And in case anyone is interested, this is what happens when we chart the annual percentage change in REAL household income for each 20th percentile and the top 5 percent of income earners:


http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u...meselected.jpg

now that's no fair, Will. Using facts....geez. :D

And now here is that SAME EXACT DATA, but instead of percentage change for each percentile, in Real DOLLARS:


http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u...omedollars.png


THIS is why income gap is such a misleading and worthless statistic for the purposes of measuring well-being of the middle or lower classes or their progress.


We get a distortion effect, with each percentile's function getting progressively smoother, straighter, and closer to the horizontal axis as we go down the income brackets.

Gotta love people who quote government statistics when it suits their cause & then turn right around & claim things like "the government is manipulating the unemployment numbers" or insert whatever the *cause of the day* is. :D do we trust government data or not? which is it? this movement is proof that not everyone buys into the "who cares what the CEO's & corporations make." this movement proves people are tired of company officers making stupid sums of money while the so called services they provide get worse & more expensive. it's time to bring back the tax rates that provided the robust economies history clearly shows us we had when the wealthy were made to pay their fair share. :yesnod:

you don't really believe that do you? these corporations have the best tax lawyers money can buy. they aren't paying anywhere near that. as for the bottom 50% - they are people that live paycheck to paycheck, one disaster away from total ruin. do you think the term "tax shelter" was invented by one of them? :D

I deleted my first post (apparently not in time) to give updated numbers.

Let's take a look at that by the numbers.

Top 1% = 20% of AGI, 30.2% of total income tax paid, at an average rate of 23.27%
Top 5% = 34.73% of AGI, 58.72% of total income tax paid, at an average rate of 20.70%
Top 25% = 67.38% of AGI, 86.34% of total income tax paid, at an average rate of 15.68%

On the otherhand...

Bottom 50% = 12.75% of AGI and only 2.7% of the total income tax collected at an average rate of only 2.59%


So please... define "their fair share".

so, you think the boom of the 1950's when tax rates were at 91% under Eisenhower was just a fluke? :waiting:

Those are the numbers reported by the IRS. Not by the news media, not by journalists, but the raw data from the IRS. ...and I never said anything about corporations but that was a nice try.

Long story short. They do pay their "fair share" but that's not enough in your mind. You think that you should tax the shit out of the rich to pay for the poor.


EDIT:

Like I said, look at the numbers for the individuals that was posted (verify if you would like) and then please define what you mean by "fair share". Of course I don't expect you to. I'm expecting that instead you will change the subject again to corporations or something else.

You think the economic boom of the 50s was caused by the tax rates???

Wow.

no. I think when corporations are heavily taxed they tend to invest in their companies for tax advantages instead of sitting on their wealth like they have been doing. surely you know how that relates to economic growth. here's a link regarding regressive tax- Middle Class Impact » Our Regressive Income Tax :cheers:

Your premise goes directly against every viable economic theory around. Think guns and butter. It's the most basic thing in econ.

wow....you must be a real speed reader. I'm still reading that 1800 word article. :seeya:

It's an article written on a liberal website by a liberal from a liberal point of view. I can find plenty more like it and I can find equally as many with a conservative point of view that don't agree at all. What's your point?

The simple fact is this. You believe that the rich should be taxed to the point that they support the poor. That is what is "fair" in your mind.

RIF.

I was commenting on your belief about taxes and corporations.

my point is just because it was written by a liberal doesn't mean it's not factual & highly informative. just "shoot the messenger" went out centuries ago. :seeya:

What "boom" ??? This is a MYTH. Average annual REAL GDP growth under Eisenhower was a mere 3%. Things seemed "Golden" because ANYTHING is Golden compared to World War and Depression. In 1950 and 1951 only, we experience a short boom (Truman was still in office) as we recovered from the 1945-1949 recession (that's right, in addition to the great depression, new deal economic policy managed to get us into a slump AGAIN immediately after the war). During Eisenhower's term, we experience big growth in 1955 and 1959 only, with the remaining 6 years added in giving us an average of only 3%. Lower than during the Kennedy/LBJ admin, the Reagan admin, hell, even the Carter admin.

For comparison, the number rose to 4.9 % during the 8 years of Kennedy/Johnson.

Under Kennedy/LBJ, BTW, we reversed course, cut taxes, and looked to the private sector to promote economic growth. Eisenhower's administration was the first peace time and non depression time test of New Deal tax and economic policy. It proved inferior, however to give credit where credit is due the highway construction under Eisenhower WAS a fantastic idea. But the emphasis on govt. as the driver of economic expansion stifled that expansion.

BEA National Economic Accounts

But it certainly doesn't mean that it IS factual and informative either.

yeah I should have included the LBJ/JFK years. ok...that's fine with me. let's go back to their tax rates. :beer: http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y22.../ike-years.gif