Re: Occupy Wall Street
Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 6:35 pm
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU[/youtube]
Shiftdnb wrote:Even more confusing cause what you just sent backs up what I'm saying. I took as an example, 1954, so I found it on that sheet you gave me.
Shiftdnb wrote:Okay, I get what you're saying now. Okay now lets take that 350,000 for the top 1% of today like you said and they're still taxed 69%. Right now we are fighting going from 36% to 39%
I call bullshit on these numbers. Sorry but from what I'm reading either you've discovered something no one has ever discovered before or you're just spinning numbers.jsence2 wrote:Here are the numbers according to the 1952 US Census Bureau, located at http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-015.pdf:
Median income for a family: $3,890
Percentage of families over $25,000: 0.4%
Percentage of familiest between $15,000 and 24,999: 0.7%
So your "top 1%" was making over $15,000....less than half of that 1% was taxed over $25,000 income--which was a 24.6% taxable bracket in 1952, when adjusted for inflation.
So now your argument is totally shot, the top 1% is being taxed HIGHER NOW than they were then.
Man, this is kinda fun for me....it's like being back in college again, pouring through historical government microfiche and collections.
Shiftdnb wrote:I call bullshit on these numbers. Sorry but from what I'm reading either you've discovered something no one has ever discovered before or you're just spinning numbers.jsence2 wrote:Here are the numbers according to the 1952 US Census Bureau, located at http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-015.pdf:
Median income for a family: $3,890
Percentage of families over $25,000: 0.4%
Percentage of familiest between $15,000 and 24,999: 0.7%
So your "top 1%" was making over $15,000....less than half of that 1% was taxed over $25,000 income--which was a 24.6% taxable bracket in 1952, when adjusted for inflation.
So now your argument is totally shot, the top 1% is being taxed HIGHER NOW than they were then.
Man, this is kinda fun for me....it's like being back in college again, pouring through historical government microfiche and collections.
are you still calling us liars?Shiftdnb wrote:if the 1% today are making 350,000 like you claim
You're trying to tell me the top 1% is the people that total incomes are 350,000 a year, but meanwhile I see things like the article below and know that athletes themselves get millions of dollars a year. The numbers just don't add up to me.DRiccio21 wrote:are you still calling us liars?Shiftdnb wrote:if the 1% today are making 350,000 like you claim
i mean shit, we've posted like 5 articles that cite this.
'like YOU claim'
Shiftdnb wrote:You're trying to tell me the top 1% is the people that total incomes are 350,000 a year, but meanwhile I see things like the article below and know that athletes themselves get millions of dollars a year. The numbers just don't add up to me.DRiccio21 wrote:are you still calling us liars?Shiftdnb wrote:if the 1% today are making 350,000 like you claim
i mean shit, we've posted like 5 articles that cite this.
'like YOU claim'
http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/15/news/ec ... htm?iid=EL
As far as you calling me a socialist, I had to sleep on it last night and figure out why it was bothering me so much. I don't like you calling me a socialist just because I want to raise taxes on the rich. You pigeon hole me like if I were just to call you greedy and heartless, because of the very bottom of what you support there is greed and the humanity is taken right out of it. Have I once specifically called you greedy or heartless? It's almost like telling a Marine he's in the Navy, he might have a link to the Navy but he's a fucking Marine.
Who the fuck am I a god damn graduate student, I can't sit there and decipher a census report from 1952, while all you did was provide numbers that made no sense to me. Of course I'm going to use a report that's already written, I already said I wasn't the best to be giving you detailed information. As far as what you produced, I still don't think your numbers are correct and if they are they're skewed to what you want to portray. Only thing is I can't sit there and dig deep enough to show what I'm trying to convey and call you on your bullshit. Makes no sense to me they would have several brackets higher than your supposed 15,000 was the 1%.jsence2 wrote:Shiftdnb wrote:You're trying to tell me the top 1% is the people that total incomes are 350,000 a year, but meanwhile I see things like the article below and know that athletes themselves get millions of dollars a year. The numbers just don't add up to me.DRiccio21 wrote:are you still calling us liars?Shiftdnb wrote:if the 1% today are making 350,000 like you claim
i mean shit, we've posted like 5 articles that cite this.
'like YOU claim'
http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/15/news/ec ... htm?iid=EL
As far as you calling me a socialist, I had to sleep on it last night and figure out why it was bothering me so much. I don't like you calling me a socialist just because I want to raise taxes on the rich. You pigeon hole me like if I were just to call you greedy and heartless, because of the very bottom of what you support there is greed and the humanity is taken right out of it. Have I once specifically called you greedy or heartless? It's almost like telling a Marine he's in the Navy, he might have a link to the Navy but he's a fucking Marine.
There's the difference, Shift--you're relying on a biased article (CNN, really? Why not just post something from Daily Kos) instead of looking up the numbers yourself. I sent you the numbers; I showed you unbiased sources (historical government documents are about as unbiased as you can get), and yet you STILL claim we're wrong. Posting an article that backs up your claim is NOT proving anything, we can all do that. Find us some hard, concrete facts and then we'll reconsider your stance. When I go and post indisputable facts and you claim "bullshit", well....what more do you want?
In your article it says that people making over a million dollars a year represent just 0.2% of tax returns ... Why is it so wrong that 350,000 would be 1%?Shiftdnb wrote:You're trying to tell me the top 1% is the people that total incomes are 350,000 a year, but meanwhile I see things like the article below and know that athletes themselves get millions of dollars a year. The numbers just don't add up to me.DRiccio21 wrote:are you still calling us liars?Shiftdnb wrote:if the 1% today are making 350,000 like you claim
i mean shit, we've posted like 5 articles that cite this.
'like YOU claim'
http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/15/news/ec ... htm?iid=EL
As far as you calling me a socialist, I had to sleep on it last night and figure out why it was bothering me so much. I don't like you calling me a socialist just because I want to raise taxes on the rich. You pigeon hole me like if I were just to call you greedy and heartless, because of the very bottom of what you support there is greed and the humanity is taken right out of it. Have I once specifically called you greedy or heartless? It's almost like telling a Marine he's in the Navy, he might have a link to the Navy but he's a fucking Marine.
Shiftdnb wrote:As far as what you produced, I still don't think your numbers are correct and if they are they're skewed to what you want to portray. Only thing is I can't sit there and dig deep enough to show what I'm trying to convey and call you on your bullshit. Makes no sense to me they would have several brackets higher than your supposed 15,000 was the 1%.
I should have just went with a BEEFY type approach and leave well enough alone.