Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    Wondergirl's Avatar
    Wondergirl Posts: 37,910, Reputation: 5430
    Jobs & Parenting Expert
     
    #61

    Feb 16, 2020, 04:45 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    Learn how to read, Clete. I didn't say it was not fair. Think a little. Tal is the one who is questioning the fairness of the tax system.
    At least I'm not the only one JL puts down. :(
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 3,324, Reputation: 154
    Well & Pump Expert
     
    #62

    Feb 16, 2020, 04:50 PM
    I prefer to say "corrected". He needed to be corrected. You frequently need to be corrected. I don't mean that to be insulting. You brought the subject up. I have little patience with someone who purports to represent the teaching of the Bible, but then cannot support her professions in any way and cannot respond to any counter points. It is too important to be treated so casually.
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,250, Reputation: 10853
    Expert
     
    #63

    Feb 16, 2020, 05:03 PM
    You correcting peple? My turn to laugh. You have to say something that's correct first. No worries I'm PATIENT!
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 3,324, Reputation: 154
    Well & Pump Expert
     
    #64

    Feb 16, 2020, 05:23 PM
    Says the man who did not know what "median" meant and had to be corrected by you know who.
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,250, Reputation: 10853
    Expert
     
    #65

    Feb 16, 2020, 05:32 PM
    Your definition is incorrect, your data is faulty and incomplete and you know who fails again. Hey are we going to trade insults the rest of the evening? Naw I don't thinks so, so for a few hours here you get the last word. How you managed to be the most insulting person on this forum is quite obvious.
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 3,324, Reputation: 154
    Well & Pump Expert
     
    #66

    Feb 16, 2020, 06:33 PM
    Your definition is incorrect, your data is faulty and incomplete and you know who fails again.
    You would be much more honorable if you simply admitted being wrong. What is it about you guys and making things up?
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,705, Reputation: 172
    Ultra Member
     
    #67

    Feb 16, 2020, 06:52 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    Says the man who did not know what "median" meant and had to be corrected by you know who.
    get over it you used the incorrect statistic, median doesn't mean average, and it rarely accurately approximates the average in an imperfect world
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 3,324, Reputation: 154
    Well & Pump Expert
     
    #68

    Feb 16, 2020, 07:33 PM
    I did not say it meant average. Can you not read at all? It has been discussed to death here that median means the middle value and not the average. An average income would be less desirable to use since large increases in the income of the wealthy would slant an average, so median income was the exactly correct stat to use. It's been around for decades and is frequently used to compare years to each other.
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,705, Reputation: 172
    Ultra Member
     
    #69

    Feb 16, 2020, 09:28 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    I did not say it meant average. Can you not read at all? It has been discussed to death here that median means the middle value and not the average. An average income would be less desirable to use since large increases in the income of the wealthy would slant an average, so median income was the exactly correct stat to use. It's been around for decades and is frequently used to compare years to each other.
    Only if you want to distort the facts, you want to compare incomes, compare the quartiles, then you will know what the top earns in comparison to the bottom

    Here is the comment attached to the median graph it shows the opposite in meaning to that which you projected
    U.S. economic growth is not translating into higher median family incomes. Real GDP per household has typically increased since the year 2000, while real median income per household was below 1999 levels until 2016, indicating a trend of greater income inequality.
    [11]
    Who is guilty of not being able to read now. By the way jl how many economic subjects did you take when gaining your degrees, I took several in the course of my career
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 3,324, Reputation: 154
    Well & Pump Expert
     
    #70

    Feb 17, 2020, 04:30 AM
    Only if you want to distort the facts, you want to compare incomes, compare the quartiles, then you will know what the top earns in comparison to the bottom
    I would if that was what I had been wanting to do, speaking of comparing income levels. That can be a valid conversation, but it was not what we were talking about. I was simply showing Tal that people in the United States are generally better off now than 30 years ago, and that is clearly true. If you will look at that graph, then you will see that median income is significantly higher than it was in 1990 which was my point of comparison. The comment you zeroed in on looked at the year 2000 and the sixteen years following, but did not include the past three years which DO show income growth relative to 2000. So I read quite well. The notation you highlighted was accurate but changed nothing concerning what I was saying.

    You know, you have a burr in your saddle about something. I really don't care what it is, but it's clouding your thinking. My stat was correct and used properly. You'll just have to find something else to complain about.
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,250, Reputation: 10853
    Expert
     
    #71

    Feb 17, 2020, 04:50 AM
    Let's stay here because even you acknowledge that the faster growth of the rich relative to that median was unfair, and that's the essence of the data analysis. To identify stuff in relationship to other stuff. Instead of rationale dialog on the DATA you provided we get this stupid ideological rant about who knows what median means. Talk about dumbing down the conversation, I was waiting for a scripture quote to bolster your position. Heck guy we couldn't even constructively examine the case pro or con that YOUR data showed!

    I didn't make that up either, before you give me your latest fall back refrain. Now if that makes you feel attacked or insulted, think for a minute what anyones reaction be to disdain and personal criticism, and yeah that's coming from the guy you called the most insulting member of the forum by the guy who regularly insults EVERYBODY.
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 3,324, Reputation: 154
    Well & Pump Expert
     
    #72

    Feb 17, 2020, 05:10 AM
    Drink another cup of coffee, Mr. Trump..er, Tal. Calm down. Man, you guys can get so worked up. Sometimes I think you must never talk with anyone else who refuses to go along with your liberal world view. If you don't want to be known as insulting and uncivil, then maybe you should take at look at your post directly above and ask yourself if it could be characterized as "uncivil" and "insulting".

    And one more time, I have not said that the faster growth of the rich is "unfair". I said it is probably not wise for too much wealth to become concentrated in the hands of a few super wealthy persons. Now as to what to do about it, that's a tough problem. I imagine that when the market goes through a cycle of correction, which it will, and the DJA drops fifteen or twenty percent in a month, then that will take care of much of it.

    Heck guy we couldn't even constructively examine the case pro or con that YOUR data showed!
    What prevented you from discussing it?
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,250, Reputation: 10853
    Expert
     
    #73

    Feb 17, 2020, 05:36 AM
    but I would agree that the growth in income of the top 5 or 10% relative to everyone else is not a good thing.
    And one more time, I have not said that the faster growth of the rich is "unfair". I said it is probably not wise for too much wealth to become concentrated in the hands of a few super wealthy persons. Now as to what to do about it, that's a tough problem.
    I respectfully submit it's not that tough to identify a solution, a simple tax code adjustment fixes that right up by stopping the bottleneck of CASH flowing one way, at blinding speed, thus increasing circulation in a controlled and targeted way that allows a greater cash infusion into the economy by consumers rather than government or corporations. It also lessens the NEED to HELP so many and put them on a good orderly direction to becoming consumers and good product citizens. You calculate the savings yourself at reducing poverty from the bottom up, not by demanding strict and harsh requirements, but a doable path to self reliance based on skills that increase opportunity.

    Increasing the circulation flow from the bottom up also has the benefit of addressing guys like you who are forced to give money for someone else that you so incessantly beetch about, and it doesn't hurt the rich AT ALL!

    The tough part is getting elected officials to get off their arses and actually do it, as opposed to the legalized stealing we are now subject to. That how to make America great again, by turning hundreds of thousands of poor people into CONSUMERS AND 1st class contributing citizens.
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 3,324, Reputation: 154
    Well & Pump Expert
     
    #74

    Feb 17, 2020, 05:42 AM
    I'm not sure why you have my two quotes above other than to show I did not say the situation was "unfair"???

    I respectfully submit it's not that tough to identify a solution, a simple tax code adjustment fixes that right up by stopping the bottleneck of CASH flowing one way, at blinding speed, thus increasing circulation in a controlled and targeted way that allows a greater cash infusion into the economy by consumers rather than government or corporations.
    I think what you are suggesting is that we go to the upper income people, who already pay 88% of the income tax, and ask them to pay even more so the feds can then give it to lower income people. Is that correct? If so, how do you suggest we address the continuing trillion dollar budget deficits? Do you suggest we continue to borrow at the current pace, or would you suggest we use that increased revenue to narrow the deficit?

    Now you said you wanted to discuss these things, so I'm asking discussion questions in what is hopefully a civil and non-insulting manner.

    A little info to chew on.


    • "The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent)."

    https://taxfoundation.org/summary-la...a-2018-update/
    Vacuum7's Avatar
    Vacuum7 Posts: 47, Reputation: 2
    Junior Member
     
    #75

    Feb 17, 2020, 06:26 AM
    This "FAIRNESS" stuff has to stop: Life is UNFAIR. Its even Biblical that there will be rich and there will be poor: You aren't changing that with any degree of government regulation or taxing. The dichotomy of the left's arguments and rails against the rich are that as long as these "RICH" are liberals, they are O.K....but if they don't cotton to the left's lean, these "RICH" are bad.

    Please: This is not Obama's Economy anymore....the guy has been gone, out of the White House since January '17! Obama is old news! This is Trump's Economy, he owns it, for good or for bad.

    Trump's Economy is doing wonders and we all know it.
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 3,324, Reputation: 154
    Well & Pump Expert
     
    #76

    Feb 17, 2020, 07:07 AM
    I would agree in part on that. The issue to me is not so much fairness as legality and availability. Are rich people breaking the law to become rich? In most cases that does not seem to be the case. Can anyone become rich if he/she is willing to put the hard work and discipline into it? For the most part I think it is "yes" to that, though people with serious mental or physical limitations are likely left out. I've known a few people in my life who have become wealthy. They all worked hard at it and would laugh at the concept of a 40 hour work week. It is more like fifty or sixty or seventy hours a week and being "on call" at all times. I don't envy them one cent.
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,250, Reputation: 10853
    Expert
     
    #77

    Feb 17, 2020, 07:15 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    I'm not sure why you have my two quotes above other than to show I did not say the situation was "unfair"???

    I think what you are suggesting is that we go to the upper income people, who already pay 88% of the income tax, and ask them to pay even more so the feds can then give it to lower income people. Is that correct? If so, how do you suggest we address the continuing trillion dollar budget deficits? Do you suggest we continue to borrow at the current pace, or would you suggest we use that increased revenue to narrow the deficit?

    Now you said you wanted to discuss these things, so I'm asking discussion questions in what is hopefully a civil and non-insulting manner.

    A little info to chew on.


    • "The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent)."

    https://taxfoundation.org/summary-la...a-2018-update/
    Good questions and thanks but my whole point was to slow the cash flow going up, and increase circulation to the rest and turning cash flow into the bottom sectors of people into CONSUMERS and CONTRIBUTERS to the coffers and yes the options and opportunities for economic growth takes on a whole new meaning with what can be done with the added revenue of half the population. That's why I included what you said in my post, not as anything other than a point of possible agreement.

    It's just a logical thing to EXPAND the macroeconomy for a more efficient long term outcome. You wouldn't have to borrow from anyone to do anything, so with no debt to service by adding half the country to the tax paying rolls this country can pay the bills and maybe go to the moon for vacation. LOL, rich guys wouldn't be paying most of the taxes either which would be okay with you I'm sure.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vacuum7 View Post
    This "FAIRNESS" stuff has to stop: Life is UNFAIR. Its even Biblical that there will be rich and there will be poor: You aren't changing that with any degree of government regulation or taxing. The dichotomy of the left's arguments and rails against the rich are that as long as these "RICH" are liberals, they are O.K....but if they don't cotton to the left's lean, these "RICH" are bad.

    Please: This is not Obama's Economy anymore....the guy has been gone, out of the White House since January '17! Obama is old news! This is Trump's Economy, he owns it, for good or for bad.

    Trump's Economy is doing wonders and we all know it.
    Did I mention parties or politicians? I was hoping you saw the value of transcending both for the end goal of accomplishing something for everybody.
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,250, Reputation: 10853
    Expert
     
    #78

    Feb 17, 2020, 07:21 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    I would agree in part on that. The issue to me is not so much fairness as legality and availability. Are rich people breaking the law to become rich? In most cases that does not seem to be the case. Can anyone become rich if he/she is willing to put the hard work and discipline into it? For the most part I think it is "yes" to that, though people with serious mental or physical limitations are likely left out. I've known a few people in my life who have become wealthy. They all worked hard at it and would laugh at the concept of a 40 hour work week. It is more like fifty or sixty or seventy hours a week and being "on call" at all times. I don't envy them one cent.
    Everybody isn't going to be rich like the 1% no matter how hard you work, so why should you work 2 or 3 jobs to be poor? Oh yes the working poor are a bigger part of the landscape than the 1% by a lot. Big difference between working hard and spinning your wheels since the goal should be an economy that works for EVERYBODY.
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 3,324, Reputation: 154
    Well & Pump Expert
     
    #79

    Feb 17, 2020, 08:08 AM
    Everybody isn't going to be rich like the 1% no matter how hard you work, so why should you work 2 or 3 jobs to be poor? Oh yes the working poor are a bigger part of the landscape than the 1% by a lot. Big difference between working hard and spinning your wheels since the goal should be an economy that works for EVERYBODY
    .You cannot work three jobs and be poor. I'm not saying you will drive BMW's but you won't be poor.
    Good questions and thanks but my whole point was to slow the cash flow going up, and increase circulation to the rest and turning cash flow into the bottom sectors of people into CONSUMERS and CONTRIBUTERS to the coffers and yes the options and opportunities for economic growth takes on a whole new meaning with what can be done with the added revenue of half the population. That's why I included what you said in my post, not as anything other than a point of possible agreement.

    It's just a logical thing to EXPAND the macroeconomy for a more efficient long term outcome. You wouldn't have to borrow from anyone to do anything, so with no debt to service by adding half the country to the tax paying rolls this country can pay the bills and maybe go to the moon for vacation. LOL, rich guys wouldn't be paying most of the taxes either which would be okay with you I'm sure.
    I'm not sure what you are suggesting. It's sounds like you want to increase taxes on the lower half ("by adding half the country to the tax paying rolls"). Bear in mind that you have to come up with a trillion extra dollars. As of last year, personal income taxes only brought in 1.4 tril, so you have to increase that by 75% just to balance the budget, and that assumes you don't crash the economy by doing that. So I'll have to ask again specifically what you are proposing, especially the part about how you will " increase circulation to the rest and turning cash flow into the bottom sectors of people into CONSUMERS and CONTRIBUTERS to the coffers." How do you propose that be done?
    Vacuum7's Avatar
    Vacuum7 Posts: 47, Reputation: 2
    Junior Member
     
    #80

    Feb 17, 2020, 09:08 AM
    Talaniman: O.K., you are correct about transcending the politics of it all and keying-in on what is good for all people. I just don't think the broad-brush approach of hanging all our problems on the "RICH" is the correct approach. As jlisenbe has stated, most of the RICH got that way honestly...and if you have a problem with how they work their taxes, then we need to change laws: they are legally working with what the tax laws ALLOW them to work with and around in terms of loopholes.

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

Trump Foundation Sued, Trump A Crook - NY Attorney General [ 19 Answers ]

Blatant illegal dealing by the "art of the deal" self-proclaimed "genius". First there was the fraudulent Trump University which Colludin' Donald had to pay $25 million to settle. Now it's the equally fraudulent Trump Foundation that the New York Attorney General is suing. This...

"If Trump Shot Comey", Trump's Lawyer Giuliani's Latest Bizarre Hypothetical [ 24 Answers ]

As the Republican Party rapidly changes America into a Banana Republic, Trump's lawyer sinks into absurdity after absurdity. In an attempt to assure that Trump is above the law and cannot be prosecuted, interviewed, or any way hindered in any way he does not wish to be hindered, the unhinged...

Prepare a Budgeted Income Statement, Cash Budget, Sales Budget/Cash Collections, Purc [ 1 Answers ]

The CEO of Kingston Cart Inc. asked the Chief Financial Officer to prepare a Master Budget for the next three months, beginning July 1, 2010. The company's policy is to maintain a minimum cash balance of $6,000 at each month end. Sales are forecasted at an average selling price of $70 per cart....


View more questions Search