Hi satv,

Originally, I was just correcting and then adding information to Gix's original point. I believe there is a misconception amoung some of our brethren on the right that the tax/income situation for those in the higher income brackets is getting worse and worse....and unfairly so. The numbers I provided shows you that that is clearly not the case....just the opposite. Think of it as information, satv....free information via StormanNorman.

Well, I am a member of the AWE Socialists Unite Society where my responsibility is to make sure there is enough beer (and wine for Sam) at our meetings....

__________________
The Lone Ranger of the AWE liberal elitists.....who was that masked man???

And now, I'm the Elitist of liberal Elitists...

LOL!

Nice try, again....the reality is that taxes were higher for all brackets in 1979, there wasn't even an "earned income credit." Moreover, gross income in real dollars was far, FAR lower on a per-capita basis then, than it is now, while costs for everything were much higher.

So again...you can compare apples to Soviet era Zir sedans if you want, and I will continue to point out that that's what you're doing, comprende, amigo?

No...what a silly closing question...of course you don't. You are a socialist and things in real terms mean nothing to you.

Tokie

Here's the difference, howmsoever:

Nobody save a few extremist nutcase "libertarians" is in favor of a return to Laissez Faire capitalism, that's what permitted the depressions of both the 1880s and the one in the 30s. Those on THIS side of economics believe in LEARNING from mistakes and trying to make things better. Which is why a depression is simply not possible today, despite all the wishing for one libs have been doing.

Socialists-libs-progressives-(or for the few brave enuff to admit it: communists) believe that if they just repeat the same failed economic policies over and over enough times, eventually something will happen to cause them to work.

This is one definition of insanity.

Of course, different socialists have different definitions for "success." Your elites see success as their gaining/returning to power and that power becoming absolute as theyempoverish more and more people, forcing more and more people to turn to an ever more onerous and intrusive government for sutenance. As a street-level socialist, you believe this sounds like paradise. You will be relieved of any responsibility for your own well-being and will be relieved of virtually all need to think at all.

You believe that living like a chicken in a barn, your only jobs being to eat and shit until the day of slaughter, sounds like a good deal!

Tokie

Hi Tokie,

Before we move on, you do understand what I was saying in my response to your statement, "You understand that the numbers of people IN the top earning brackets are FAR greater today than they were in 1979 right?" You do understand that this statement was mathematically...well, pretty stupid,... right?

As far as your statement above, I'm not sure how that discredits the information I provided. It is pretty clear, Tokie, that the wealth distribution in this country is becoming more and more uneven. In 1979, the after-tax Gini Coefficient was 0.439; in 2001, it was 0.534.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03strudl.pdf



Now, that hurt, Tokie....I was thinking of inviting you to our next AWE Socialist bash....but, not anymore....

__________________
The Lone Ranger of the AWE liberal elitists.....who was that masked man???

And now, I'm the Elitist of liberal Elitists...

So then you admit that some socialistic elements are required to maintain an improving situation for all. Good start Tokie...

I knew you were a closet comrade....

You simply can't have a complex society and economics system like ours any other way.

Please point out where any RATIONAL and MODERN conservative believes otherwise? A link--LIIIINNKKKKKKKKK!!!--will suffice.

There are just some things government has to do:military, roads, social services (yes, SOME are required...not to the level you would like to see: all of us on the government payroll).

So too there must be SOME regulation of business. Again, no rational, modern conservative believes otherwise, and you can name one who does.

On the other hand, there is no middle ground for your kind: government must be responsible for everything from cradle to beyond the grave. If there is a problem ONLY government can fix it no matter how big or small. Government must be relied upon to be all things including employer for all.

This is your view. My view makes sense. Yours is communism with all the wonderful things that go with that: Gulag, secret police, the thump of jackboots on the steps in the middle of the night, being "disappeared," repression, opression, the erasing of all civil rights...

Time for YOU to admit it.

Tokie

Hi, StorminPanties:

Um, gee...no, I guess I don't understand how that statement is mathematically silly.

Let's see:
Significantly greater population now than 1979, significantly larger economy today than in 1979,
significantly more more people working in that economy today than in 1979,
prices are significanly lower today, in real dollars, than in 1979,
more people earn more in real dollars in today than in 1979,
and pay less in taxes than in 1979....

Gee, I guess my public edjamakashun fails me! Howz it again that with these things being true more people are earning less in real dollars today than in 1979?

Oh, and the fact that "the poor" experienced something on the order of 40% growth in earnings over the last decade while "the rich" saw only something on the order of 10% gains...yeah, that sure proves your (again) conflated, cherry-picked stats.

Try again Panties.

And you really wouldn't want me at one of your parties. I'd bet all the babes. Even the ugly ones that're usually all that's left over for you.

Tokie

There you go....and the change is still going towards a greater inclusiveness for more, rather than less, but progress comes only slowly

FYI, the shit at the end of your post that I cut out has been a problem in some capitalist nations as well....

Economics is only one part of whole

So all the "libs" and "cons" name calling is just bullshit in the end....

Hi Tokie,

Yeah, so what does this have to do with the stats I gave you earlier?? Those stats were independent of the size of economy, population, prices, etc. My numbers were based on percentiles....and the slice of the pie available for each....the size of the pie has no bearing on those numbers....understand? The table began at 1979....the fact that it's 1979, 1969, 1959, or whatever, how does that change the observed wealth distribution trends?
Huh Tokie....where did you get this from? No offense, but after your last mathematical display, I think you are going to have to explain this "analysis" to me. BTW, Tokie, if you look at the spreadsheet, in current dollars....in 1979, the bottom 40% maxed out at $21.6K income per year....in 2003, it was $20.2K per year. On the other hand, the low end of the top 1% was $109.7K per year in 1979; in 2003, it was $177.8K per year. Now, how did you come up with your numbers, Tokie?? Remember...math is your friend.
Nah, I think I'll let you take a shot at it this time, Tokie....it's all right there in spreadsheet format in the link I provided. Now, if you need any help, don't be shy....just ask.
That's OK, Tokie....they need loving too.

__________________
The Lone Ranger of the AWE liberal elitists.....who was that masked man???

And now, I'm the Elitist of liberal Elitists...

Hi StorminPanties
Provide numbers that are not cooked, and we can talk.

As for my "stats" ...look em up.

Sure, even the ugly ones need lovin...but even they are not desperate enuff for that to turn to you...

Tokie