years)

You mean citing the data from the Statistical Abstract of the United States? Yep. I'm evidence-oriented. Imagination is a fine thing, but not in economics.

"Full employment" apparently means "when I'm not out of a job." Youi're arguing with youirself. The point is still simple; the poor paid a larger percentage of tax revenue under Clinton, than under Bush, because more of them were working, and they were working more hours. This seems to be difficult for you to understand, but I don't see why.

Read the sentence in bold. Do you think it's wrong? If so, tell me why you think it's wrong.

That would require the Lake Woebegone principle: "All children are above average." No matter how hard you try, there will always be the poorest half of the American people.

Still don't see how noting why the poor paid a larger share of taxes under Clinton is "Bush-bashing." Did they teach logic at George Mason?

Instead of telling us why you think lower employment is dangerous, why not address what I said? I put it in bold for you, above.

 

Why would I address it yet again? YOu are blind to reality, and obviously don't understand the concept of NAIRU. You don't seem to care that we have been in full employment for the last 13 years, and the economy is stronger now than it has been in over a decade. Incomes are higher, tax revenues are up, and people are doing well, despite what the Bush-haters wish.

Why do you think that full employment at higher wages is a bad thing?

 

If you have 100 workers, and the bottom 5% make 10,000 per year, with everyone else making 100,000 per year. Then, the next year, the bottom 5% make 11,000 per year, and everyone else makes 200,000 per year, guess what? The bottom 5% will be paying less in taxes, as a percentage, than they did the year before, even though their incomes rose.

 

Now that's a regressive tax!

 

And guess what? The disparity between incomes just grew.

The rich got richer and the poor got poorer (adjusted for inflation).

 

The rich get richer because they spend their money wisely. The poor get poorer because they are not willing to do what it takes to get ahead. They are not victims. And it is not the tax payers responsibility to see that they do better.

 

Not in the example given by HoG which I quoted in my reply.

Bit of a kneejerk reaction there. :laugh:

 

Every place I've ever lived. Anchorage doesn't tax them, but I've never lived there, and they don't tax anything.

 

Actually, the rich got a richer, the middle class got a lot richer, and the poor got a little richer.

Since when has a disparity of incomes been an indicator of poverty, and since when has a disparity of incomes been a bad thing in and of itself?

 

Words of Iron, Revmitchell, words of iron.

 

There was no middle class in your own example - there was the 5% and the 95%. I guess I shouldn't mind your not reading my posts very well as it seems you don't even get your own. In this case - which you set up - the rich (relative to the 5%) doubled their incomes while the poor (relative to the 95%) increased their incomes by 1% - since 95% of your example increased their incomes by 100%, do you think that inflation will go up or down?

I used the terms 'rich' and 'poor' to distinguish between the top 95% who all made ten times the amount of the bottom 5% at the start of your example and more than eighteen times more at the end.

I didn't study economics like you did, so tell me, is 'poverty' defined absolutely or as some percentile of the whole?

Who said it was?

 

Knee jerk? I dont get it.

I just made a matter of fact statement. No real emotion or agenda to it.

PS. I did not get that from Rush Limbaugh

 

All I did was use an imaginary example to show how the bottom 5% could end up paying more taxes, while making more money, and still pay less in taxes as a percentage. I wasn't building an economic model of Sims or something.

And yes, "poverety" is generally defined absolotely at any given time, although that absolute is based on numbers that are fluid in accordance with the cost of living, and not as a percentile. IOW, how much does it cost to provide basic food, clothing, and shelter?

 

I'll explain - by kneejerk, I meant an (almost) involuntary reaction to a stimulus. My statement "The rich got richer and the poor got poorer ..." (which you seemed to be responding to as you used the key words "richer" and "poorer") was in reference to the example HoG gave, which I quoted in my reply. In the example, there was no mention of spending wisely, of the bottom 5% not being willing or even of victimizations, just of disproportionate salary increases (100% vs 10%) leading to disproportionate taxes from one year to the next.

No emotion, I agree, but an agenda, yes! You made up, or added, all the part about victims, spending and unwillingness that just were not in the example. Why would you add those, if you had no agenda, no automatic assumptions (the rich are wise, the poor are unwilling)?

 

I did that 3 pages ago. So?

I think you don't get the concept of "absolote"....

:laugh: Make fun of my spelling?:laugh:

 

Because it is true. I must correct myself. It was an agenda.

 

Not in the example given....