Top 1%

[LOL!]

Quote:

Originally Posted by W2R Usually IME when people say "average", they are thinking of the mean. Some of us thought that 50% of the population have incomes below the median income. It could be both in some cases, for example if the income distribution fit a perfect Gaussian distribution (bell curve) so that the median and mean income were identical.

And to add to the confusion, the WashPost blog linked earlier has this in it;

Quote:

That means the wealthiest 1 percent held an average of 225 times the wealth of the average median household in 2009 — a ratio that was 125 in 1962.

I guess if you don't know what average means nor what median means, then you just use "average median".

[W2R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOL! And to add to the confusion, the WashPost blog linked earlier has this in it; I guess if you don't know what average means nor what median means, then you just use "average median".

Well, if you have a time series of medians during 2009, I guess you could take a mean/average of those medians. I would assume that was what they meant. Why that statistic would be of any interest is another matter....

[NW-Bound]

Now, the average of the medians and the median of the averages are not necessarily the same. So, which is better?

Argh, forget it. I am going back to the "motorhome" thread.

[W2R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NW-Bound Now, the average of the medians and the median of the averages are not necessarily the same. So, which is better?

How to Lie with Statistics might be relevant.

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack What would mainstream politics be without "stupid sloganeering" anyway?

Vastly better off.

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack What would mainstream politics be without "stupid sloganeering" anyway?

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 Vastly better off.

Agreed. But I don't know that the stupid slogans ("talking points") all political candidates rely on are any more intelligent than many protesters...

[nun]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 If taxes are to be raised on the wealthy, better to just increase the marginal rate, IMO. There is a good reason why the tax code cuts a "break" for dividends and *long term* capital gains. And I think these reasons should be better articulated by policymakers.

I'd like to see the tax code simplified so that capital gains and dividends are taxed as income.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nun I'd like to see the tax code simplified so that capital gains and dividends are taxed as income.

And I'd like to see the tax code changed so that neither are taxed.

So where does that leave us?


And a comment that I've been meaning to make regarding anyone claiming they are the 99% - I don't care who you are or what you represent. You can't go around and claim that you are speaking for others. Speak for yourselves.

-ERD50

[Ronstar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nun I'd like to see the tax code simplified so that capital gains and dividends are taxed as income.

The money used to earn capital gains and dividends has already been taxed as income before it is invested. It's unfair to tax capital gains/dividends at all. But I agree with simplifying the tax code. Flat tax, no deductions, and eliminate capital gains and inheritance tax.

[GlennN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronstar The money used to earn capital gains and dividends has already been taxed as income before it is invested. It's unfair to tax capital gains/dividends at all. But I agree with simplifying the tax code. Flat tax, no deductions, and eliminate capital gains and inheritance tax.

+1!

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronstar The money used to earn capital gains and dividends has already been taxed as income before it is invested. It's unfair to tax capital gains/dividends at all.

Warren Buffett disagrees...

[donheff]

Quote:

Originally Posted by W2R Usually IME when people say "average", they are thinking of the mean.

Hey, I resemble that remark. But aren't we correct to do so? The "mean" is the arithmetical average isn't it?

[W2R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donheff Hey, I resemble that remark. But aren't we correct to do so? The "mean" is the arithmetical average isn't it?

Makes sense to me, too, although there are always those who have to complicate things... I prefer to just say "mean" because it seems clear to everyone.

[obgyn65]

I guess many - if not most - of the participants on this website are part of the 1%. Nothing wrong with that if it is earned legally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thoreau Who is the top 1%? Any ideas?

[figner]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronstar The money used to earn capital gains and dividends has already been taxed as income before it is invested. It's unfair to tax capital gains/dividends at all.

I've seen this viewpoint several times. Can someone explain why this double taxation is unfair for dividends, as opposed to money which I earned as a paycheck (already taxed) and then put into a saving account (taxed on interest) or other investment vehicle such as real estate (gains taxed upon sale)?

[Spanky]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronstar The money used to earn capital gains and dividends has already been taxed as income before it is invested. It's unfair to tax capital gains/dividends at all. But I agree with simplifying the tax code. Flat tax, no deductions, and eliminate capital gains and inheritance tax.

The proposal sounds good with the exception of flat rate for everyone. The biggest question is "what is that rate?".

[M Paquette]

I for one look forward to the day when the current social aberration of a "middle class" withers away, and we can return to a proper landed gentry, with supporting professional class and military, built on the solid foundation of the peasantry. I might be accused of pining for the good old days, but it was a solid, stable system that lasted for far longer than our so-called "modern" society. With modern technology, a small professional engineering population, and the combination of robots and semi-skilled peasant labor such as we currently employ across Asia, this seems like it should be readily achievable.

With modest effort, we should be able to transition to such a social structure within thirty years. The old impediments to this, such as the various "workers" movements, have been largely dismantled, and the remaining tasks really aren't much more than ongoing campaigns to repeal existing laws and convince the proletariat (soon to be peasants) that this is in their best interest.

[clifp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by M Paquette I for one look forward to the day when the current social aberration of a "middle class" withers away, and we can return to a proper landed gentry, with supporting professional class and military, built on the solid foundation of the peasantry. I might be accused of pining for the good old days, but it was a solid, stable system that lasted for far longer than our so-called "modern" society. With modern technology, a small professional engineering population, and the combination of robots and semi-skilled peasant labor such as we currently employ across Asia, this seems like it should be readily achievable. With modest effort, we should be able to transition to such a social structure within thirty years. The old impediments to this, such as the various "workers" movements, have been largely dismantled, and the remaining tasks really aren't much more than ongoing campaigns to repeal existing laws and convince the proletariat (soon to be peasants) that this is in their best interest.

+1
I'd also like to bring back debtors prison. It is entirely unfair that some of the prole believe that can discharge their debt with the only consequence being a lower FICO score.

Debtor prisons are essential for recolonizing area rich in exploitable natural resources like the American Plains (Dakotas) and Serbia, Mongolia but harsh climates.

As an added advantage, these are fine places to send the various protestors. We certainly can't have any more years like 2011, where this rabble is named persons of the year!

[Ronstar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack Warren Buffett disagrees...

Yes he does. I respect his opinion. But I think a flat income tax combined with a consumption tax would be better. The 1%ers would probably end up paying more overall tax through a consumption tax/flat income tax combo than under Buffett's proposal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by figner I've seen this viewpoint several times. Can someone explain why this double taxation is unfair for dividends, as opposed to money which I earned as a paycheck (already taxed) and then put into a saving account (taxed on interest) or other investment vehicle such as real estate (gains taxed upon sale)?

The true flat tax would not result in tax on dividends, interest, or real estate gains.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spanky The proposal sounds good with the exception of flat rate for everyone. The biggest question is "what is that rate?".

First get the sum of expenses. Then subtract all govt revenues aside from income tax. Then divide by the sum of all incomes. The result would be the rate. Something tells me it's not that simple though.

[Nemo2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by clifp +1 I'd also like to bring back debtors prison. It is entirely unfair that some of the prole believe that can discharge their debt with the only consequence being a lower FICO score. Debtor prisons are essential for recolonizing area rich in exploitable natural resources like the American Plains (Dakotas) and Serbia, Mongolia but harsh climates. As an added advantage, these are fine places to send the various protestors. We certainly can't have any more years like 2011, where this rabble is named persons of the year!

LOL yeah..and what about those damn 12 year olds complaining about 14 hour days in the mines.....and a bowl of thin gruel isn't enough for them? The very idea!

Where's Mr Bumble,the Beadle, when you really need him?