One chart that shows how much worse income inequality is in America than Europe
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The income share of the poorest half of Americans is declining while the richest have grabbed more. In Europe, it’s not happening.
Income inequality is a growing problem in the United States. The richest Americans have reaped a disproportional amount of economic growth while worker wages have failed to keep pace . And the $1.5-trillion Republican-passed tax cuts from December stand to make the situation worse.
One chart from the 2018 World Inequality Report highlights the unique nature of income inequality in the US compared to other developed regions — namely, Western Europe. And the contrast is stark.
From 1980 to 2016, the poorest half of the US population has seen its share of income steadily decline, and the top 1 percent have grabbed more. In Europe, the same trend can’t be observed.
In 1980, the top 1 percent’s share of income was about 10 percent in both Western Europe and the US, but since then, the two have severely diverged. In 2016, the top 1 percent in Western Europe had about a 12-percent share of income, compared to 20 percent in the United States. And in the US, the bottom 50 percent’s income share fell from more than 20 percent in 1980 to 13 percent in 2016.
The economists behind the report — Facundo Alvaredo, Lucas Chancel, Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman — lay out an explanation of what’s happening:
The income-inequality trajectory observed in the United States is largely due to massive educational inequalities, combined with a tax system that grew less progressive despite a surge in top labor compensation since the 1980s, and in top capital incomes in the 2000s. Continental Europe meanwhile saw a lesser decline in its tax progressivity, while wage inequality was also moderated by educational and wage-setting policies that were relatively more favorable to low and middle-income groups. In both regions, income inequality between men and women has declined but remains particularly strong at the top of the distribution.
The 2018 World Inequality Report was released in December 2017.
To be sure, wealth inequality is a global problem, and ranked among all nations , the United States does better than dozens of countries. But the visualization of how much the switch has flipped on the richest and poorest Americans over the past two decades is stunning.
Vox’s Dylan Matthews in 2017 highlighted research from Pikkety, Saez, and Zucman — three of the researchers behind the World Inequality Report — also examining how much income gains have gone to the super-rich in recent decades instead of the middle and lower class. From 1946 to 1980, the middle class and poor were actually seeing their pay growth outpace that of the rich. But since then, the trend has moved sharply in the opposite direction.
The tax bill is likely to exacerbate wealth inequality in the United States
The economists behind the World Inequality Report explain the divergence between the US and Europe, but there are a number of factors that could be driving income inequality in the US more broadly. Still, it’s unlikely that the GOP tax bill will help. Passed in December, the legislation reduced the corporate tax rate to 21 percent from 35 percent and disproportionately benefits businesses and the wealthy.
According to estimates from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities , the top fifth of earners get 70 percent of the bill’s benefits, and the top 1 percent get 34 percent. The new tax treatment for “ pass-through ” entities — companies organized as sole proprietorships, partnerships, LLCs, or S corporations — will mean an estimated $17 billion in tax savings for millionaires in 2018. American corporations are showering their shareholders with stock buybacks , thanks in part to their tax savings, and have returned nearly $700 billion to investors this year.
Taxes aren’t the only matter in play in income inequality, but they’re part of it. And the tax cuts aren’t helping.
Tags
Who is online
412 visitors
"Land of Opportunity" /s
Flood up, trickle down economics at work. It's the legacy Reagan left us with and something poorly educated Republicans continue to pursue because they all imagine themselves being in the 1% even if it would take winning the lottery to get there. Sure, it doesn't work for the vast majority of Americans, but Republicans will fight to the death to protect the profits for the top 1%.
Please, Reagan hasn't been in office for almost 40 years.
Oddly they also cheer having capitol gains tax cuts which most likely they would never see a benefit from. Something that would benefit mostly the top of the chain.
They somehow believe that giving the top percent greater cuts will automatically rain down on them. What ends up raining down is not any of the wealth.
From the article: "From 1980 to 2016, the poorest half of the US population has seen its share of income steadily decline, and the top 1 percent have grabbed more."
What year was Reagan elected again? Oh yeah, 1980...
So you are going to blame everything on a man who hasn't even been in office for well over 20 years?
That is downright ludicrous, and begs the question:
If it all was so bad, what did any President or Congress do to change it?
Christ, that is akin to giving Kennedy credit for an economy under Clinton.
If you look at the graph it starts at 1980, the year that Reagan was elected. He started this. It's his legacy.
Y'all never fail to amuse!
Like we haven't had a President or different Congresses since then!
LMFAO!!
America is still the land of opportunity.
More millionaires than ever are living in the US - CNBC
https://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/09/more-millionaires-than-ever-are...
Watch video · Since the millionaire population plunged in 2008, the U.S. has gained or added back more than 3.5 million millionaires. The result? There are now more than twice as many millionaire households than there were in 1996.
Everyone agrees that the wealthy are doing very well. It's all other Americans who are getting screwed.
Really?
I go to work every day, I pay my own way, and I pay taxes. Exactly how am I getting screwed?
Kind of missed the point that more and more Americans are becoming millionaires.
And, how are America's poor doing compared to the poor in the rest of the world? Are they really getting screwed if they are doing better than the poor and middle class of Venezuela?
By the way, in 2015 the Pew Research Center said that many American poor would be high income in the rest of the world:
Look at the first chart in the article.
Something that I forgot to mention, since you would have to click on the link to the actual research to get; more Americans are High Income than those in Western Europe. That's right, 56% of Americans are High Income while only 44% of Western Europeans are High Income:
The comparison comes in the 10th chart of the actual published research. It compares the USA to Canada, Western Europe, and Eastern Europe.
How about comparing the U.S. poor to people living in the U.S.? What results to you get then?? People are poor where they are, not to where one can imagine them to be relatively better off! It's called using a true perspective, instead of a broader perspective.
You work hard. You should be better off.
I am fine. I don't need my hand held, and I pay all my own bills. I don't need coddling and being constantly told that the reason I am not richer is because of some big old greedy mean person.
Of course, that's how my folks raised me--to be hardworking and responsible. When I want stuff, I buy it. I work for a living, and feel no shame in that.
A true perspective is that American poor are not being screwed since anywhere else, including Europe, they would be wealthy. Just because you want the blinders on so that a Socialist government similar to what is in place throughout many of the locations that are worse off can be implemented does not mean that our poor are being screwed. That is what any argument saying our poor are screwed is all about: fooling people to LOWER our standards and wealth to be like the rest of the world whom are truly being screwed by their leftist governments into poverty while their powerful politicians keep all the wealth.
I have no idea what this broader perspective is serving to solve. The poor NEAR you do not give a rank rat's butt about the decrepit state of affairs a world away. It is simply a distraction of a serious issue pressing on this country by degrees .
Moreover, why is President Trump so 'hot' to supply farmers with what Senator Ben Sasse (R- Nebraska) called "gold-patched crutches" in the form of $12 Billion dollar aid package whether any one or several farmers choose to take the aid or not? Just wait. . .a proverbial "use it or lose it" mindset will kick in when Trump does not get out of the way with his trade tariffs soon and sufficiently enough:
Tomwcraig, if U.S. farmers are equally, sufficiently, or "abundantly" wealthy compared to their counterparts in Europe, what the. . .heaven is President Trump seeking to cover their losses for?
— Pacifier .
Ummm.......
That's the best you can do for America? In order to defend its crappy treatment of its poor, you have to compare it with Venezuela?
Do you realize that by setting the bar so low, you are basically admitting how badly America treats some of its people?
That is flat-out wrong. That is stupid wrong!
Um, you KEEP missing the point.
More and more Americans are BECOMING wealthy.
SMMFH.
... or maybe YOU are missing the point?
At this point, I just have to assume you are being deliberately obtuse.
have fun!
That really is an interesting question in light of the fact that
I really don't have an answer to income inequality, but I am really concerned about the outrageous amounts of our planet's natural resources that are squandered by the 300+ million people living in the United States compared to the 7 billion people living outside of the US.
How is that wrong at all? We have a greater percentage of wealthy people compared to the rest of the world, including Western Europe. I made the point, I backed up my point and you just have bluster as usual.
Our farmers have been on a subsistent existence for as long as I can remember, and I lived/worked in the dairy industry from 1979 until 2001 with an addition time from 2008 to 2010. It is the ONLY industry where the weather has a true effect on income regardless on which specific part of agriculture you are in. If you are in dairy, you have to also deal with your income being set by the government as well through the Basic Formula Price. It was meant to be a bottom to prevent farmers from being unable to survive, but you never see the changes in the BFP reflected in stores. Take a gallon of whole milk. You can see it in stores for about $3.48. That translates into about $0.44 a pound. Meanwhile, the farmer gets, last time I talked with my mother, around $13.00/hundredweight, which is $0.13 per pound. Out of that $0.13 per pound, farmers have to pay for the shipping costs for the milk to be sent to the processing/bottling facility. That does not include the money going towards feeding the animals, paying employees, following various rules and regulations set by federal, state, and local officials, etc. The people wonder why so many small farms have gone out of business and either sold their land to developers, hobby farmers (my term for those who bought farms for tax write-offs), or larger farms. Even those rule and regulations that are meant to protect small farms have had negative impacts on small farms, like rules for maintenance and upgrades of manure handling systems. My family's farm once had to pay a fine, because a pump failed to work properly and we had a relatively small spill which we notified the DEP in PA of immediately. It is all of this that causes a rise in tariffs on US goods to hurt farmers. So, Trump knowing all this is trying to prevent more farms from going out of business.
And farmers have been eager consumers of federal money for longer than that. This description by Joseph Heller in Catch 22 describes it and a general rightwing attitude toward how and who should get government assistance beautifully:
“His specialty was alfalfa, and he made a good thing out of not growing any. The government paid him well for every bushel of alfalfa he did not grow. The more alfalfa he did not grow, the more money the government gave him, and he spent every penny he didn't earn on new land to increase the amount of alfalfa he did not produce. Major Major's father worked without rest at not growing alfalfa. On long winter evenings he remained indoors and did not mend harness, and he sprang out of bed at the crack of noon every day just to make certain that the chores would not be done. He invested in land wisely and soon was not growing more alfalfa than any other man in the county. Neighbours sought him out for advice on all subjects, for he had made much money and was therefore wise. “As ye sow, so shall ye reap,” he counselled one and all, and everyone said “Amen.”
I'm sorry, what is your point for 'plaining all that? Are farmers not doing as well or better than farmers in Europe? For the record, I am not against farmers getting aid as needed from the collective.
And, that money, which you are railing against is not going to real farmers, but to those people I call hobby farmers like Scottie Pippen, former Chicago Bulls basketball star.
Farmers in Europe have greater subsidies given to them than to our farmers.
Farming would disappear in many European countries if there weren't those subsidies. For them it's a matter of a national security with scarcity of land always a consideration. That is not the issue in this country.
And yet, for WHATEVER reason, subsidies are given out. It is not helpful for me or you to pit farmers against the (working) poor. My point is made. People need aid in this country:people get government assistance in this country!
Compare "apples to apples," in this country!
I very much doubt that claim. But even if so they are far outnumbered by corporate farms and the likes of millionaire politician farmers like Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA). Check his scam out if you dare:
Well duh.
The socialist have turned our youth into a bunch of needy fucks.
Look at the front runners for the DEMS, VOTE for me because I believe in free shit.
Wow!
They did this without ever being in power??
Magic!
come on bob, you know they are in power. in colleges across this country.
acting as if you can not grasp that is disingenuous at best
Do you have any basis for saying this? Or are you just makin' stuff up?
the question is...
do you have any basis to disagree?
if not? move along
cheers
Makin' stuff up...
so no... you can not dispute what I said. are you always so predictable? of course you are.
hint: before you can use thinly veiled insults properly ? the other person has to care what you think.
which I do not.
you? ya just crack me up bob
Lots of healthy room between the top 1% and the bottom 50% here in the US. Not in the top 1% but its still working fine for me and mine. Of course we worked hard for it and didn't expect it to be handed to us.
The EU ...... land of the unfunded liability handout and kicking the can down the road to shit on future generations.
C'est la vie eh?
The average French family has significantly lower revenues than the average American family.
The median French family has modestly higher revenues than the median American family.
Some years ago, a heckler hassled George McGovern. McGovern asked the man if he was very, very rich. The mans said, "No". McGovern asked him if he thought his kids would become very, very rich. The man answered, "No".
McGovern's last question was, "Then why are you defending the privileges of the very, very rich?"
Can you explain WHY you think it's 'healthy' that three is 'lots of room between the top 1% and the bottom 50%'?
Unlike like some folks here i'm not jealous of others peoples success. There is such a big gap because the system allowed it to happen. Largely through innovation. Innovators like Gates, Walton, Zuckerberg and Bezos.
Rather than wailing and gnashing your teeth about it perhaps you could focus that energy on coming up with the next "Facebook" or "Amazon" and then you could join their ranks. Think of all the good works you could do with all that money you could make. Look at all the good works people like Gates are doing today.
Good works that wouldn't be getting done without that "1%."
Yes, and all of Sam Walton's 6 kids are 100 time richer than the Queen of England. for what exactly?
Did they innovate? Did they earn it? Do heads of public corporations earn 10,000 times worker pay?
Should Bill Gates great great great grandchildren necessarily all be trillionaires while poor folk starve?
There is a limited amount of wealth in income. How did 0.1% all people own/earn 99.9% of our pie?
The did not...
For having chosen the right father, obviously....
I know one thing.
Its better than some progressive bureaucrat/social engineer making more arbitrary decisions about other peoples wealth. I can think of few concepts more repugnant than that, regardless of wealth. Most governments already leach too much off their citizens but now you want more?
Nope, not in my book.... I will never agree with that. And I'm not a huge fan of ridiculous management salaries but i'm much less a fan of a "government" making arbitrary, dictatorial decisions regarding the same. Nothing good ultimately comes from that sort of rule. Nothing.
Nowadays, the way wealth is to be shared is decided by the wealthy. Oh surprise! They decide that almost all wealth will go to the wealthy!
That's s-o-o-o-o much better!
That's a lot of keystrokes for a non answer.
You didn't explain why you think it's healthy, you just tried [and failed] to cite a cause for it.
Income inequality didn't start with Gates, Walton, Zuckerberg or Bezos and "innovation" has never been lagging in the US. The fact is that tax breaks for the 80's were the catalyst for the income inequality we see today and the Bush and Trump tax cuts are exacerbating the problem.
I'm not 'wailing and gnashing' my teeth because there are rich people. They put money in my pocket. The vast majority of my work is for rich clients who pay people like me to get my hands dirty and maintain their property while they work in Chicago or DC or take a cruise on the Queen Mary or go to Italy or France or Costa Rica.
I charge them a premium hourly rate so when I do work for lower income people I can charge little to nothing. My octogenarian neighbors have been trying to pay me for my work for over a decade but I don't need their money. I do however accept jars of Spicy Pear salsa the wife and her sisters make every year [from MY pears].
BTW, Walton didn't freaking 'innovate' a damn thing, though his kids HAVE perfected the art of getting localities to subsidize them with tax breaks and infrastructure, then bailing just before the tax breaks expire. It's a neat trick but it's gotten old and people are on to them now.
Oh and one need not be a member of the 1% or even the top 50% to do 'good works'.
And anyone that wants to join them has that opportunity. The next Zuckerberg is working his way up the ladder right now as the bums sit around with their hands out begging for some of what other people are earning.
The Gates aren't leaving their entire fortune to their children - $10 million each - that's still a hefty amount though.
That's all he's got.
Oh please. Let's not pretend that Zuckerberg started at the bottom and worked his way up. Like all so many of these 'self made' men, Zuckerberg started on third base and y'all call it a triple.
What people do with their own money, including giving it to their own kids, is of no business of yours.
Hmmmm that must be why "they" decided to pay the highest taxes as a percentage of total income then eh?
34.1% in 2017.
Whooomp .... there it is
You got an answer. You just didn't like and/or comprehend it.
And a word of advise speaking from experience. Careful who you advertise that to. That is if you charge different rates, for the same services, to different people. The wrong person finds that out and you will get your titty in a wringer. I know, it's happened to us for the same reason you speak of.
You can thank liberal politics for that.
These two things are utterly unrelated.
Actually, there isn't. You don't need somebody else to make less for you to make more.
Who cares how rich the Waltons are? Was it not Sam Walton's money and company?
Why WOULDN'T they be millionaires--like many early Wal-Mart investors?
I don't see why some think they have a right to other people's money.
No. It's why they reduced their taxes last year.
The ideal tax rate for them would be about 65-70%. Maximum revenue without too much discouragement.
I do. Everyone should. The wealth the Waltons hold for no good reason is wealth that others do not hold.
Was it not Sam Walton's money and company?
Yes. So what?
Nope, you didn't answer my question in any way.
Oh I comprehended your comment just fine.
Actually, ALL of my rich clients know damn well that I charge on a 'sliding scale' and are MORE THAN HAPPY to pay my asking price for the services I render. As someone who is trusted with the keys and security code for homes that have Picasso's hanging on the wall, I'm well worth the price.
Actually, I don't think we are talking about the same thing at all.
I am up front and transparent about my pricing practices and I don't 'play favorites'. All of my rich clients pay the same rate, $35-65 an hour depending on the job, whether I like them or not. One guy I'd like to charge $100 an hour but I don't, he's a cranky drunken RICH bastard but I only do spring/fall pruning for him so 2X a year I'll take his $$$.
Now all of my lower income clients are either family friends or people who have been recommended to me by said friends. They need some help with a garden, a deck, a fucked up sink or a counter installed in their kitchen. I help them and they may pay me in $ or in even in trade. One or my neighbors fixes my power tools for free into perpetuity for a job I did for him 8 years ago. Our Vet spayed my dog in trade for a landscape design for her clinic. My octogenarian Jehovah Witness neighbors pay 0 [except for salsa of course]. It all works out, my family gets by.
Since I AM an unabashed liberal, I guess you could blame all of that on my 'liberal politics' if you so desire. I'm just being me.
I wouldn't use Zuckerberg as a model. He basically stole Facebook.
Why do you care what Sam Walton EARNED? His money, his decisions on what to do with it.
Seems like you are jealous of successful people, and want to deprive them that which they have earned.
It should never get to the point where someone makes hundreds of millions of dollars a year without it being heavily taxed.
A 90% tax rate doesnt refer to 90% of everything one earns, it refers to 90% of everything over a certain figure. For example , say that figure is set at 3 million. Everything above 3 million is taxed at the highest rate (whatever the society through their representatives decides is right) Everything below 3 million in income is taxed at a lower rate. Not only is this "fair" , it will happen sooner or later. We dont need to perpetuate an oligarchy in America.
Well, according to you, our society, through our representatives have determined what the correct tax rates are, so why are you looking to get them increased just for certain people?
Despite the fact it matters not one iota to your life.
Except people who have better things to care about. Like who wins "American Ninja Warrior", for example.
That's not how this works.
Okay Sparty On, how many similar self-styled "Facebook" or "Amazon" operations do you wish to seem promulgated. There is a reason why success enterprises "strangle" out smaller versions of themselves. Enough! If the Facebook's and Amazon's of this world, or any such enterprises, want ordinary rank and file workers (who are subject to falling through the cracks) to stop seeking higher wages and benefits, then stop paying them a very small or inadequate amount of money as an allowance or wage: a pittance. (Keep this country's money in proper circulation—coursing through the 'body' of business. Instead of dammed up in store houses for the "admiration" of the wealthy. Who apparently never can get enough of it to be content, I have read).
As it turns out, Facebook was "selling out" its viewership-participants abusively for profit. President Trump seems to think Amazon is overusing the U.S. Postal System, though I can not verify anything Trump states (he is such an enthusiastic liar).
He didn't earn it. His employees earned it. Sam got the money, but he did not earn it.
Spoken like a true Socialist and i couldn't disagree more
Not mine as i don't Facebook. People who do are fully responsible for what Facebook does or doesn't do to them. It is not only on Facebook. I wish i could blame other people for the mistakes i make. That would be great. How do i get some of that?
Not sure how that can happen and i don't think that is what he really said or meant. He intimated that Amazon wasn't getting charged enough for shipping their parcels through the USPS. Which is true since the USPS loses money on their parcel service but i'm not sure how that can happen for only Amazon since as far as i know they get charged the same as anyone else.
That said, it is true the USPS is losing money on most parcel business they do. So if Amazon is their single biggest customer, they ARE losing the most money to Amazon when it comes to their parcel service. Nothing complicated about that.
If Trump was truly concerned about the USPS, he would mandate that all Federal offices use the USPS for their US packages. Ironically, us Fed Ex now, to the tune of over $660 million every year.
Like hell he didn't.
he worked his ass off for it.
He didn't start with a gazillion stores--he started with ONE.
Doesn't matter anyways--HIS MONEY- HIS DECISION WHAT TO DO WITH IT.
Property is theft! - Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
Oh please. Why write such yakety-yak? The point you side-step is this:If some conservatives want ordinary rank and file workers (who are subject to falling through the cracks) to stop seeking higher wages and benefits, then stop paying them a very small or inadequate amount of money as an allowance or wage: a pittance.
Enough of the protracted babble about why the 'rank and file' can't cope. Wages need to go up and the one-percent employers can afford doing it!
You sounds as though you would be MUCH happier in a country without capitalism.
You know, where hard work is rewarded by theft to redistribute to others.
With equal outcomes regardless of personal decisions, training, education, and work ethics.
I don't know of any such country, either today or ever.
Do you always deal in fantasies?
Only when I have to deal with you, only then.
SMMFH and LMFAO!
The Federal Government won't let private business operate endlessly at a loss.
They only afford that luxury to themselves ..... at taxpayers expense mind you .....
Actually, I think their debtors would have more to say about how long they stay in business than the government. If the Government is going to pick 'winners', the least they can do pick the ONLY 'company' that is mandated by the Constitution.
The Federal Government isn't a corporation, it wasn't created to make a profit or to break even.
George Washington, in his farewell address, decried the need for taxation to pay off our war debt and run the country.
Never said it was and its obtuse to intimate that it is that simply. Its not and governments operating at a surplus cane be done, has been done, is done and is clearly more fiscally responsible than operating constantly in heavy debt like we are today. Mortgaging endless future generations as it were.
Individuals can't operate that way. Only governments can and it's no more acceptable long term for governments than it is for individuals.
Easy acceptance of extreme/junk debt is one of the major problems the world has today. It's come crashing down on top of us before and it will again if it isn't brought under control. Take it to the bank. Oh wait, that won't work since the banks will be insolvent and will require bailing out with money that isn't there.
Doh!
So as you can see, 'operating at a surplus' has not 'been done' much and NEVER under a GOP controlled government.
Reagan's 'Trickle Down' [voodoo] economics was the catalyst, by tripling the national debt. Bush went from a 300 BILLION surplus that you so desire to a 1.45 TRILLION DEFICIT that you so decry. That's almost 2 TRILLION in 8 years. The 'fiscal conservatives' cheered, sponsored the Tea Party, and forced 'Sequestering'. All the while decry the 'slow recovery'. Hell they didn't even want to pass a Transportation bill...
So WHY are y'all cheering the GOP who are just rinsing and repeating the SAME BULLSHIT ad nauseam? Deficit spending steadily went DOWN under Obama, and is going UP under Trump. The projections don't even take into account Trump's 12 BILLION bailout to farmers [with more to come for other industries] OR his proposed 1 TRILLION change in 'costing' for capital gains. BOTH of which will ADD to Trump's DEFICIT.
BTFW, WHO created that 'extreme/junk debt' if not the banks and WS? They caused the 'Great Recession' which cost the NATION about $14 TRILLION [90% of the ENTIRE FY 2007 GDP] and whose lasting effect we still see today.
Yawn ......
Surpluses HAVE been done as shown by your own chart. So yes it CAN be done. By the way, save your partisan BS for someone who doesn't know better. Its not just Dem or Rep. Both are a problem. Intimating that it is only one or the other is patently obtuse.
Regardless, near break even is fine as noted but we are not "fine" right now. Just look at your own chart. Speaking of your chart you didn't cite the source. That would be nice to know but assuming it isn't a partisan hack job its pretty obvious you don't know how government spending works on a lot of things.
Money that is budgeted gets used whether its needed in the end or not. Lest they not get that money appropriated again in the next budget. So just because a lot of budgets ended up near neutral, doesn't necessarily mean they were. I liken it to some of my own Service workers. We budget a certain number of hours for each job. Amazingly these jobs rarely come in under hours. They sometimes come in right on hours but more often than not they go over hours. Now if you believe that is coincidence, i have some prime oceanfront property to sell you in the Mohave Desert. Really, its quite nice.
One wonders if you truly believe the shinola you try to peddle each day in here or if its just a basic propaganda gambit. I hope its just the latter and not the former. That latter is bad but not nearly as bad if its the former. That would be scary bad.
I didn't 'intimate' anything. I stated a FACT. NO GOP POTUS has EVER run a surplus.
Since you've already cited it TWICE, it's a little late to question the source.
You could have done your own research and refuted it, yet instead you infer it's a 'hack job'. I'm sure Forbes would take umbrage.
BTFW, if you right click on the image it will lead you to the source. At least mine does...
What in my comment lead you to that ridiculous conclusion?
So when you said:
You actually meant that it 'doesn't necessarily mean they were' REAL surpluses.
So those 'not necessarily' surpluses that you insist 'can be done' are a moot point right? RIGHT?
One thing we know is REAL is the multi TRILLION $ deficit Trump is accumulating.
I realize that facts don't work into your agenda but that won't have any effect on my continuing the practice of posting them whenever I can. In short, your snark is wasted on me just as much as it was on the other venue. The difference is that here you can't ban me from your 'group'.
BTFW, perhaps you can tell me what I would hope to gain from this 'basis propaganda gambit' you speak of?
Facts? Now that is funny. Too late to question a source? Even funnier!
I'm sure they are facts in your head i suppose that's is all that matters for some. It's clear to me that you haven't had a politically unbiased thought go through your head for years .... if ever.
So there is really no point to continuing this conversation as i disagree with you absolutely and completely.
Good day sir/ma'am
The USA....land of the unfunded tax giveaways to billionaires and kicking the infinite debt burden to unending future generations. Hey, a big "thankee" to you for providing the opportunity for the comparison.
Hardly.
Tell that to all the middle class baby boomers collecting SS today who will take out significantly more than they put it. They might disagree with you. And lets be clear, SS in the US is a ponzi scheme created by liberals, not conservatives.
That said, all the EU "Pay as you Go" countries are all MUCH worst off. Time bombs just waiting for the next little financial hiccup to implode completely.
Kablooey! Buh bye EU as we know it today. Yeah buddy!
Just by our sheer numbers, that's high-grade BS. If you're whining because SocSec is going to be insolvent before you can claim any, blame it on the people you vote for who are trying to kill it.
Trying to kill it?
Please do pay attention. SS is going broke all by itself.
Nope, i haven't been counting on SS for decades due to how multiple Presidents and multiple Congresses, Republican and Democrat, have mismanaged their big, fat SS trust fund honey-hole. Anything i might get i will consider be icing on the cake.
So try again if you care to. That attempt was just another complete fail on your part.
Thing is , Soc Sec , was never intended to be a retirement plan , it was only intended to make sure after you retired you didn't starve to death.
Unfortunately a lot of people took it that it was a retirement plan.
I am not one of them.
Wow. that there is a HUGE load of bullshit.
Perhaps SSI should call in the 2,832,803,000,000 the Feds OWE the trust fund as of June and then turn off the spigot.
If SS is so sound financially, then there would be no talk of reducing benefits or raising taxes.
If SSI is so broke, why is it that Trump's budget STILL includes 'BORROWING' from the trust fund?
The SSI trust is the LARGEST SINGLE HOLDER of US debt, far surpassing ANY foreign nation. The HAIR ON FIRE bullshit is about the Federal government not wanting to pay off the IOUs they've been putting in the trust for decades.
Look at the number I posted and that is all you need to know about why they want to 'privatize' SSI. Wall Street wants to get their hands on those $$.
Wouldn't that be a retirement plan?
Sounds like a bad one.
Most people aspire to more than "not starving to death" in their retirement years.
I would like to see a link to that borrowing from the SS Trust Fund.
IF that was the only asperation of a retirement plan someone decided on let them knock themselves out , but it reminds me of the Aesop fable story of the ant and the grasshopper. hint , the grasshopper dies.
when I decided what I wanted to be able to do in retirement when I was younger , I got good financial and investment advice and stuck to it , I wanted to not only be debt free , but if I decided I wanted to spend the bulk of my "golden years" on a beach in the virgin islands oogling sweet young things parading by in next to nothing , I could. doesnt matter if I could catch them or not ,just being able to be a dirty old fart in comfort was high on my priority list when I was younger.
Curiosity is always good. Go look it up, I did.
After all, don't you always up vote your buddies comment when he tells others to do their own homework.
Yep, that's you all right. Practice what you up vote...
I'll give you a hint. It's a treasury # from June 2018.
Of course there would. SS churns a LOT of money, so of course there are lots of (already-rich) people who would like to find a way to skim some of it... maybe like they rip off so much of people's health-care payments.
In order to get their hands on SS, they must first convince the public that there is a problem that must be corrected. Then they will flim-flam the correction to put the money in their own pockets.
im fairly sure the left tried to fund the giveaway to corporations via our mandated for life payments to insurance companies under obamacare.
If left completely alone, SS will still go broke all on its own.
So maybe we shouldn't leave it to go broke...
Seems like many on the left scream like Banshees if anyone even mentions touching SS.
SS is simply unsustainable as is.
We are currently on a deep downward trend of workers to people receiving benefits ratio.
How Many Workers Support One Social Security Retiree ...
https://www.mercatus.org/publication/how-many-workers-support-one...
In the early stages of the program, many paid in and few received benefits, and the revenue collected greatly exceeded the benefits being paid out. What appeared to be the program's advantage, however, turned out to be misleading. Between 1945 and 1965, the decline in worker-to-beneficiary ratios went from 41 to 4 workers per beneficiary.
So inject some money.
Shazaaaam!
Problem solved.
As always. Democrats never met a tax they didn't want to increase!
SMMFH
Money does not grow on trees, and who the hell do you think PAYS into SS?
Yeah man, just print more of that shit up. It's just paper right?
Abolish the failed socialist program problem solved.
Are you against all taxes? If so, then you should be far more upset with the much higher military budget.
If you are not opposed to all taxes, then you should be discussing the advantages / disadvantages of this particular case.
Or perhaps you just want to toss out "clever" phrases...?
I never claimed to be against all taxes--where do you come UP with this crap from?
SS is basically a Ponzi Scheme--it requires more and more "investors" (payers) to pay off the earlier "investors".
Eventually, all Ponzi schemes come crashing down.
And thinking of raising taxes on working class Americans, especially after whining about even a small tax cut, seems very counterproductive.
Tell me how much more a worker making $10 an hour should pay in SS taxes?
Social security = 'socialism' ??
Oh, the fantasies you tell yourselves. Hilarious. Can the SSA just raise its own tax rate?
Yeah, so "failed" that every time the republicans actually talk openly about doing just that public backlash sends them scurrying for cover like cockroaches when the lights go on.
No, they can not raise it on their own. Congress can.
Will Social Security run out
Current predictions indicate that the Social Security trust fund will run out in 2035 if nothing is done. After this point, retirees can generally expect about 75 cents on every dollar of their scheduled benefits. Thats because once the trust fund is depleted, there will be no surplus left.
Social Security Benefits: Will They Be There When You ... - Nolo
www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/social-security-benefits-retirement-32416.html
Seems like a program flush with cash and in good financial health would have absolutely no problem paying what people expect to be paid after contributing to the system for decades.
It seems the word "social" is a trigger word for these jeenyusses.
Yes it is unfortunate to see them move to the left like that. I know many have been opposed to the program since its inception and we have little representation for our stance.
Obtuse.
This could all be avoided by small CoL rises in the FICA rates and lifting the cap on income on which FICA applies.
Fact.
If SS was 100% solvent and assured of staying that way, then it would not be saying that at some point it will not be able to pay out full benefits for people who have paid into it for decades.
Will Social Security be there when you need it? - Bankrate.com
https://www.bankrate.com/retirement/will-social-security-be-there...
The 2014 report from the trustees of the Social Security program estimated that the trust fund reserves will run out in 2034. That means Social Security won’t be …
Is the government able and willing to repay Social ...
www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/commentary/fl-viewpoint-social2...
Social Security does not have the means to pay full benefits, even for the current year. Since 2010, the cost of paying full Social Security benefits has exceeded tax revenue, and the gap is widening at an increasing rate. Each year, the government has to borrow money to fill the gap. Without the borrowing, full Social Security benefits could ...
Trustees: Full Social Security Benefits Will Only Last ...
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/05/31/trustees-full...
Ten years ago, the trustees estimated Social Security would be able to cover benefits through 2042. That does not mean that Social Security will be entirely broke in 2033. Rather, the program would be able to provide around 75 percent of total benefits to recipients after 2033, according to Lew.
Will Social Security Be There For Your Retirement? - Forbes
https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2012/04/23/will-social...
Apr 23, 2012 · The news in the most recent Social Security Trustees’ annual report released wasn't good—the Trustees now project that the old age and disability trust funds combined will be unable to pay full benefits in 2033, three years sooner than projected in last year's report. That’s in 21 years, the ...
Raise the cap and you have to increase benefits.
Here ya go:
Explain.
Do you know how SS benefits are calculated?
... and I never said you were...
I'm sure you have data that you can provide that proves that SS is a failed program. I await your post...
Then please ask someone else asinine questions, and ask me sane ones.
My 2.3.23 is logical and reasonable. You apparently misread it.
Nope, I got it alright.
Asking me if I was against ALL taxes was asinine.
Don't do it again.
Why?
I gave you a "yes" option and a "no" option.
I guess from your non-answer that you don't know how SS benefits are calculated.
here, maybe this will help:
Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) Your SSDI benefits are based on the amount of income on which you have paid social security taxes. Your average earnings are called your Average Indexed Monthly Earnings (AIME). Using your AIME, the SSA will calculate your Primary Insurance Amount (PIA).
Me having to explain it is even more asinine.
Sorry, figure it out on your own.
I don't have time for it.
Fact.
You just went from 'SS will go broke if left to itself' to decrying that it MAY NOT be '100% solvent' whatever the hell THAT means.
Blah, blah, blah, 2012...
I can't help but point out this contradiction. You post a link to an article about the 2013 trustee report and then state:
The FACT is that the SSI Trustees file a report EVERY year. Here is a link for 2017, which is actually the 'most recent' report they filed.
Here is an interesting little tidbit from that report:
Since you pretend that you desire SSI to be '100% solvent', I have a VERY simple solution for you, remove the cap completely. You get your wish and the 'negative' effects are felt by less than 17% of the population while benefiting the rest...
Why? Unemployment doesn't work that way, why should SSI?
Trustees Reports - Social Security Administration
www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
Social Security
Search
Menu
Languages
Sign in / up
The 2018 OASDI Trustees Report
Office of the Chief Actuary
Reading the Report
Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
Index
The 2018 OASDI Trustees Report, officially called "The 2018 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds," presents the current and projected financial status of the trust funds. The report is available in PDF, a printer-friendly format.
Requests for a printed copy of the 2018 Trustees Report may be submitted by filling out our request form.
Related information
Supplemental Single-Year Tables
Trustees Report tables containing 75-year projections show every fifth year. We provide supplemental tables by single year for readers requiring more detail. For many of these tables we also provide historical data. Reference should always be made to the published report for context and explanation of terminology.
Hope 2018 reporting is acceptable to you.
Any program that can not pay promised or expected benefits to enrollees is suspect financially.
I have already shown how SS benefits are calculated.
But feel free to look it up yourself.
Here ya go:
[PDF]
Your Retirement Benefit: How It's Figured
https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10070.pdf
Social Security representative. Factors that can change the amount of your retirement benefit • You choose to get benefits before your full retirement age. You can begin to receive Social Security benefits as early as age 62, but at a reduced rate. We reduce your basic benefit a certain percentage if you retire before reaching full retirement age.
Why? The SSI 'promise' is based on a long term estimate, they don't control the economy and can only 'forecast' future earnings.
In FACT, there is NO guarantee for ANYONE to get a dime from SSI, since the SCOTUS ruled that there is NO contractual obligation to pay SSI benefits.
There are trillions of dollars invested today without a dime of 'guarantee' return. Hundreds of thousands of workers pay into pension plans with NO guarantee of getting what they were 'promised or expected'. States use pension plans to balance their budgets and have ended up screwing workers out of millions. The Federal government is doing the same and there 'solution' is to give the money to WS who LOST 3 TRILLION in the value of 401K's and those funds haven't quite recovered to their pre-recession levels. That is a LOST DECADE of earnings and has created MORE seniors that will rely more heavily on SSI.
That doesn't answer my question about eliminating the cap as a solution.
I can lead you to the answers, but can't make you acknowledge them.
Raising the cap will result in more benefits being paid out, because benefits are calculated in part on what people pay into the system.
I really don't see what is hard to understand about that.
Since 2016, anything over the 'cap' has a 1.00 'index factor' [multiplier]. There is no evidence that the SSI trustees will raise the 'index factor' in the foreseeable future.
If the cap is removed, the 2019 would read -ANY - 1.00 index factor. Easy peasy.
ALL earnings are DIVIDED by the SAME number of months.
In short, your link doesn't prove what you think it does...
Will you get MORE if you contributed more? Yes, yes you will. Nothing changes.
Will it result in more benefits being paid out? Why yes, YES it will. It will also result in MILLIONS MORE coming IN and garnering INTEREST for the Trust fund.
THAT isn't a 'RAISE' in benefits, it's a 'RAISE' in REVENUE from currently untaxed income.
Okay, I am SURE more benefits being paid out will result in more money on the bank for SS.
you betcha!
Removed.
That might be because those "many" are really a tiny minority of the country, often considered crackpots. Social Security is immensely popular in the country all across political lines. Just wait until the next time a Republican brings up the idea of "privatization" (i.e., slow killing) of the program.
just like making everyone pay insurance companies to charge more and give less so they could profit at taxpayer expense,
that is not going to fly.
and those republicans in name only who would do such things to SS? not many are still going to be around after midterms.
besides.. the supreme court has ruled they can not force us to buy insurance.. only the states can do that. (see: auto insurance)
the same thing will happen if they try to force us to pay into a privatized retirement plan... we can not be forced to engage in commerce with private business by the feds. even the irs could not collect the obamacare fine/penalty by force. so I never paid a dime.
cheers
memories....
the priceless look on the HRblock ladies face when I said the answer to that is N/A (not applicable)
she said that is not a valid answer, I said if you want me to pay your bill it is... LOL
According to the Tax Policy Center, the top 5th pay 87% of income tax.
The seed isn't about income tax.
Oh and BTW it's the top 20% that pay 87% of the income taxes.
I'm not sure whether to take this post seriously.
I hope you're attempting to be funny with an intentionally idiotic remark. If so, well done and I'm sorry I didn't catch the joke more cleanly.
If you are being serious....oh dear.
Is 1/5 no longer = to 20%?
I hope he was kidding.
I REALLLLLY hope he was kidding.
If not....holy shit.
It's new Common Core math, where it is the belief of the person answering that makes it so rather than the actual fact of the true result.
I don't believe the poster is one who is inclined to kid around much.
I misread the post. I read it as top 5%. My bad.
BTW, this seed still isn't about the income tax.
In the real word I have been told many times that I should do stand up. I suppose it's my wry sense of humor...
Just going on my personal experience of reading your posts on here.
"Here" is not the real world.
never claimed it was.
"Here" is all I have to go on.
See, I don't pretend to know people I haven't met.
Ah. Well. OK then.
Except for the part where he talks about the Trump tax cuts? You know....the part I quoted?
They also pay almost 100% of capital gains taxes.
In both cases, it's because they get their revenues from capital rather than from labor. They don't "work" for their money; they collect rent.
The tax system favors people who do not earn their money... which is logical since the tax system is designed by people who do not earn their money.
Yet you felt the need to characterize my personality.
Yes.
Utterly idiotic. We're talking about the top TWENTY percent of households. That's about $120k for 2017. Your doctor called. She said to tell you she actually works damned hard for her money. So does your electrician. And your plumber. So does the principal of your local high school, and for that matter so does the married couple down the street who are the HS baseball and softball coaches. And your CPA would work damned hard if you had enough money to hire one.
It completely does. It hands out free money to those with zero income, as well as those whose only income comes from other federal welfare programs.
But even though that's true I know it's not what you meant. So do tell. HOW...exactly...does the tax code favor the people paying all the taxes? Do regale us with your comprehensive knowledge of how all this works.
I made a fucking OBSERVATION BASED ON MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH YOU.
Get over yourself.
SMMFH
Gotcha!
And LeBron is an exception, too....
That doesn't change the idea.
Oh, and it's $200k for the top 20%.
Contradiction.
Hopefully that will help.
"Hopefully that will help"
Not a chance if it hasn't already helped you understand.
Your source?
Perhaps you can explain how YOU smacking YOUR head is suppose to effect ME.
The emoji in the post you responded to has nothing to do with slapping anyone on the head.
It shows someone digging and you keep illustrating why I used it.
This the part of the comment I replied to:
DO try to keep up...
Apparently, you do not know what SMMFH stands for.
Otherwise, you would stop while you're behind.
Here:
What does SMMFH mean? - SMMFH Definition - Meaning of ...
https://www.internetslang.com/SMMFH-meaning-definition.asp
What does SMMFH mean? SMMFH is an acronym, abbreviation or slang word that is explained above where the SMMFH definition is given. SMMFH is an acronym, abbreviation or slang word that is explained above where the SMMFH definition is given.
Definition of SMFH - The Online Slang Dictionary
onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/smfh
This Slang page is designed to explain what the meaning of SMFH is. The slang word / phrase / acronym SMFH means... . Online Slang Dictionary. A list of slang words and phrases, idioms, jargon, acronyms, and abbreviations.
Urban Dictionary: smmfh
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=smmfh
More profane Netspeak variation of smh, meaning "shaking my motherfucking head". An expression of general disdain for an event or statement. An expression of general disdain for an event or statement.
Still not ONE DAMN THING TO DO WITH ANYONE SLAPPING THEMSELVES ON THE HEAD.
Please stop, I am even getting a little embarrassed for you.
Is there something in particular you don't understand?
No.
So then explain how YOU shaking YOUR head is suppose to effect ME.
I didn't realize I made any such claim. How's about you quoting me on that?
What post did I claim it in?
Got a post number??
It was only 3 hours ago.
So again, how is shaking your MF head supposed to effect me or 'help' my understanding for that matter?
So where again did you THINK I posted any such thing?
What post did you read it in, or are you merely imagining I wrote it so you can have something to argue about?
Are you still having an issue following the thread Tex?
Still think it was my fucking imagination Tex?
Then, just 3 hours ago, you referred to that very comment:
How about now?
I await your answer, or have you forgotten the question already?
I enjoy watching how many ways you come up with to avoid answering a question when you get called on your bullshit.
it is rather amusing!
Thanks for the entertainment!
Perhaps next time you claim something, be able to back it up and then I won't have to bother with calling you out on it.
The delusion in that reply is galactic and proves that you are incapable of a good faith discussion.
The only delusion exhibited here comes straight from you.
Please stop projecting your actions on me.
Texan, you used the facepalm emojii @ 4.1.15 in response to a comment from Dulay. The facepalm emoji slaps its face:
Dulay asked you @ 4.1.20 :
Your response was to focus instead on your later digging emoji @ 4.1.18 instead of the one @ 4.1.15 - the one that Dulay o b v i o u s l y was referencing.
Bob gave you a major hint so clearly you are playing this pointless game on purpose. Why?
If you bother to follow the conversation, you can plainly see that Dulay responded to my post# 4.18 in post 4.20.
In post 4.18, I used the digging emoji.
You will have to ask her why she responded to my post with a digging emoji with that statement about smacking my head.
In post 4.1.21, I reminded her what my post which she responded to contained.
In post 4.1.22 she responded with something about my use of SMMFH, which she did not know the meaning of.
In fact, she made it a SPECIFIC point to mention that she was responding to THAT particular thing--my use of SMMFH.
I am guessing she responded thinking it meant Smacking My head instead of what it actually means.
I corrected her.
Now, it doesn't matter to me if you are inclined to jump in to save her, but please, at least get your facts straight before even attempting to talk to me about something.
Thanks.
There is the avatar right there in your post. Widen your scope just one more comment to include 4.1.15 and voilà! the 'mystery' is solved.
I don't have any time nor patience for deliberate obtuseness.
SMMFH
Yes you said that it's shaking not smacking.
To which I replied:
Still NO answer...
Then you devolved from there and it looks like you're still digging...
TIG asked you a simple question, which you ALSO failed to answer.
If by 'her' you mean me, I don't need saving from you and the day I do I'll presume that senility has set in and I will stop participating.
Still
4.1.22 was where it all started to go wrong for you.
That is called projection.
I really don't care what you call it.
Some think feigned obtuseness is a way to save face (or to sneak out of a lost debate). A very strange (and failure-prone) tactic IMO.
4.1.18 is where you did.
Used almost exclusively by those that have to have the last word, no matter how ridiculous.
So what? The idea of a progressive income tax is that the highest earners should pay MORE, not get a numerically equal share of benefits.
So they get 70% of the benefits and pay 87% of the taxes, so what?
So what?
It is a progressive tax, and higher earners are taxed more.
Seems silly to whine about them getting a tax cut,.
So nothing to bitch about then. Excellent.
Trust me, they will still whine.
Got a link?
(I've gone to the TPC and can't find the source for that)
Absolutely. It was also cited in the WSJ, as well as Marketwatch and CNBC.
Seems like too many people are worried about getting equal results, while some of us merely want equal opportunity, and feel we can make it on our own without whining about what others have.
Actually it seems like too many people in government leadership spend too much time trying to figure out how to make the rich even richer rather than trying to make sure EVERYONE gets tax 'relief'.
Pretty hard to relieve anyone of paying income taxes when they don't pay any to begin with.
Must be a pretty bad day for 'wingers if they're flogging that dead horse again.
If you dispute the truth in my statement, provide some evidence that contradicts it.
New Estimates Of How Many Households Pay No Federal Income Tax
https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2015/10/06/new-estimates-of...
Oct 06, 2015 · The Tax Policy Center has updated its estimate of the percentage of households that will not pay federal income tax this year. We now figure it is 45.3 percent, nearly 5 percentage points higher than our 2013 estimate of 40.4 percent.
you must be thinking of the local, state and federal user taxes that everyone irregardless of income pays , and of course those user taxes eat into those that make less , more so than those that make more as far as part of income and what it can be spent on.
Well, you see all the evidence he showed!
LMFAO!
Where did I say 'income taxes'?
Who said you did?!?!?!?!?!?!?4Where did you read that--and who posted you said it?????
You did. I block quoted you.
maybe you need to read more carefully.
I DEFY you to show where I stated YOU SAID INCOME TAXES.
Jeeze, Louise!
Y'all are cracking me UP today!
Even you seem get what what Texan doesn't (or won't). People who make so little that they don't pay income tax are at the bottom already and Texan seems to want to punch them down even further. By the way, no individual pays any federal income tax on the first $12,000 of income now (heads of households $18,000, couples filing jointly $24,000).
Many Americans pay no federal income tax. If you wish to dispute that, back it up with some facts.
Or don't you get it?
No American individual pays any income tax on the first $12,000 of ordinary income. And no American couple filing jointly will pay income tax on the first $24,000 of income. So, everyone, no matter what their level of income is free from paying income tax on the same levels of income. The people you try to smear for "not paying any income taxes" are just those people who make so little it would be an unjust tax system that made the pay income taxes on that low an income. By the way those people pay the same rate of FICA taxes on their first earned dollar that billionaires pay and because of the ceiling on income subject to FICA a person with taxable income of $1M pays effectively next to a zero percent of that limit (this year $128,400 x 6.25% = 8,025 divided by 1M = .8025%).
I stated a simple, verifiable fact.
Nothing you wrote disputes that fact.
Tens of millions, actually.
Thus demonstrating that income tax is no longer a socially significant metric.
I'd love to see the stats for those 10s of millions who pay no federal taxes. Do those include children and the unemployed? I bet they also include the homeless many of which are veterans. Do they also include disabled folks and the elderly unable to
I knew they must have included the working poor who don't make enough. Thanks for disputing their nonsense atheist.
So I guess you'll stop worrying about the rich "paying their fair share".
Excellent.
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/new-estimates-how-many-households-pay-no-federal-income-tax
Google is your friend
You guess about a lot...
What is taxvox? I don't see the stats anywhere in your citation. I guess Google isn't YOUR friend
Oh, hell no they won't.
The socialist-leaning leftists won't stop because as long as the rich have money, then they haven't run out of other people's money quite yet.
You realize that you are giving them a source that they will actually have to click onto, right?
Ain't going to happen, as evidenced by the questions.
Had they bothered themselves to LOOK at the link, it explains what it is.
SNMMFH
Really? The main revenue source for the US federal budget is no longer a significant metric?
lol .... dream on!
Taxvox is the blog of the Tax Policy Center. If you had any actual interest in the statistics on those who pay no income tax, you'd have bothered to Google it yourself.
So clearly you have zero interest in any factual information that might disrupt your "feelings" on the matter.
Yeah...I know.
But every now and then I get overly optimistic.
I always wonder how a person can do what you have just done. Is their reading deficient? Is their understanding deficient? Is their intellectual honesty deficient?
Citing someone... but leaving out the essential word from the original text... could be any of these. Whatever the reason, they prove themselves to be untrustworthy conversation partners.
Yes you have.
Once again you get called on a disingenuous comment, made clearly to deceive and misdirect and when called on it, you cry foul. Honestly Bob, i like some of your stuff here but your propensity to propagandize your preferred narrative at all costs is a weak tactic.
One would hope you were better than that but apparently not.
Noted.
Yeah i suppose that would be true for a socialist.
Why did you alter the quotation?
Error?
Dishonesty?
'Taxvox is the blog of the Tax Policy Center. If you had any actual interest in the statistics on those who pay no income tax, you'd have bothered to Google it yourself.
So clearly you have zero interest in any factual information that might disrupt your "feelings" on the matter.'
I went to your citation exactly as it was here and didn't see the information you stated was there.
You have clue what my 'feelings' are, and your citation was bogus obviously.
I would opt for the latter
The only crock of BS is your comment. NOTHING in my post suggested that ANYONE should be 'punished'.
Your reaction to the suggestion that EVERYONE should get tax relief says a lot about you and YOUR agenda.
we keep more of our money and you do not get to enjoy the results of our hard work and money
that? is an awesome agenda
seriously though...
everyone wants to change the world but one must live in the world as it is not as they would like it to be.
the world you want to live in? does not exist and never will.
why? not everyone wants the same world. and you can not change their minds
cheers
Yet it's quite clear from your posts that 'we' doesn't mean EVERYONE.
im fairly sure what I said applied to everyone, one way or another.
everyone who wants to keep their money - winners
everyone who wants to redistribute/steal other peoples money - losers
see... I told ya everyone is included
There are traces of 2016 election cycle in this discussion thread. I remember it well on NewsVine that year! People (or bots?) trying to spread division for chaos-sake! STAY WOKE, Everyone!
that is what anarchists do...
telling the left to not spread division, class warfare and such is like telling a herd of cows to not spread manure.
the good news? progressive-ism is a dying brand.
I, we, got our
on yo u 
this time around. T he jig is up!
Astro-turfing, bots, and Republican paid social media spies fanning out on social media this mid-term election cycle to spread propaganda and bring back social media "intel" —you will fail! T he jig is up!
Right comrade, because anyone who opposes Marxist statist government is a tool of the Russians
your comment belongs on the funny pages
could be maybe. so in your defense...
yes I have seen these russian bots you speak of.. scroll down the page..one russian after another
at first glance, they look like real americans. but their words all sound russian to me.
cheers
dead link above...
try this one.
You're still posting that nonsense about the Russian troll #walkaway movement? Hilarious!
I know right,
they look like americans, they sound like americans.. but obviously russian...
my bet is they somehow manage to vote as well..
Yeah i was accused of being a russian bot more than once.
This, better dead than red, former Marine cold warrior ......
The gall and ignorance of some folks never ceases to amaze.
I don't know you, Marine. When we insist on "alienating" good and honest people for the sake of a selfish and narrow ideology: Anyone of us can be a fit for the 'mode,' nevertheless. Reflect on it for a while.
After all the only social CONSTRUCT we can not live without in this nation, this world, is other people. So when we forget to put (other good and honest) people first:
What ARE we?
You can psychobabble rap all you want.
Accusing me of being a russian bot is as far off the mark as one can get in here and only shows how really "off the mark" people on NT can be. That and/or they simply have a narrow narrative they are trying to shove down people throats and making accusation like that somehow supports that narrative in their pee-brains.
If it wasn't so messed up it would be funny.
Russian bots pass anti-American propaganda to witless trolls on the internet to spread on the internet...
In late 2016 Russian propaganda was shared on social media to help Trump and to hurt Hillary Clinton...
Plainly righties shared divisive illegally obtained Dem e-mails intending upon driving down the Dem vote.
Russians waged a multi-pronged attack on our US system using willing fools to spread their propaganda.
So when someone on NT sez something you disagree with and/or don't like it equates to the person being a russian bot? Thats the justification? Absolutely fucking ridiculous.
Like i said, it just shows how far off base some people in places like NT really are. That and/or how bad they want to push their narrative. You know ..... like you JBB. You are one of the main pushers of a narrative here.
No, those spreading Russian Propaganda on US social media are willing dupes of Vlad Putin's Troll/Bot Army...
Did I ever say those who disagree with me are Russian bots? No, and BTW, I am not a topic of this discussion.
Actually, the Russian bots on social media, if we are going to consider these news sites as social media, were more than obvious by paying close attention to sentence structure.
We have at least 1 poster on this site who makes a mistake in the use of a couple pronouns that is common of someone whose first language is Russian or similar.
I have never called this poster out and don't intend to. If, during the heat of the next election cycle and if anything looks anomalous, I will give Perrie a heads up in an instant, if I happen to be around.
Meh ..... russian propaganda ..... liberal propaganda ...... it all amounts to the same thing
gee, why would Democratic emails to other Democrats mean less Democratic votes?
Were Democrats doing some stuff other Democrats didn't like, but had never been told about before?
Me too! And yes, the 'tools,' human and mechanical, are out and about making fake arguments, starting mocking discussions, and being irreconcilable to waste time (and hoping to go 'viral'). I was not here on this very interesting site until October 2017 when NewsVine quit, and MSNBC pages became drudgery to navigate.
In the lead-up to 2016, I must have dealt with and experienced the exasperation of talking to so many "puppets" about zany and indefensible subject matters that to this day my right hand is mildly crippled from vainly reaching out to make sense. Aware that something was wrong with those "smoke and mirror" campaign practices which occurred, but not able to pin down the culprits in real time! So many voices yelling and being disruptive on NewsVine!
Well, now we know without a doubt that the gut-feeling we will feel when a blogger, commentator, or whomever, is not responsive to the truth when it is laid out in black and white right in their face is either somebody who "protesteth too much," is paid to shill, or is a bot droning on endlessly: All intending to raise havoc and hope it goes viral!
I appreciate your point of view on this. And I wholly agree.
Separate from the above, I even watched as CNN and MSNBC got caught up in reading private emails from Podesta and others on the air on a cyclic basis—even as they pondered out loud the ethics of being willing participants in a faceless, scandalous, set of activities. It was to their shame then, and should it happen yet again it will be a shame yet again!
I don't know you, Sparty On. And I did not call you specifically anybody. So you should check out your own conscience to why you strongly felt impacted by my comment. My comment stands. I dealt with the 'machinery' that caused stupid online controversies and unnecessary disruptions in the cohesiveness of the online community, and if the intel community says that fhit is "chattering" up on their expert lines of knowing I believe them.
Say what you will - I will push back or agree as seems appropriate to me. Ditto for you.
oh those were the daze, for me at least
Free for all arguing with morons about unsubstantiated accusations believed in full, with no proof required
No moderation.
truly was my favorite nation
I can go as high as most, and as low as any fun for me, not so much for the many
See post # 8.2.2 ...... rinse and repeat as required
See 8.2.10 . And, ditto!
Ah yes, the Pee Wee Herman “I know you are but what am i” gambit.
Nice ..... yeah buddy!
—End.
Dot dot dot ......
Income "Inequality" is all the individuals fault.
If you accept the initial offer in the first place....and don't speak up years later if it doesn't change...….whose fault is it ?
Like a McDee's burger "Flipper" is worth 15 bucks an hour.
It's such a "challenging Job" ! 
Two charts give the lie to the rightwing claim that EU countries (in this case, their favorite whipping boy, France) have more of a debt problem than we do:
charts from tradingeconomics.com
Two charts give the lie to the rightwing claim that EU countries (in this case, their favorite whipping boy, France) have more of a debt problem than we do:
charts from tradingeconomics.com
ss a joke they are deliberately denying the disabled even combat veterans coming back disabled than make you wait years to see a biased lawyer that plays judge that being told by the administration they work for to deny claims. the whole system a scam from intake to the trial they put you on for being sick. most employers will fire you for missing one day
Who are "they"?
The federal government
the Obama VA denied some of my disability claims for permanent injuries suffered in the military because I didn’t provide them the military hospital and corpsman records
so it was my fault that I didn’t have THEIR records
How about letting ghostly bear answer for himself?
No problem I did nothing to stop him. I wasn’t aware you only allowed those you want to respond
Were you in the military during the Obama admin.? If not your records were not created or lost during that administration. Maybe you should blame the administration in office when you were in the military for losing those records. Of course, that would require that you didn't look at everything in your life through a distorted ideological lens.
Never mind SS. The VA is spending more money today, on fewer Vets, than ever before.
The VA is a perfect example of a bloated, ineffectual federal agency.
SS isn't far behind.
The social security system is denying almost every disabled person out there. It takes almost 2 years to see a law judge that isn't even a real judge but is a biased lawyer hired by ssi and urged to deny claims. this is known knowledge even there head henchman chief judge came out and said they are being told to deny claims these lawyers work for and paid for by ssi there no separation and no fair shot. Google social security scandal bigger than va. A treating physician wont mean anything with the new rule changes. people are loosing there homes and committing suicide. This government has done nothing but go after people that speak out against their crimes
So... Do you want to overhaul SS, or eliminate it?
Eliminate it they waist millions on denials and lawyers. It will never be there for you
You're ducking the question.
Keep or eliminate. Simple question.
Seems GB wants to eliminate SS:
I wonder how GB plans to do this. Cold turkey?
Not even.
He didn't mean what he said.He has never given the topic serious thought.
He was just doing an online-rooster walk. Lots of strut and crowing... but no actual thought.
About 40% of applicants are granted disability payments.
Almost 14 million Americans currently receive SS Disability payments.
were are you getting your information 7 out of 8 appeals are denied . its simple made hard if you miss more than one day at work at a new job you'll be fired. people working usually make 2-4 times more than they would receive on social security.They usually have 15 to 20 years of work history. There is absolutely no uniformity you could have 10 people with the same illness and 3 out of 10 get approved. All states have different percentages and one judge somewhere only has about a 10 percent approval. They don't go off the law
If your over 50 you have a better chance because the rules are more relaxed. I know people that have been left to die by the social security administrations even war veterans out of iraq. some waited 5 to 10 years to get approved. They destroy your credit and tell you jobs you cant do. they put you on trial for being sick after you leave you cant fight all the wrong stuff they put in there judicial briefing or contest the jobs they say you can now do even though youll be fired
If you get a chance google social security subcommittee and watch the last video aired with congress. There a lady on there that advocates for disabled eckman she was impressive and told you whats wrong
google social security commits fraud or google social security employee not taking whistle blower protection
best utube video social security will destroy your life
I appreciate all responses good or bad get it off your chest . I believe in freedom of speech . Freedom of speech is only good till they want to use it against you I say