Fuck its silent in here.......

[thehawk]

A bunch of stuff purporting to show how terrible and unfair the economy is and how it's all Bush's fault

I'm sure if I quoted the Heritage Foundation or Cato I'd be ridiculed, so I will generically ridicule you for using data from the CBPP, which exists mainly to promote the idea that the US economy is unfair and needs to have massive redistribution forced upon it.

Now, with that out of the way: income distribution statistics that compare income buckets that don't take into account income mobility are misleading at best.  As an example, I was in the bottom quintile for the first few years of my career post-college, and I'm in the top quintile today.  I'm pretty sure that would not be captured in the CBPP's data.  Thomas Sowell elaborates here: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/ArticlePrint.aspx?id=517564

In terms of statistical categories, it is indeed true that both the amount of income and the proportion of all income received by those in the top 20% bracket have risen over the years, widening the gap between the top and bottom quintiles.

But Internal Revenue Service data following specific individuals over time show that, in terms of people, the incomes of those particular taxpayers who were in the bottom 20% in income in 1996 rose 91% by 2005, while the incomes of those particular taxpayers who were in the top 20% in 1996 rose by only 10% by 2005 — and those in the top 5% and top 1% actually declined.

While it might seem as if both these radically different sets of statistics cannot be true at the same time, what makes them mutually compatible is that flesh-and-blood human beings move from one statistical category to another over time.

Morph, interesting way of looking at things. But the question I have is what has happened to the Middle Quartiles? 

[Also, I would still prefer "only" a 10% raise from a top 20% base top to a doubling of my near- poverty level wage.]

[R-V]

A bunch of stuff purporting to show how terrible and unfair the economy is and how it's all Bush's fault

I'm sure if I quoted the Heritage Foundation or Cato I'd be ridiculed, so I will generically ridicule you for using data from the CBPP, which exists mainly to promote the idea that the US economy is unfair and needs to have massive redistribution forced upon it.

Now, with that out of the way: income distribution statistics that compare income buckets that don't take into account income mobility are misleading at best.  As an example, I was in the bottom quintile for the first few years of my career post-college, and I'm in the top quintile today.  I'm pretty sure that would not be captured in the CBPP's data.  Thomas Sowell elaborates here: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/ArticlePrint.aspx?id=517564

In terms of statistical categories, it is indeed true that both the amount of income and the proportion of all income received by those in the top 20% bracket have risen over the years, widening the gap between the top and bottom quintiles.

But Internal Revenue Service data following specific individuals over time show that, in terms of people, the incomes of those particular taxpayers who were in the bottom 20% in income in 1996 rose 91% by 2005, while the incomes of those particular taxpayers who were in the top 20% in 1996 rose by only 10% by 2005 — and those in the top 5% and top 1% actually declined.

While it might seem as if both these radically different sets of statistics cannot be true at the same time, what makes them mutually compatible is that flesh-and-blood human beings move from one statistical category to another over time.

Another question - any idea if that IRS study controlled for age? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but is it possible that those who were in the bottom 20% were mostly younger people (who would logically show big increases in earnings over their first 10 years or so of employment) and the top 10% was mostly older people whose income jumps flatten as they are already established?

[Chuck to Chuck]

So... for all of you out there... Where should the marginal rates be? Should you pay more or less in federal income taxes? State income taxes? Capital gains taxes? Property taxes? Sales taxes? Estate taxes?

Because the economy is not static, how can you effectively measure the effect of any change in tax rates on tax receipts? I tend to agree that the tax cuts probably didn't maximize revenues, but I don't want my government maximizing its revenues (at the point of a gun, I may add). I want it minimizing expenses.

I really don't care how you take my slice.  I'm willing to pay my fair share.  I think the deal we have here in the US is awesome: We'll give you the ability to earn as much as you want without limitation and provide defense, police, fire, schools and roads in exchange for $0.50 of every dollar you make.  I don't think there's another place that offers such a good deal as that.

What I want back from the other side is pretty much this: Don't engage in social engineering via tax policy.  Figure out how much you need for defense, police, fire, schools and roads and charge me.

The purpose of taxes should be to fund government, not to encourage me to do certain things.

Am I willing to give up my tax credit for my mortgage?  Yes.  For my property taxes?  Yes.  For my kids?  Yes.

What do I want back?  How about no debt for my kids to have to be taxed to repay.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

A bunch of stuff purporting to show how terrible and unfair the economy is and how it's all Bush's fault

I'm sure if I quoted the Heritage Foundation or Cato I'd be ridiculed, so I will generically ridicule you for using data from the CBPP, which exists mainly to promote the idea that the US economy is unfair and needs to have massive redistribution forced upon it.

Now, with that out of the way: income distribution statistics that compare income buckets that don't take into account income mobility are misleading at best.  As an example, I was in the bottom quintile for the first few years of my career post-college, and I'm in the top quintile today.  I'm pretty sure that would not be captured in the CBPP's data.  Thomas Sowell elaborates here: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/ArticlePrint.aspx?id=517564

In terms of statistical categories, it is indeed true that both the amount of income and the proportion of all income received by those in the top 20% bracket have risen over the years, widening the gap between the top and bottom quintiles.

But Internal Revenue Service data following specific individuals over time show that, in terms of people, the incomes of those particular taxpayers who were in the bottom 20% in income in 1996 rose 91% by 2005, while the incomes of those particular taxpayers who were in the top 20% in 1996 rose by only 10% by 2005 — and those in the top 5% and top 1% actually declined.

While it might seem as if both these radically different sets of statistics cannot be true at the same time, what makes them mutually compatible is that flesh-and-blood human beings move from one statistical category to another over time.

If you're gonna ridicule me for quoting the CBPP's use of CBO data, I'm gonna mock you roundly for quoting Thomas Sowell, who's just plain retarded.

Better for everyone's sanity to actually point to the study that (I presume) he's referring to itself:

http://www.treas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf



(And my point above wasn't so much to decry income inequality in general as to point out how we built a huge deficit on the Bush tax cuts even as the gap between upper and lower income levels continued to widen.)

[morpheus]

A bunch of stuff purporting to show how terrible and unfair the economy is and how it's all Bush's fault

I'm sure if I quoted the Heritage Foundation or Cato I'd be ridiculed, so I will generically ridicule you for using data from the CBPP, which exists mainly to promote the idea that the US economy is unfair and needs to have massive redistribution forced upon it.

Now, with that out of the way: income distribution statistics that compare income buckets that don't take into account income mobility are misleading at best.  As an example, I was in the bottom quintile for the first few years of my career post-college, and I'm in the top quintile today.  I'm pretty sure that would not be captured in the CBPP's data.  Thomas Sowell elaborates here: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/ArticlePrint.aspx?id=517564

In terms of statistical categories, it is indeed true that both the amount of income and the proportion of all income received by those in the top 20% bracket have risen over the years, widening the gap between the top and bottom quintiles.

But Internal Revenue Service data following specific individuals over time show that, in terms of people, the incomes of those particular taxpayers who were in the bottom 20% in income in 1996 rose 91% by 2005, while the incomes of those particular taxpayers who were in the top 20% in 1996 rose by only 10% by 2005 — and those in the top 5% and top 1% actually declined.

While it might seem as if both these radically different sets of statistics cannot be true at the same time, what makes them mutually compatible is that flesh-and-blood human beings move from one statistical category to another over time.

Another question - any idea if that IRS study controlled for age? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but is it possible that those who were in the bottom 20% were mostly younger people (who would logically show big increases in earnings over their first 10 years or so of employment) and the top 10% was mostly older people whose income jumps flatten as they are already established?

I'd say it's likely that you would observe younger people in the bottom quintile and older people in the top quintile in any given year; the IRS data is for 25-and-older, I believe.  I don't think that would change my conclusion that income quintile statistics such as those used by the CBPP are misleading because they don't take this into account.

I also found a University of Michigan longitudinal study (the Panel Study of Income Dynamics) that I'm just starting to dive into.  Here's an interesting study that uses its data.

http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/ppdp/2004/ppdp0403.pdf

[morpheus]

A bunch of stuff purporting to show how terrible and unfair the economy is and how it's all Bush's fault

I'm sure if I quoted the Heritage Foundation or Cato I'd be ridiculed, so I will generically ridicule you for using data from the CBPP, which exists mainly to promote the idea that the US economy is unfair and needs to have massive redistribution forced upon it.

Now, with that out of the way: income distribution statistics that compare income buckets that don't take into account income mobility are misleading at best.  As an example, I was in the bottom quintile for the first few years of my career post-college, and I'm in the top quintile today.  I'm pretty sure that would not be captured in the CBPP's data.  Thomas Sowell elaborates here: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/ArticlePrint.aspx?id=517564

In terms of statistical categories, it is indeed true that both the amount of income and the proportion of all income received by those in the top 20% bracket have risen over the years, widening the gap between the top and bottom quintiles.

But Internal Revenue Service data following specific individuals over time show that, in terms of people, the incomes of those particular taxpayers who were in the bottom 20% in income in 1996 rose 91% by 2005, while the incomes of those particular taxpayers who were in the top 20% in 1996 rose by only 10% by 2005 — and those in the top 5% and top 1% actually declined.

While it might seem as if both these radically different sets of statistics cannot be true at the same time, what makes them mutually compatible is that flesh-and-blood human beings move from one statistical category to another over time.

If you're gonna ridicule me for quoting the CBPP's use of CBO data, I'm gonna mock you roundly for quoting Thomas Sowell, who's just plain retarded.

Better for everyone's sanity to actually point to the study that (I presume) he's referring to itself:

http://www.treas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf



(And my point above wasn't so much to decry income inequality in general as to point out how we built a huge deficit on the Bush tax cuts even as the gap between upper and lower income levels continued to widen.)

Sowell is a retarded guy who has written textbooks on economics.  Shoah.  (If we're going to talk about retarded economics pundits, I think Paul Krugman would easily win out in that contest.)  And my point is that the second half of your statement "even as the gap between upper and lower income levels continued to widen" is misleading, because income distribution statistics ("top quintile vs. bottom quintile") do not tell you that somehow "inequality rose" for the reasons that I have illustrated above.

[Bort]

To be fair, Texas is proving that retarded people really can write textbooks.

[Eli]

Krugman is a retarded guy who has won the Nobel Prize in Economics.  Shoah.

[morpheus]

Krugman is a retarded guy who has won the Nobel Prize in Economics.  Shoah.

Krugman's early work on trade, which is how he won the Nobel prize, is excellent.  However, since he became a columnist I think "retard" fits him better than "economist."

[CT III]

Just send Sowell and Krugman over to Switzerland to beat up Roman Polanski.  Problem solved.

[morpheus]

Just send Sowell and Krugman over to Switzerland to beat up Roman Polanski.  Problem solved.

Damnit, will you sign the "Jetsons Shit Pledge" already?

[Bort]

Just send Sowell and Krugman over to Switzerland to beat up Roman Polanski.  Problem solved.

Damnit, will you sign the "Jetsons Shit Pledge" already?

THI

[CT III]

Just send Sowell and Krugman over to Switzerland to beat up Roman Polanski.  Problem solved.

Damnit, will you sign the "Jetsons Shit Pledge" already?

Consider it done, as long as Bort will sign my pledge to reinstitute hilarious anachronisms.

[Bort]

Just send Sowell and Krugman over to Switzerland to beat up Roman Polanski.  Problem solved.

Damnit, will you sign the "Jetsons Shit Pledge" already?

Consider it done, as long as Bort will sign my pledge to reinstitute hilarious anachronisms.

Consarn it, I reckon I'm hornswaggled. I'll scrawl my "Bort Q. Public" on the pledge.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Just send Sowell and Krugman over to Switzerland to beat up Roman Polanski.  Problem solved.

Damnit, will you sign the "Jetsons Shit Pledge" already?

Consider it done, as long as Bort will sign my pledge to reinstitute hilarious anachronisms.

Consarn it, I reckon I'm hornswaggled. I'll scrawl my "Bort Q. Public" on the pledge.

Now let's move on to the Rob Liefeld question... Yea or nay?