HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » hfojvt » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Hometown: South - Carolina and Dakota
Home country: Oz
Current location: Kansas
Member since: Mon Nov 15, 2004, 04:30 AM
Number of posts: 37,573

Journal Archives

Reagan didn't really raise the cap

Here's the history of it


You see the cap was increasing even before Reagan, although it was flat from 1937-1950.

The real value of the cap in 2013 dollars increased from $73,165 in 1980 to $88,544 in 1988, but it was also growing before Reagan, being just $62,324 in 1974.

The real thing Reagan did was increase the payroll tax, it was 6.13% in 1980 and 7.65% by 1990 (although some of those increases may have come from laws passed before Reagan was President) and the tax increase on the self-employed was huge. Those job creators saw their tax rate go from 8.1% in 1980 to 15.3% by 1990, almost a 90% increase, and on top of the increases in the cap. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/taxRates.html

"those earning a mere $200,000 to $500,000"

Is he serious? A MERE $400,000 a year? MERE?

A MERE $280,000 a year? MERE? 50% of taxpayers make less than $35,000 a year. So $200,000 is not "mere".

Those are the people who SHOULD be paying higher taxes - because they have most of the money.

In 2008, the top 0.1% had 10% of all AGI, the top 1% had 20% of it, and the top 10% had 46%. The bottom 50% had only 13%.

So, it looks like this
top 0.1% - 10%
top 0.9% - 10%
top 9% - 26%
next 40% - 41%
bottom 50% - 13%

Collectively, the top 9% has more money that the top 1%

I am NOT saying that the top tax rate shouldn't be much higher, or that the top 1% shouldn't pay more in taxes.

But you cannot give $666 billion in tax cuts to the top 1% (like Obama just did when he made most of the Bush tax cuts permanent) and also give $1.7 trillion to the top 19% and then say "the problem is ALL with the 1%" like that fucking $1.7 trillion is just chump change.

Again, here is a clue for the top 20% - quit looking up at the top 0.1% and feeling poor. Look down at the bottom 80% and realize YOU are rich. That maybe YOU can pay another $1,800 a year in taxes and that money could be used to fund food stamps or unemployment benefits for people much less fortunate than you.

In fact, the top 20% is a very, very big part of the problem. They favored the Reagan tax cuts - because they themselves got decent money from it. THEY also (most of them) favored the Bush tax cuts, AND favored keeping most of them permanent. They wanted to keep getting their slice of the $1.7 trillion. In fact, I am quite sure that most of them would rather impose the chained CPI on the rest of us before they would give up their share of the $1.7 trillion.

Things are more stacked against the bottom 70% than they are against the bottom 99%. Remember the $1.7 trillion.

no, it was in his 2nd term

I was just being sarcastic, because that is always the excuse conservadems use when one of their sell-outs betrays the working class and gives big bonuses to the rich, then they say "but, but, but, he/she needs to be re-elected."

Here's CTJ's analysis of it. A tax hike for the bottom 20% and 46.4% of the benefits going to the richest 5% and 77.9% (!!!) going to the richest 20% http://ctj.org/html/desc97.htm

well I decided to look at the last decade

here are the colas http://www.ssa.gov/cola/automatic-cola.htm

2001 - 3.5%
2002 - 2.6
2003 - 1.4
2004 - 2.1
2005 - 2.7
2006 - 4.1
2007 - 3.3
2008 - 2.3
2009 - 5.8
2010 - 0
2011 - 0
2012 - 3.6

so $1.000 a month has grown to $1,361.14 a month by 2012.

Now some might think that is a huge growth, and think that if it was reduced to $1,300 that that would not really be a "cut". Because, after all $1,300 is still more than $1,000.

But that is not what really happens. Consider, for example, the price of gas. In 2000, gas was selling for, let's say $1.25 a gallon. (I think it was less, but it was increasing from the low of 89.9 in late 1999 and I remember it increased just in time to hurt Gore in the election even though it was probably higher than $1.25 when Clinton was elected in 1996. I remember that too, because it was right when I bought my 2nd car in 1996 and gas was about $1.30.

Anyway, that $1,000 in 2000 would buy you 800 gallons of gasoline. By 2012, $1,000 would only buy about 300 gallons of gasoline.

The same is true, although I cannot remember prices, of things like bread and milk and any number of other items. Some items held steady. For example, I remember buying a Trek bicycle in 1990 for about $300 and then a new one in 2002 for $300 and then another one in 2004 for $275 (because they had a sales tax holiday)

So $1,300 in 2012 would only be equivalent, in general, to $975.03 in 2000. http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=1300&year1=2012&year2=2000 If the COLA does not keep up with inflation, then you are going backwards even as the nominal value of the check goes up, the real (non inflation) value is going down.

However, it does appear that past COLAs for Social security have been beating the rate of inflation. At least for the period from 2000-2012. The $1,000 growing to $1,361.40 beats the inflation rate of $1,333.3. Or, put another way, the real value of $1,361.40 in 2000 dollars is $1,021.11.

But the COLA has probably not been keeping up with the increasing costs of food, gasoline and medicine.

I've posted this video probably half a dozen times

including twice during the primaries.

Obama "I've been very clear on this"

Go to Page: 1