1979 tax burden = bottom 40% paid 50% of the tax

StormanNorman · #41 (**permalink**) 12-23-2007, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tokenconservative

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

Hi Tokie,

Explain to me how my numbers are "cooked up"....just curious. In fact, explain to me how I came up with the numbers I did.

StormanNorman · #42 (**permalink**) 12-23-2007, 03:35 PM

For those of you who are interested (including Tokie), attached is a graph that shows the percent of disposable income owned by the top 1%, 5% and 10% of the population from 1979 to 2003.

Tokenconservative · #43 (**permalink**) 12-23-2007, 06:54 PM

Now that the Christmas...oops! HOLIDAY (I don't wish to offend!) is out of the way, where were we....?

Oh, yeah...StorminPanties: these are wonderful statistical models to use in the abstract. In real-world terms, using real dollars and something a bit beyond your apparent pay grade, they tell only the base story, and then only in the most abstract terms.

More concrete numbers demonstrate quite clearly that in fact, Americans' avg. income has risen sharpely since 1979, and this rising tide has yes, unfortunately in your view, has lifted all boats, poor and the horrible "rich" as well. More importantly, as prices in the real world have fallen sharpely (this includes everything from shoes and groceries to energy and housing) real dollar incomes have steadily and at times with what to you would be alarming speed, risen.

Sorry that that does not comport very well with your Keynesian view, but there it is, nonetheless.

We can divide the pie up in the abstract, any way we like. Shaving off a sliver here and one there saying "well, we do it this way to meet our predetermined conclusion that the "poor" (another very abstract and transitory term, and one that has NO meaning in economic theory) and the "rich" (ditto) are gettin "poorer" (an out an out fabrication) and the "rich" are getting "richer." While this last is indeed true, they are not getting richer any faster than the "poor" are, nor at any greater rate (an actual term in economics and an important one here) than anyone else in the US, any way.

So, slice your holiday pie as you will, Panties...and sit back, sated and stuffed in the satisfying knowlege that the US economy is headed down the toilet...if we don't save our selves by electing truly enlightened and economically masterful leaders in the upcoming election.

It worked so very, very well with Carter, I am sure it will work this time, too!

Tokie

Tokenconservative · #44 (**permalink**) 12-23-2007, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

For those of you who are interested (including Tokie), attached is a graph that shows the percent of disposable income owned by the top 1%, 5% and 10% of the population from 1979 to 2003.

I'm not interested unless YOU can talk about it. What, by the way is "disposable income" and can you tell me which notable economist identifies that as a working term in economic theory?

Tokie

StormanNorman · #45 (**permalink**) 12-23-2007, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tokenconservative

Now that the Christmas...oops! HOLIDAY (I don't wish to offend!) is out of the way, where were we....?

Oh, yeah...StorminPanties: these are wonderful statistical models to use in the abstract. In real-world terms, using real dollars and something a bit beyond your apparent pay grade, they tell only the base story, and then only in the most abstract terms.

Hi Tokie,

When it comes to statistics and data analysis, nothing is above my paygrade.

I will use real dollars when necessary. For example, in the other thread you started asking when has raising taxes helped the economy, I converted everything to FY2000 dollars. Why? Because I was comparing GDP growth from one year to the next.....and one has to account for inflation. However, when you are trying to determine the wealth distribution for a given year, you do not need to convert to real dollars. You could convert it to real dollars, current year dollars, year 1800 dollars, stones, etc. guess what, Tokie.....you're going to get the same answer....are you not?

Quote:

More concrete numbers demonstrate quite clearly that in fact, Americans' avg. income has risen sharpely since 1979, and this rising tide has yes, unfortunately in your view, has lifted all boats, poor and the horrible "rich" as well. More importantly, as prices in the real world have fallen sharpely (this includes everything from shoes and groceries to energy and housing) real dollar incomes have steadily and at times with what to you would be alarming speed, risen.

Sorry that that does not comport very well with your Keynesian view, but there it is, nonetheless.

The numbers I computed in my previous post show that the wealth in our country is becoming less and less evenly distributed over time....and has been doing so at least since 1979 and probably before that. Now, the total pie is getting bigger from one year to the next, but the way it is being sliced is becoming more and more uneven. Do you agree or disagree with that, Tokie? And even after taxes based on our progressive tax system, the "after tax" pie is being sliced more and more unevenly....do you agree with that, Tokie? That is what those numbers in that IRS spreadsheet show us. Now, are the bottom 40% better off in 1979 or in 2003? Since I am comparing different years, now I should use a common monetary measurment. From the spreadsheet, this group had a maximum earnings of $21.6K per year in 1979 and $20.2K in 2003. There are 40% more people in this group, but their real income as a group increased by 26%....again, in real dollars, Tokie. So, no, they are not doing as well. In other words, the economy has become much stronger since 1979, but they aren't seeing much of the fruits of that.

Quote:

We can divide the pie up in the abstract, any way we like. Shaving off a sliver here and one there saying "well, we do it this way to meet our predetermined conclusion that the "poor" (another very abstract and transitory term, and one that has NO meaning in economic theory)

No predetermine conclusion here, Tokie....I'm a professional researcher, buddy. But, like I said, you are free to run the calculations yourself and see what you get....I'm curious.

Quote:

and the "rich" (ditto) are gettin "poorer" (an out an out fabrication) and the "rich" are getting "richer." While this last is indeed true, they are not getting richer any faster than the "poor" are, nor at any greater rate (an actual term in economics and an important one here) than anyone else in the US, any way.

This is an incorrect statement, Tokie. First, see what I wrote two paragraphs up...and second, if the wealth becomes more and more unevenly distributed, then the higher brackets are going to benefit more so than the lower brackets....that's just simple math, buddy. Now, if the economy really goes gangbusters, all the brackets may benefit...but, again, if the rich are getting bigger and bigger peices of the pie....they are going to benefit more.....simple math.

Quote:

So, slice your holiday pie as you will, Panties...and sit back, sated and stuffed in the satisfying knowlege that the US economy is headed down the toilet...if we don't save our selves by electing truly enlightened and economically masterful leaders in the upcoming election.

It worked so very, very well with Carter, I am sure it will work this time, too!

Conclusions: The wealth in this country is becoming more and more unevenly distributed. And second, the rich pay higher tax rates....but, they are still getting a larger and larger share of the after-tax pie.

StormanNorman · #46 (**permalink**) 12-23-2007, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tokenconservative

I'm not interested unless YOU can talk about it. What, by the way is "disposable income" and can you tell me which notable economist identifies that as a working term in economic theory?

Tokie

I don't know, Tokie....it's just a term that I'm using to describe "after income tax (federal)" income. That should be pretty clear in what I have written at this point.

StormanNorman · #47 (**permalink**) 12-23-2007, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tokenconservative

1) More concrete numbers demonstrate quite clearly that in fact, Americans' avg. income has risen sharpely since 1979, and this rising tide has yes,

2) unfortunately in your view, has lifted all boats, poor and the horrible "rich" as well.

Hi Tokie,

The first statement above is actually correct. The average individual's total income increased by ~30% from 1979 to 2003....and that is in constant/real dollars, Tokie. However, you have to be careful when using averages, Tokie. An average can be heavily influenced by a small number of data points that may act as outliers. It doesn't usually reflect the entire or even most of the population. The 30% increase was not true for most Americans. FYI, the median is typically a better and more stable statistic in situations like this.

2) Your second statement is provably false. See the attached graph. After-tax income levels for the bottom 40% of the population is almost the exact same as it was in 1979. They have not shared in the benefits of that economic growth from 1979 to 2003. However, the top 5%, 10% and 20% have seen an increase in their after-tax income of about 40 to 50%; and the top 1% have seen a 135% increase.

So, your "lifting all boats" statement is not quite true; in fact, it is false.....pass the word among your conservative brethren, dude.

Tokenconservative · #48 (**permalink**) 12-24-2007, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

Hi Tokie,

The first statement above is actually correct. The average individual's total income increased by ~30% from 1979 to 2003....and that is in constant/real dollars, Tokie. However, you have to be careful when using averages, Tokie. An average can be heavily influenced by a small number of data points that may act as outliers. It doesn't usually reflect the entire or even most of the population. The 30% increase was not true for most Americans. FYI, the median is typically a better and more stable statistic in situations like this.

2) Your second statement is provably false. See the attached graph. After-tax income levels for the bottom 40% of the population is almost the exact same as it was in 1979. They have not shared in the benefits of that economic growth from 1979 to 2003. However, the top 5%, 10% and 20% have seen an increase in their after-tax income of about 40 to 50%; and the top 1% have seen a 135% increase.

So, your "lifting all boats" statement is not quite true; in fact, it is false.....pass the word among your conservative brethren, dude.

Actually, the second statement is true also. For some reason we use real dollars in the first one but skip all that difficult nonsense for the second one?

Why is that Stormy?

We also ignore the fact that, provably (find a graph if you want) the cost of living in 1979 was substantially higher than it is now. And wages were, in real dollars....lower! But before you sputter and harumph around that, tell me this: assuming what I just said is true what would that mean for Joe Average and his income?

Tokie

Tokenconservative · #49 (**permalink**) 12-24-2007, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

I don't know, Tokie....it's just a term that I'm using to describe "after income tax (federal)" income. That should be pretty clear in what I have written at this point.

I did not say it was not "clear." I asked you to tell me what majore economic theory/theorist uses it.

You need to read what I am saying, not what it is you WANT me to say.

It's a marvelously refreshing approach!

Tokie

Tokenconservative · #50 (**permalink**) 12-24-2007, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

Hi Tokie,

When it comes to statistics and data analysis, nothing is above my paygrade.

I will use real dollars when necessary. For example, in the other thread you started asking when has raising taxes helped the economy, I converted everything to FY2000 dollars. Why? Because I was comparing GDP growth from one year to the next.....and one has to account for inflation. However, when you are trying to determine the wealth distribution for a given year, you do not need to convert to real dollars. You could convert it to real dollars, current year dollars, year 1800 dollars, stones, etc. guess what, Tokie.....you're going to get the same answer....are you not?

The numbers I computed in my previous post show that the wealth in our country is becoming less and less evenly distributed over time....and has been doing so at least since 1979 and probably before that. Now, the total pie is getting bigger from one year to the next, but the way it is being sliced is becoming more and more uneven. Do you agree or disagree with that, Tokie? And even after taxes based on our progressive tax system, the "after tax" pie is being sliced more and more unevenly....do you agree with that, Tokie? That is what those numbers in that IRS spreadsheet show us. Now, are the bottom 40% better off in 1979 or in 2003? Since I am comparing different years, now I should use a common monetary measurment. From the spreadsheet, this group had a maximum earnings of $21.6K per year in 1979 and $20.2K in 2003. There are 40% more people in this group, but their real income as a group increased by 26%....again, in real dollars, Tokie. So, no, they are not doing as well. In other words, the economy has become much stronger since 1979, but they aren't seeing much of the fruits of that.

No predetermine conclusion here, Tokie....I'm a professional researcher, buddy. But, like I said, you are free to run the calculations yourself and see what you get....I'm curious.

This is an incorrect statement, Tokie. First, see what I wrote two paragraphs up...and second, if the wealth becomes more and more unevenly distributed, then the higher brackets are going to benefit more so than the lower brackets....that's just simple math, buddy. Now, if the economy really goes gangbusters, all the brackets may benefit...but, again, if the rich are getting bigger and bigger peices of the pie....they are going to benefit more.....simple math.

Conclusions: The wealth in this country is becoming more and more unevenly distributed. And second, the rich pay higher tax rates....but, they are still getting a larger and larger share of the after-tax pie.

I agree that you can mess with the pie in any number of statistically valid ways, but not so much when it comes to the real world.

For example: can you think of anything that has had an impact on the pie since 1979 that would tend to skew the "slices" (more to "the rich" less to "the poor")? I can. Do your models take this factor into account or do they dismiss it because it is fairly ephemerial?

I can take a stab at that one, too.

In any case, your Keynesian model fails to take into account that no, in fact, "wealth" is not static, and so the pie, whether measured in dollars, pounds, Euros or rocking chairs has actually turned into something more like a mult-tiered wedding cake with 2 inch-thick frosting.

In short, your model is outdated and has been so thoroughly repudiated by now, it's laughable.

Time to update the resume, Stormy....

Tokie