Re: Two Types of Distributions Found In Nature



When taxes are cut across the board, the rich end up paying a larger percentage of the overall collected taxes than before the tax cut. True? False?
When taxes are cut across the board, the rich pay a larger percentage of their income to taxes. True? False?
These are trick questions. Go for it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Nov 1, 9:44 pm, "pico" <pico.pico.net> wrote:

This has nothing to do with the discussion. There are actually Clinton diehards who call people who say Clinton had high taxes lying Republicans. Which I find hilarious considering Brent continually wants to say Clinton's taxes were high.
The point has nothing to do with percentages of taxes paid. It is simple. In 1979, the top tax rate was 70%. Reagan intially drop the top rate to 50% then to 28%. Bush raised the top rate by 1993 the top rate was still only 32%.
32% is far from high in comparison to 1979 when the top rate was 70%. Today the top bracket is at 35% this is still half what the 1979 tax rate was.
It is hard to call the Clinton era high tax when the rate was less than half of what it was in 1979 and only about 4% higher than Reagan.
I love it those who say they support the democrats actually using Republican exaggerations. Keep it up this is funny.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Nov 1, 10:44 pm, "pico" <pico.pico.net> wrote:

I think you mean "rhetorical" questions. :-)
"The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns."
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html
It's also worth noting that corporate tax receipts have more than doubled in the last few years, exceeding $300billion.
I believe Lysander already said this but it is worth repeating:
"the share of total income taxes paid by the wealthy has risen even as statutory tax rates have fallen sharply. A growing body of international data shows the same trend."
Some of you may find these numbers startling.
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200512070900.asp
Fred Weiss
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Considering the source, the numbers are not at all startling.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 06:48:26 -0500, pico wrote:

Here's the income data:
http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/inc-disp-2000_html_m38e31af7.jpg
We see that the income inequality started increasing just as soon as the Republican thieves came to town. And when you get more income you pay more taxes. Meanwhile the income of the middle class took it in the ass. And let us also look at the unemployment numbers for this wonderful period of rich man tax soaking:
http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/unemployment.jpg
It is not surprising that the unemployed pay less taxes. In all fairness this unemployment was not caused by Reagan but by Paul Volcker. Nonetheless the complex dishonesty of the righties shines through. By focusing on taxes paid they distort the economic realities.
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200512070900.asp -- On the first point, in 1980, when the top statutory income tax rate went up to 70 percent, the share of income taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers was just 19.3 percent. After Ronald Reagan's tax cut of 1981, which reduced the top rate to 50 percent -- a massive give-away to the wealthy according to those on the left-- the percentage of income taxes paid by the top 1 percent rose steadily. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is not said is that the cut was only for unearned income OTHER THAN CAPITAL GAINS. Wages were already maxed at 50% on income over what would now be $600k.
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200512070900.asp -- By 1986, the top 1 percent's share of all federal income taxes rose to 25.7 percent. That year, the top statutory tax rate was further cut to 28 percent -- another huge-give-away, we were told. Yet the share of income taxes paid by the top 1 percent continued to rise. By 1992, it was up to 27.5 percent. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice how these people fail to mention that tax INCREASES of 1986 and 1990 on the way to this claim of 1992.
So as the economy cratered in 1980 - 1984 the rich still had plenty of income from bonds while the middle class was unemployed. Wages NEVER recovered from the Paul Volcker recession. The bullshit artists are very very good at cherry picking economic data. Looking at ALL the data explains why the rich SEEMED to be paying more of their income in taxes while the middle really were paying more of their income in taxes. Percentage of total tax revenue is a farcical statistic that carries no actual economic meaning; especially when you run the economy using a credit card. Ask yourself who buys bonds and T-Bills and who owes who. You can bet yer ass that unemployed people were not buying those 20% yield bonds that had to be sold because of deficits in the 80's. And the people that now hold 2 jobs to make ends meet in the Bush economy aren't buying any T-Bills either. In the Republican economy the rich don't pay their taxes. They lend money to the government instead. And your kids will be paying their kids forever.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Thank you. I've pointed this out in somewhat similar terms to Brat many times before. But once he's got a slogan stuck in his brain he feels compelled to endlessly repeat it like a drone regardless of any evidence to the contrary.
There's also of course much more to explain the "economic boom" of the 1990's none of which have anything to do with purported "high taxes", including significantly reduced military spending, NAFTA, welfare reform, the defeat of HillaryCare, a strong Republican Congress, Alan Greenspan at the Fed, the explosion in the use of computers and of course the Internet, etc. etc.
And then one must also acknowledge - without ignoring these factors, including some of Clinton's actual achievements (which however you rarely hear his apologists mention - such as NAFTA or welfare reform) - that the culmination of Clinton's presidency was also a very devastating economic bust, the bursting of the "dot.com bubble" and a 50% drop in stock values which wiped out a good deal of the economic gains of the period (at least temporarily).
Also, while there may have been a short term economic benefit to reduced military spending and to endangering America's security generally, we paid the price with increased terrorism culminating in 9/11 and the attacks in Madrid and London.
Fred Weiss
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 03:11:05 -0700, Fred Weiss wrote:

We have discussed this horseshit from John before. And, believe me, it is horseshit. The most important point to be made here is that of the deficits, and the fact that the economy did very well after the Democratic tax hikes of 1990 and then 1993. Whether the rich paid more taxes or not is totally irrelevant. The middle class paid more taxes because they had a lot more income from having decent jobs. The big boys paid less because they had more income from capital gains as opposed to ordinary income and those capital gains were from actually INVESTING in the economy as opposed to sucking on straight economic rent.

What evidence, moron? The payment of taxes by the rich is NOT the objective of tax policy when that policy is being managed by intelligent beings.

What a Republican apologist. We've been through this one too. The reduced military spending started in 1990 due to Democratic control of the budget. The Repukes didn't get back into power until 1995. And the defeat of "Hillary Care" was a nothing as regards the general economy. The gains came from a tax code that encouraged actual investment as opposed to economic rent collection. But that sort of reality does no good in politics because people do not understand what economic rent is. It is much more important to say the things Bret says because he is talking in a language that Joe Sixpack has a shot at understanding in the short frame. You and the Republicans lose any time the reality can be brought to light. But it gets technical and when that happens the voter's eyes just sort of gloss over.

This is the lie that will not die. It was the "We get to lie about our earnings" bubble as opposed to the "dot.com" bubble.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!
Military spending has NOTHING to do with the war on terror other than pissing off the terrrrrrrrrrrists and making more of em.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I'd be happy if the economic rightards didn't swear whenever I pop 'em on their behinds with simple innocent questions like:
1. does free speech precede each and every free trade?
2. average mean is less "important" than median in what distributions in Nature?
Bret Cahill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How can the defeat of something that never came to be have any friggin saving?
The extent these magical thinking people will go through. Hey, fuckface, you don't create reality by repeating the same lies over an over.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

So? By that logic, the superrich shouldn't mind relinquishing almost all their wealth.
<snip>

Wrong.
Yes, the _Marxist_ view of how the rich exploit us is incorrect. But that doesn't mean the rich---well, a large fraction of the rich---don't exploit us.
A large fraction of the rich are rich because they collect economic rents (land rent in particular). Those rents are collected by right of owning a government title. There's nothing just or efficient about rent collection.
Take land rent in particular. Landowners in their role of landowner contribute absolutely nothing to production; they just collect rent from the rest of us, using a government-granted license to steal. (Yes, land ownership _per se_ is extremely broad in the US, but if you look at rent collected, it's far from uniformly distributed.)
For more, see e.g. "Are you a real libertarian or a Royal libertarian?" at http://www.geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html

Except for the fact that landowners are wealthy through no effort at all.

Depend on whether they actually create something of value.
Landowners don't.

Uh, you have that backwards. Landowners loot from _everyone else_ by charging a fee for access to what was already there, irrespective of the landowner's existence.

Some, yes.
You're just as blind, albeit in a different way.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, that's true. While the median might provide a more meaningful statistic relative to most individuals, the mean, particularly in comparison to the median, provides some measure of income inequality. (But there I have talked about income distributions; I hope the demons hounding Brett don't escape from his head and come after me now.)
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bret's a bit inclined to overstatement, but he has a point. The American media is at great pains to emphasize how "nice" the rich are, how "useful" they are. Even totally useless rich parasites like Paris Hilton are somehow presented as "cute", when, in fact, they are killing the poor by their lifestyles and deserve to be punished for doing so.
So, the media tends to deemphasize how extreme and pervasive the inequalities of wealth are in the United States, and the negative consequences of this. For example, the health care system is so bad in the United States that Cuba -- with its socialized medical system -- actually has exactly the same average life expectancy as the United States, despite the comparative poverty of the island. But no studies are done on how the capitalized health care system in the U.S. kills the poor. So, the rich deny there is any problem. Hemophiliacs, for example, live twenty years longer in England than in the U.S. The Hospitals simply deny them their blood. Too expensive, you know.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Delusions would be more accurate - and you aren't any better.

Offhand I can't think of a single example where the "media" does this. In fact it is far more commonly the exact opposite. The rich are typically presented as greedy, insensitive, ruthless bastards

Huh? How is Paris Hilton "killing the poor"? In fact, her "lifestyle" probably comfortably supports 100's, if not 1,000's, of people - some of them no doubt who otherwise would be "poor" by your standards.
Incidentally, Paris may be a ditz - or creates the persona of a ditz - when in fact she is a very shrewd businesswoman and she actually *earns* millions of dollars a year through her TV and movie performances and her product brands.

You wonder then why about a million people have fled - or tried to flee - Cuba, many risking their lives in the process and many in fact losing their lives. Maybe living a long life in "comparative poverty" isn't exactly most people's ideal. Cuba in fact has one of the lowest GDPs per capita in the Western Hemisphere, even lower than most of the well-recognized poverty stricken countries in Central and S. America.
Not that I want to disturb your delusions, Jerry "I am not a Marxist" Kraus.
Fred Weiss
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You really believe Americans find baseball stats meaningful but not income stats?
Don't beat around the bush. Just come right on out and tell us Americans aren't interested in money.
Bret Cahill
Everyone is necessarily interested in money, "those who have it and those who don't."
-- John Kenneth Galbraith
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No no no Bret. If poor people would like to have more money for health care for their kids, that's ENVY. If hedge fund managers want another villa in Tuscany or some more bling then they are MORAL ACTORS.
When are you going to learn---you've read enough Fundatarian boilerplate. Consistency is for the reality-based community, not these superior beings. After all, they know what's best for everyone else. Got a toilet? That's enough for you, don't expect any more.
-tg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

OK, no jumping to conclusions.
Just focus on distributions in Nature where ave. mean isn't as important or meaningful or "meaty" as median.
Bret Cahill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Huh? Care to explain how in the world you came up with that?

Why would I say that? In fact, the rest of my sentence, which you snipped, said "the mean, particularly in comparison to the median, provides some measure of income inequality." Why would I say that if I thought that Americans weren't interested in money? I'm not professionally qualified to diagnose paranoia, but something seems exceedingly strange here.
But there again, I have talked about income distributions; I hope the demons hounding you don't escape from your head and come after me now.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This is the second time you've suggested that average mean income is less "meaningful" than other stats.
How does a stat get into the "less meaningful" category?
Bret Cahill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

By being not as useful for a given purpose. Median is more meaningful in describing where an individual might fit in with the majority or people. Mean is more useful in measuring how income disparity might relate to that person. Depends on the purpose.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Your wrong there are many issues that civilized human society considers to crass to discuss.
For instance. What is the mean number of sexual partners for every person in the world ... or in the US? I would venture to say the mean value is much larger then the median value. Also I would venture that nobody really wants to discuss this. And the answer for this is the same. The distribution is not normal. The distribution has a lower boundary condition but not upper boundary condition and the median value is too close to the one boundary condition to create a normal bell curve. This tends to flatten out the distribution causing a disparity between the mean value and the median value.
But then again. Since you so very much loving playing with these numbers, you already know that. You just like to try an stir up caste angst.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.