HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » hfojvt » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2


Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Hometown: South - Carolina and Dakota
Home country: Oz
Current location: Kansas
Member since: Mon Nov 15, 2004, 03:30 AM
Number of posts: 37,402

Journal Archives

"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"

Happy St. Patrick's Day

There is no "a place".

"I would ever feel welcomed in a place that considers me a pedophilia enabler,"

the "place" does not consider anything or believe anything. There are 47 star members who have me on ignore and 49 blocking PMs from me, and yet "the place" does not have me on ignore - only many of the members do. Some members say some things and they may even get dozens of recs for saying it, but that is not a statement from "the place". Just an opinion of some of the people who post here.

The place does not agree 100% on anything.

Except maybe that the Jets still suck. There IS widespread, nearly unanimous agreement on that.

fiscal cliff deal gives $1.3 trillion in tax cuts to richest 5%

tell me again how Republicans lost?

First of all, don't shoot the messenger.

I am just relaying the results of two reports from Citizens For Tax Justice

The first one shows that the betrayal (err, the "deal" was NOT a tax increase, it was a tax CUT


If all of the Bush tax cuts got extended that would have been a tax cut of $3.9 trillion.

Since only 85% of the Bush tax cuts were extended it means a tax cut of $3.3 trillion. Add to that the $369 billion in estate tax cuts which the White House is calling an increase in the estate tax. The total is $3.7 trillion in tax cuts.

We are supposed to cheer because the top 1% is gonna pay another $600 billion in taxes.

Okay, fine, but how is the $3.7 trillion in tax CUTS divided up.

That is in the next report http://ctj.org/pdf/bidenmcconnelldistribution.pdf Read it and weep.

The bottom 60% gets just 19% of the tax cut.
The same amount as the richest 1% gets.
The top 20% gets 65% of the tax cut - $2.4 trillion over ten years.

Say hello to more income inequality. $2.4 trillion in tax cuts for the top 20%. $700 billion in tax cuts for the bottom 60%. Plus $124 billion in recovery act credit provisions. Is still only $800 billion for the bottom 60%

Oh well, maybe those tax cuts to the top 20% will trickle down to the rest of us.

And we in the bottom 60% are supposed to believe that Obama is on OUR side? That the Democratic Party is on OUR side?

They will claim to be, but $2.4 trillion vesus $800 billion shows that claim is a lie.

Was it the best they could do? They did not even OFFER anything better to the American people. Our false choice was - keep 78% of the Bush tax cuts or keep 100% of them. No elected offical - not Tammy Baldwin, not Elizabeth Warren, not Dennis Kucinich, not Alan Grayson, not Sherrod Brown, not Sheldon Whitehouse, not Bernie Sanders, not Al Franken. None of them ever used their position to demand - let's keep ZERO percent of them and aim tax cuts at the bottom 60%.

All of those supposed progressives are apparently owned by the richest 20%.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2