How the middle class became the underclass

[Azazello1313]

I too . . find that the IRS are simply lying to make this seem true. Obviously a bogus claim by the IRS stats.

 

it is not the IRS that is lying, but the propagandist using their stats to produce a desired result. show me the actual data she is referring to.

[SEC=UGA]

http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/16/news/economy/middle_class/

 

Again, what you are failing to account for is the fact that the middle class is upwardly mobile. Those who were at the middle class wage 20 or 30 years ago in most cases are now part of the rich. Yes, some have remained middle class, but their wage has not stayed stagnant at the 30K level. The entry level pay may have remained stagnant, but as one moves up in the ranks of a company their pay increases. It's not as if the guy who was rich and 70 years old and the guy who was middle class and 30 years old are now 90 and 50, respectively, and the 90 year old is still uber rich (if alive) and the 50 year old is still toiling at 16 bucks an hour.

[bpwallace49]

it is not the IRS that is lying, but the propagandist using their stats to produce a desired result. show me the actual data she is referring to.

 

http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Perm...Z9?OpenDocument

 

While this author shows a comparsion from 2000-2008, look at all the PDF graphs (I know you are big on graphs) he references from the IRS, they show significant declines in income for every category . . .unless you make over 200 grand a year. Is that also propaganda?

 

Also, isnt using census info disingenuous as census does not take into account capital gains? I easily could be mistaken on this, but wouldnt IRS be much more accurate versus your census info that 1) doesnt account for capital gains and 2) doesnt capture lower income spectrum individuals very well?

[Ursa Majoris]

Wow. Over 22,000 people with gross incomes of over $200,000 paid no tax? None at all?

[Perchoutofwater]

http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Perm...Z9?OpenDocument

 

While this author shows a comparsion from 2000-2008, look at all the PDF graphs (I know you are big on graphs) he references from the IRS, they show significant declines in income for every category . . .unless you make over 200 grand a year. Is that also propaganda?

 

Also, isnt using census info disingenuous as census does not take into account capital gains? I easily could be mistaken on this, but wouldnt IRS be much more accurate versus your census info that 1) doesnt account for capital gains and 2) doesnt capture lower income spectrum individuals very well?

 

Again, looking at just income is misleading as well. A better measure would be to look at total compensation, and I would be willing to bet it has risen significantly more. Additionally with the additional regulation and the government having more power to fine via these regulations, business owners if they are keeping more money in case they end up having to pay these fines.

[Perchoutofwater]

Wow. Over 22,000 people with gross incomes of over $200,000 paid no tax? None at all?

 

Another reason I want a flat tax starting at the poverty line with no loopholes, and no deductions with the exception of charitable donations.

[redrumjuice]

If you people just worried about yourself, think how much happier you'd be?

[SEC=UGA]

Wow. Over 22,000 people with gross incomes of over $200,000 paid no tax? None at all?

 

It's called being able to write down your business losses.

[Duchess Jack]

It's called being able to write down your business losses.

sure it is. but do you honestly feel a good percent of these people actually made no money - or would suggest most are cheating the system

[bpwallace49]

Again, looking at just income is misleading as well. A better measure would be to look at total compensation, and I would be willing to bet it has risen significantly more. Additionally with the additional regulation and the government having more power to fine via these regulations, business owners if they are keeping more money in case they end up having to pay these fines.

 

Perch . . . I know you know this, which makes you posting this even more curious . . but personal income realized is different than retaining business profits, right? I know you have a different situation with your bonding and all that . .yadda yadda yadda, but I am willing to bet that all those rising incomes over 200K were NOT solely small business owners with a family construction business in Texas that needs to keep all these assets on hand for bonding purposes.

[SEC=UGA]

sure it is. but do you honestly feel a good percent of these people actually made no money - or would suggest most are cheating the system

 

They may have made some money, but are able to write off losses from previous years under current tax codes.

[yo mama]

Wow. Over 22,000 people with gross incomes of over $200,000 paid no tax? None at all?

If you make $200,000 in revenue, but incur $160,000 of legitimate expenses to earn it, why should you be taxed any differently than someone who earned $40,000 without any deductible expenses? It's $40,000 of net income either way, and that person might not owe any tax under the law.

[SEC=UGA]

If you make $200,000 in revenue, but incur $160,000 of legitimate expenses to earn it, why should you be taxed any differently than someone who earned $40,000 without any deductible expenses? It's $40,000 of net income either way, and that person might not owe any tax under the law.

 

You damn tax attornies are a scourge, a boil on the ass of society... a pox on all of you!!

 

P.S. I'll send out my tax stuff to you in a couple days.

[Azazello1313]

http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Perm...Z9?OpenDocument

 

While this author shows a comparsion from 2000-2008, look at all the PDF graphs (I know you are big on graphs) he references from the IRS, they show significant declines in income for every category . . .unless you make over 200 grand a year. Is that also propaganda?

 

Also, isnt using census info disingenuous as census does not take into account capital gains? I easily could be mistaken on this, but wouldnt IRS be much more accurate versus your census info that 1) doesnt account for capital gains and 2) doesnt capture lower income spectrum individuals very well?

 

that link says average AGI was $58,000 in 2008. and all it really shows is the effects of the recession (as it had risen steadily and significantly from 2003 to 2007). your other thing said it was $33,000. if you're just going to find sloppily compiled random statistics cherry picked for op-eds supporting the "vanishing middle class" myth, you might want to at least find ones that agree with each other.

[bpwallace49]

that link says average AGI was $58,000 in 2008. and all it really shows is the effects of the recession (as it had risen steadily and significantly from 2003 to 2007). your other thing said it was $33,000. if you're just going to find sloppily compiled random statistics cherry picked for op-eds supporting the "vanishing middle class" myth, you might want to at least find ones that agree with each other.

 

Is that REALLY all you got Az?

 

Wow how disappointing . . . I thought you were the resident crusader for the free market, bravely defending America against the communist hordes by use of conservative blogs and endorsed by the Heritage Foundation.

 

Has the income for middle class workers increased or declined over the last 20 years in comparison to the "wealthy" lets say that starts if you make over 200K a year. Can you answer that? Or does that not support the theories of "trickle down economics works to raise all boats"? Shouldnt that be relatively easy for you to answer, being such an expert in the field of study we are discussing?

 

TIA

[redrumjuice]

bp, I don't know what it is you think you are arguing, but I can assure you that you've lost.

 

Go rake some greens or something.

[Azazello1313]

Is that REALLY all you got Az?

 

Wow how disappointing . . . I thought you were the resident crusader for the free market, bravely defending America against the communist hordes by use of conservative blogs and endorsed by the Heritage Foundation.

 

here we go

 

Has the income for middle class workers increased or declined over the last 20 years in comparison to the "wealthy" lets say that starts if you make over 200K a year. Can you answer that? Or does that not support the theories of "trickle down economics works to raise all boats"?

 

ahh, gotta shift those goalposts now; first you say they haven't risen, and when that's shot down you change it to well they haven't risen as much as someone else's. to answer your weaselly reframing of the issue, middle incomes have risen in real terms, but not compared with the "wealthy", whose incomes have risen faster. that tends to happen in a free economy during times of relative prosperity. all boats rose. all boats did not necessarily rise the exact same amount.

 

instead of the stupid, contradictory propaganda you've been posting, why don't you read these two papers from an economist at the minneapolis fed on the subject.

[Ursa Majoris]

If you make $200,000 in revenue, but incur $160,000 of legitimate expenses to earn it, why should you be taxed any differently than someone who earned $40,000 without any deductible expenses? It's $40,000 of net income either way, and that person might not owe any tax under the law.

The graph is adjusted gross income, isn't it? So it's pre-deductions?

[yo mama]

The graph is adjusted gross income, isn't it? So it's pre-deductions?

Right. So someone with $40,000 of AGI (but no deductions) would be on a different part of the graph than someone with $200,000 of income but lots of deductions. Even though they have they might have same taxable net income.

 

Note - my overly simplistic example is ignoring the impact of Alternative Minimum Tax. Just making the point that comparing gross income to gross income is only a comparison of one half the relevant equation. Sort of like comparing balance sheets by looking only at assets, but not liabilities, wouldn't be as accurate as comparing net asset values.

[bpwallace49]

\

Also, isnt using census info disingenuous as census does not take into account capital gains? I easily could be mistaken on this, but wouldnt IRS be much more accurate versus your census info that 1) doesnt account for capital gains and 2) doesnt capture lower income spectrum individuals very well?

 

Az since you sidestepped these questions, I note that they DID show up in your article.

 

The final step in calculating the income gains made by middle American households requires a closer look at differing definitions of “income.” The Census Bureau uses a narrow definition of income in its report on median household income that focuses on money income and excludes nonmonetary sources of income. The BEA, in contrast, defines personal income as income received from all sources. Examples of income excluded by the Census Bureau, but included by the BEA, are employer contributions to employee pension and insurance funds and in-kind transfer payments such as Medicaid, food stamps and energy assistance. These sources of income contribute to economic well-being and should be included in the definition of income.

Unfortunately, BEA data on personal income are not available for individual households, and I am left to use Census data with their narrow definition of income. Does the difference in definitions matter for measuring the growth in median household income? Most likely, yes

 

So while your article from the guy that works at the Fed in Minneapolis does show that the middle class has risen in income (after many, many adjustments that he makes. ASIDE- Didnt you flame the CBO for doing the same thing? I digress . . )

 

 

Here is a preview of the key data issues that lead to the higher estimates of median household income growth.

 

1.The price index used by the Census Bureau overstates inflation, and thus understates income gains, relative to a preferred price index.

 

2.A changing mix of household types leads the overall median increase to understate the median increase of most household types.

 

3.The Census Bureau measure of household income understates income growth by excluding some rapidly growing sources of income.

 

The remaining difference between the 44 percent to 62 percent increase in median household incomes and the 80 percent increase in BEA personal income per person appears to be largely attributable to an increase in income inequality. The findings in this article are consistent with recent research showing that the largest income increases occurred at the top end of the income distribution. However, the findings here are not consistent with the view that the incomes of middle American households stagnated over the past 30 years. Income for most middle American households increased substantially

 

So is your issue with the fact the original article said that middle America was stagnant, even thought the wages at the top have exploded expotentially? Is that the source of your self righteous indignation? Or instead of acknowledging that the growth has been wildly disproportionate, your focus is that fact that middle class has risen? Just looking at your article by the one guy that works for the Fed in Minnesota, I would agree with you, it does look like the middle class has risen in income. Has it been proportionate? Absolutely not, as acknowledged by your articles. I also note that your guy uses census info, which he acknowledges doesnt account for other sources of income, especially capital gains, which if they were included would widen that gap even more. Your guy also noted that different economists use different methods and percentages for adjusting for inflation, correct? So if everyone in the world used the same methodology as your guy, they would agree with him. If different people use different adjustments, doesnt that affect the final outcome depending on which conservative blog you subscribe to?

 

As you relish in being dickish as opposed to actually provide information in anon condesending manner, I have given up in actually learning anything from you. Which is a shame because you seem very well versed in these matters, but are completely incapable of providing information without acting like a douchebag.

[redrumjuice]

As you relish in being dickish as opposed to actually provide information in anon condesending manner, I have given up in actually learning anything from you. Which is a shame because you seem very well versed in these matters, but are completely incapable of providing information without acting like a douchebag.

 

Oh that's rich.

 

Narc.

[bpwallace49]

Oh that's rich.

 

Narc.

 

Shhh h8.

 

Be oh so quiet . . .

[Big Country]

THis won;t make me many friends here, but, if y'all spent half as much effort developing your own business or upgrading your marketable skills as you do arguing about people making a lot of money, you'd be the one making the $200K+

[tazinib1]

Shhh h8.

 

Be oh so quiet . . .

 

Edited February 18, 2011 by tazinib1

[redrumjuice]

THis won;t make me many friends here, but, if y'all spent half as much effort developing your own business or upgrading your marketable skills as you do arguing about people making a lot of money, you'd be the one making the $200K+

 

Shoot, I make $20K right now, and my 401k is almost that high as well. Its what 10 years at a quality retailer can do for you. They take care of us that are in the assistant manager area. Not tooting my own horn, just sayin.