Chart of the Day

Please you played ark twice
Lsu spanked Arizona twice and Arizona state, you'll never see us brag about that.

Why did the SEC get the majority of blue chippers?
 
Topspin said:
Please you played ark twice
Lsu spanked Arizona twice and Arizona state, you'll never see us brag about that.

Why did the SEC get the majority of blue chippers?
Click to expand...

We played Arkansas one year they were in the SEC Championship game. They were good when we played them. Not the Arkansas of this year.

You get the blue chippers because like the Democrats you pay out the best benefits.
 
And wealthy people didnt get the biggest break for the money they earned?

They pay income taxes too right?
 
evince said:
And wealthy people didnt get the biggest break for the money they earned?

They pay income taxes too right?
Click to expand...

ok... now you are switching back to individual income taxes. Like then, the wealthy pay the bulk of the total income taxes. So when you have tax cuts, they are going to get more dollars back. Typically when you give money to the most successful people, they are going to invest it in the most efficient manner. This is not to say that ALL wealthy people are successful or efficient.
 
But they have not been doing that have they.

Its there own income not the corporate money they would direct to corporate investment right?

Its money they would save and live off of.

That is why raising taxes on someone who makes more than 250,000 a year is reasonable here.
 
Superfreak said:
What do you think this chart is telling us Desh?
Click to expand...


That the source of the income of the .01 top percent has changed over the years.

Their income has increasingly come from incomes for running their corps.

Dividend income is down greatly and to replace the loss of income over the years the .01 percent have relied on the Huge bonus packages they give themselves for running their corps.

Performance doesnt matter they still get huge packages.
 
midcan5 said:
What sort of society do we want? A third world nation where the top 5% own the wealth of the nation, or one in which everyone has an opportunity? Republicans work for a third world nation, and since Reagan have done a good job, democrats and intelligent republican presidents, I include Eisenhower and Nixon, want a prosperous society where everyone has a piece of the pie they rightly own as citizens.

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-richmerit.htm
http://www.conservativenannystate.org/
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR25.5/simon.html

"What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."

Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book I Chapter VIII
Click to expand...

This was debunked several times back on FP, yet you continue to repost it ad nausium. You get the purple duncecap for the day...
 
evince said:
No the fact that the tax rates were very low and then we had an economic metldown.

why the correlation?
Click to expand...

Actually the stock market crash and meltdown occured in 1929 not 1928. But have determined why we had a great depression when he had sky high tax rates?
 
Look the the chart , the taxes were low for a couple of years before the crash.

It seems low taxes dont keep the economy safe but Good regulations do.
 
evince said:
But they have not been doing that have they.

Its there own income not the corporate money they would direct to corporate investment right?

Its money they would save and live off of.

That is why raising taxes on someone who makes more than 250,000 a year is reasonable here.
Click to expand...

LMAO... you seriously need to read your own chart desh... take a look at what that is really telling you....

It shows that dividend income, rental income and investment income all declined as a percentage of their total income. Their wages went up and their ENTREPRENUERIAL Income went up. 36% of their income comes from investing in new ideas/products/services.
 
It went up by 5% historically.

the others also decline by small amounts.

The real shocker is the dividend income gets reduced from 40% of their income to single digits if I'm remembering correctly.
 
Last edited:
evince said:
That the source of the income of the .01 top percent has changed over the years.

Their income has increasingly come from incomes for running their corps.

Dividend income is down greatly and to replace the loss of income over the years the .01 percent have relied on the Huge bonus packages they give themselves for running their corps.

Performance doesnt matter they still get huge packages.
Click to expand...

Desh, what percentage of your husbands income comes from wages/bonuses/options/retirement plan?

Just because they are getting a larger percentage of their income from wages doesn't mean anything other than that. You ignore that the other area that went up was the Entreprenuerial income. Why is that desh?

Because if you raise their overall taxes... which area do you think is going to get cut? Ya think it might be the money they invest in entreprenuerial investments? (ie things that create new jobs)
 
evince said:
It went up by 4% historically.

the others also decline by samll amounts.

The real shocker is the dividend income gets reduced from 40% of their income to single digits if I'm remembering correctly.
Click to expand...


Did you ever stop to think that the reason the wealthy didn't have as much wage income back then is because the bulk of the wealthy was old money families that really didn't WORK??? Or that they paid themselves in dividends from family run companies?

You never stop to think about things like that Desh, you just assume the worst and pretend that must be what it is.
 
wages up from 14% to 49%

Dividends 40% to 7%

Entreprenuer 31% to 36%

Iterest 10 to 6%

Rental prop 5% to 3%


There is a real reason I concentrated on the wage and dividend numbers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top