Why we should pay attention to Phil Gramm's comments

Well maybe that needs to occur for Americans to finally wake up since they are to fat and lazy to do anything to the now corrupt system that rewards the rich and corporate over the average American.

Steven M. Urdegar has not looked at tax revenues at all. They have increased under supply side economics. Unfortunately, government spending increase even more. Further, tax increases never, ever bring in as much revenue as predicted because people adjust what they do to reflect the higher taxes.

I have supported private social security accounts for a long time. I wish I had one now. If I had had one, my retirement payments would be much higher than what Social Security provides. Ask Chile. It has worked out like that for them.

We have about the highest corporate taxes in the world. That negatively affects US competitiveness. What, exactly is wrong with outsourcing government jobs to reduce costs? Urdegar doesn't say. The "wealthy" are paying a higher percentage of income taxes than ever before. Does Urdegar believe they should pay even more? At what point does he think that it is not a good idea to try to get blood from a stone. As it has been pointed out, has Urdegar ever been offered a job by someone who has less money that he has?

Fianlly, Urdegar ends with a prediciton. Is Urdegar ware that the government took a normal recession and produced a depression by trying to manipulate the economy, raising taxes, and starting a trade war?

Rick

The author needs to cite his sources which drew him to his conclusion.

When is it wrong to outsource jobs government jobs? Can you say 'Halliburton','KBR' and 'Blackwater'? How much moeny was lost or unaccounted for by these companies? How many soldiers were electrocuted because of faulty wiring on bases outfitted by KBR. How much damage did Blackwatrer do with their senseless murders of innocent Iraqi's?
Yet, these companies ALL received no bid contracts for jobs that traditionally would have been done by US military. The state department outsourced functions, and we got the passport mess, as well as numerous security breaches. The list goes on and on. The economy seemed to perform quite well when Clinton was president, with higher taxes. I recall the US having a balanced budget...something that Republicans have NEVER been able to achieve.

Rick Caird wrote:

The "wealthy" are paying a higher percentage of income taxes than ever before.

Duh, that's because the "wealthy" have a much higher percentage of the nation's income than ever before. The top marginal tax rate is less than 1/2 of what it was in the '50s when we had more economic equality, and the middle class (and nation) thrived.

Intersting thought process - but The Great Depression? We'll never go there again.

Smaller government is an answer. More taxes leads to larger government. Keep the taxes low or lower and put fairness in the tax system.

Like it or not, the US economy is more and more involved in global dealings. Even U.S. accounting standards will be one with the world rather than a system for each country. We have to learn how to be a global economic leader. The world is too small these days to think otherwise. Taxing the crap out of our corporations and wealthly, who provide the backbone to our economy, won't help.

If we increase taxes so we can give more money away to needy people and countries, we will fall behind the other economic powers of the world.

WPB wrote:

<quoted text>
Duh, that's because the "wealthy" have a much higher percentage of the nation's income than ever before. The top marginal tax rate is less than 1/2 of what it was in the '50s when we had more economic equality, and the middle class (and nation) thrived.

You might want to look at the chart in this reference:

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/...

The chart shows that any increase in income for the richest 1% and 5% is greatly exceeded by the percentage of the total income tax they pay. the chart shows that if you want to get more from the richest 5%, reduce taxes. Why? There is less incentive for those paying the taxes to act to reduce their taxes.

Duh, right back at ya'.

Rick

Rick Caird wrote:

Steven M. Urdegar has not looked at tax revenues at all. They have increased under supply side economics. Unfortunately, government spending increase even more. Further, tax increases never, ever bring in as much revenue as predicted because people adjust what they do to reflect the higher taxes.
I have supported private social security accounts for a long time. I wish I had one now. If I had had one, my retirement payments would be much higher than what Social Security provides. Ask Chile. It has worked out like that for them.
We have about the highest corporate taxes in the world. That negatively affects US competitiveness. What, exactly is wrong with outsourcing government jobs to reduce costs? Urdegar doesn't say. The "wealthy" are paying a higher percentage of income taxes than ever before. Does Urdegar believe they should pay even more? At what point does he think that it is not a good idea to try to get blood from a stone. As it has been pointed out, has Urdegar ever been offered a job by someone who has less money that he has?
Fianlly, Urdegar ends with a prediciton. Is Urdegar ware that the government took a normal recession and produced a depression by trying to manipulate the economy, raising taxes, and starting a trade war?
Rick

enuf of your analyses...it is all caused by simple greed and hatred of any religion other than christianity..

no need for your convoluted explanations...

arrogance and greed caused 9/11...which caused a war in afghanistan..which i am not sure i understand because bin laden is no longer there...and some lunatic decided that sadaam hussein is a threat to the world so we needed to take him out...and we started a war we do not know how to end...we have lost thousands of lives...and this country is in debt forever...and the energy crisis is not solved because evidently all the people in the energy corporations are like cheney and the enron executives...

anybody who votes for a republican is a pretty thoughtless person...

and how could they allow these subprime mortgages to take place...how could they allow banks and mortgage lenders to take advantage of people who do not understand simple finance...how can they allow hedge fund managers to manipulate...if this is the free market place perhaps we need to rethink...

we are senior citizens and i doubt that any of these issues will be resolved in the few short years we have left...

shame on the people who selected george bush and his cronies to represent our nation...

i certainly hope they are hurting now...because if they aren't we will never get to change our ways...

the hopeful nation we grew up in no longer exists...

he internet bubble in 2000 vaporized 7 trillion dollars of stock market wealth.

Imagine your retirement in that debacle. You may not be the self proclaimed stock market wizard that Ricky is.

in 2005 300,000 individuals had almost as much wealth as the the bottom 150 million Americans. If you expressed this ratio as visually as an Excel bar chart you can't even see the 300,000 compared to the bar for the 150 million

During 190 to 2005 the income growth in the U.S, was 79% while the population grew by 33%

In 1980 90% of the people had 75% of the wealth
in 2005 90% had 50% of the wealth

In 1980 the top 10% had 37% of the income pie
In 2005 they had 48.5%

When you look at the amount of the wealth owned by the top 1% that is about 300,000 individuals their wealth tripled from 3.4% to 10% of the wealth

It's interesting that when you look at the top 1% you have to make at least 348,000, but at the top are people who made more than 1 billion in a year.

It would require someone in the bottom of the 1% 3,000 years of income to equate to what a billionaire makes in 1 year.

Meanwhile the average income for the bottom 90% of Americans peaked in 1973 at $33,000. Today that same group makes $4,000 less in wages. Meaning that the same group a generation later has to get by on $75.00 less a week.

So while the economy surged the overwhelming majority of Americans lost ground

This kind of wealth at the top has not been seen since just before the Great Depression and the Hoover era.

Once again the canards of "trickle down" economics, the "unseen hand" has served the ultra rich well in assuring that the could steal the taxpayer blind through manipulation of the tax system.

whatoptions wrote:

<quoted text>
enuf of your analyses...it is all caused by simple greed and hatred of any religion other than christianity..
no need for your convoluted explanations...
arrogance and greed caused 9/11...which caused a war in afghanistan..which i am not sure i understand because bin laden is no longer there...and some lunatic decided that sadaam hussein is a threat to the world so we needed to take him out...and we started a war we do not know how to end...we have lost thousands of lives...and this country is in debt forever...and the energy crisis is not solved because evidently all the people in the energy corporations are like cheney and the enron executives...
anybody who votes for a republican is a pretty thoughtless person...
and how could they allow these subprime mortgages to take place...how could they allow banks and mortgage lenders to take advantage of people who do not understand simple finance...how can they allow hedge fund managers to manipulate...if this is the free market place perhaps we need to rethink...
we are senior citizens and i doubt that any of these issues will be resolved in the few short years we have left...
shame on the people who selected george bush and his cronies to represent our nation...
i certainly hope they are hurting now...because if they aren't we will never get to change our ways...
the hopeful nation we grew up in no longer exists...

Well, after reading your post, I can see what you dismiss analysis. I would try to respond, but it is clear, you are not interested.

Rick

whatoptions wrote:

<quoted text>
enuf of your analyses...it is all caused by simple greed and hatred of any religion other than christianity..
no need for your convoluted explanations...
arrogance and greed caused 9/11...which caused a war in afghanistan..which i am not sure i understand because bin laden is no longer there...and some lunatic decided that sadaam hussein is a threat to the world so we needed to take him out...and we started a war we do not know how to end...we have lost thousands of lives...and this country is in debt forever...and the energy crisis is not solved because evidently all the people in the energy corporations are like cheney and the enron executives...
anybody who votes for a republican is a pretty thoughtless person...
and how could they allow these subprime mortgages to take place...how could they allow banks and mortgage lenders to take advantage of people who do not understand simple finance...how can they allow hedge fund managers to manipulate...if this is the free market place perhaps we need to rethink...
we are senior citizens and i doubt that any of these issues will be resolved in the few short years we have left...
shame on the people who selected george bush and his cronies to represent our nation...
i certainly hope they are hurting now...because if they aren't we will never get to change our ways...
the hopeful nation we grew up in no longer exists...

You use "they" a lot. But clearly you place all of this on Christians and Bush. While I am not a big Bush fan, you really have to take a realistic look and see much of what you say also happened under Clinton (who is Christian). Just becuse things come to a head during one administration does not mean the preceeding administration didn't have a hand in it. The Clintons had their hand in a lot of things.

By the way, I just heard that the Clintons looted the Whitehouse when they left of Presidential gifts - which must stay by law. That's why Bill wanted Hillary to win so badly - so he could get his stuff back.

Christian Soldier wrote:

he internet bubble in 2000 vaporized 7 trillion dollars of stock market wealth.
Imagine your retirement in that debacle. You may not be the self proclaimed stock market wizard that Ricky is.
in 2005 300,000 individuals had almost as much wealth as the the bottom 150 million Americans. If you expressed this ratio as visually as an Excel bar chart you can't even see the 300,000 compared to the bar for the 150 million
During 190 to 2005 the income growth in the U.S, was 79% while the population grew by 33%
In 1980 90% of the people had 75% of the wealth
in 2005 90% had 50% of the wealth
In 1980 the top 10% had 37% of the income pie
In 2005 they had 48.5%
When you look at the amount of the wealth owned by the top 1% that is about 300,000 individuals their wealth tripled from 3.4% to 10% of the wealth
It's interesting that when you look at the top 1% you have to make at least 348,000, but at the top are people who made more than 1 billion in a year.
It would require someone in the bottom of the 1% 3,000 years of income to equate to what a billionaire makes in 1 year.
Meanwhile the average income for the bottom 90% of Americans peaked in 1973 at $33,000. Today that same group makes $4,000 less in wages. Meaning that the same group a generation later has to get by on $75.00 less a week.
So while the economy surged the overwhelming majority of Americans lost ground
This kind of wealth at the top has not been seen since just before the Great Depression and the Hoover era.
Once again the canards of "trickle down" economics, the "unseen hand" has served the ultra rich well in assuring that the could steal the taxpayer blind through manipulation of the tax system.

Well, the decline was not all the dot.com bubble. You may remember that Greenspan hiked interest rates about 12 times and then 9/11 happened. Still, if your were nearing retirement and were sane, you would not be 100% in stocks. I would see the private accounts being in something like a life strategy fund.

I would need to see your references for the income and wealth statistics. I am not sure you transcribed them correctly because you said: "In 1980 90% of the people had 75% of the wealth
in 2005 90% had 50% of the wealth". That seems to contradict the point you are trying to make.

Now, the next question that needs to be addressed is how the income is distributed between those newly entering the job market with little or no skills (school dropouts, illegal immigrants with no English, long term welfare recipients, etc.) vs how many people who have worked their way up the income quintiles. We also have to factor in risk for the guy who starts a business and may lose everything if it fails. We are actually a pretty income mobile society. Looking at pure income across the whole society can be pretty misleading because there is the tendency to think these are the same people. They are not. We do not have a caste system. People start out their work career low, move up through the quintiles, and then probably drop down at retirement.

If you want to have some fun, compare your percentages with, say, baseball players over the same period.

Rick

Rick Caird wrote:

<quoted text>
You might want to look at the chart in this reference:
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/...
The chart shows that any increase in income for the richest 1% and 5% is greatly exceeded by the percentage of the total income tax they pay. the chart shows that if you want to get more from the richest 5%, reduce taxes. Why? There is less incentive for those paying the taxes to act to reduce their taxes.
Duh, right back at ya'.
Rick

Just more obfuscation of plain reality. I'm sure the "income" the table shows excludes capital gains (it's probably only salary), which have become the largest source of wealth for those at the very top of the scale. The taxes paid include those on their huge capital gains. Therefore the table and explanation are arranged to be misleading. "Income" and wealth increase have become increasingly disconnected over the past 30 years, as our federal tax system has gone from progressive to largely regressive overall. But then, we're not supposed to notice that.

Phil was wrong to brand the entire nation as whiners.

There are a percentage of whiners but there's a real problem with these fuel prices.

$5 gal gas or $80 tank fulls are going to slow spending which is exactly what causes recessions.

Fix the gas price problem and the economy moves right along.

Rick Caird wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, the decline was not all the dot.com bubble. You may remember that Greenspan hiked interest rates about 12 times and then 9/11 happened. Still, if your were nearing retirement and were sane, you would not be 100% in stocks. I would see the private accounts being in something like a life strategy fund.
I would need to see your references for the income and wealth statistics. I am not sure you transcribed them correctly because you said: "In 1980 90% of the people had 75% of the wealth
in 2005 90% had 50% of the wealth". That seems to contradict the point you are trying to make.
Now, the next question that needs to be addressed is how the income is distributed between those newly entering the job market with little or no skills (school dropouts, illegal immigrants with no English, long term welfare recipients, etc.) vs how many people who have worked their way up the income quintiles. We also have to factor in risk for the guy who starts a business and may lose everything if it fails. We are actually a pretty income mobile society. Looking at pure income across the whole society can be pretty misleading because there is the tendency to think these are the same people. They are not. We do not have a caste system. People start out their work career low, move up through the quintiles, and then probably drop down at retirement.
If you want to have some fun, compare your percentages with, say, baseball players over the same period.
Rick

Nope what you see is that the percentile of income held among the vast majority of people declined while virtually all the gains went to the wealthy.
SHARE OF INCOME ON TAX RETURNS

Left to right is the vast majority, the Rich and the Super Rich
1980 65.3% 10% 1.3%
2005 51.5% 21.8% 5.1%

Local Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
You use "they" a lot. But clearly you place all of this on Christians and Bush. While I am not a big Bush fan, you really have to take a realistic look and see much of what you say also happened under Clinton (who is Christian). Just becuse things come to a head during one administration does not mean the preceeding administration didn't have a hand in it. The Clintons had their hand in a lot of things.
By the way, I just heard that the Clintons looted the Whitehouse when they left of Presidential gifts - which must stay by law. That's why Bill wanted Hillary to win so badly - so he could get his stuff back.

actually "they" is bush/cheney and the rest of their administration who have led this country down what conservatives to see as a slippery slope...we are all hanging on for dear life...there is not analysis necessary for anything because greed is the cause of it all...damnation to the poor or the blue collar class or the poor working white collar class...

the rich shall rule the world without any consideration for the people who support them and hold them up...

they could not do what they do without the mass markets, the workers, etc. but they have no respect for them...and again they is bush/cheney and colleagues...

Christian Soldier wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope what you see is that the percentile of income held among the vast majority of people declined while virtually all the gains went to the wealthy.
SHARE OF INCOME ON TAX RETURNS
Left to right is the vast majority, the Rich and the Super Rich
1980 65.3% 10% 1.3%
2005 51.5% 21.8% 5.1%

How about listing your reference? But, if you are using income on tax returns, have you accounted for the rise in single person returns? The marriage rates have gone down and people are marrying later. That may also shoot down WPB's "sure" that it excludes cap gains.

Rick

whatoptions wrote:

<quoted text>
actually "they" is bush/cheney and the rest of their administration who have led this country down what conservatives to see as a slippery slope...we are all hanging on for dear life...there is not analysis necessary for anything because greed is the cause of it all...damnation to the poor or the blue collar class or the poor working white collar class...
the rich shall rule the world without any consideration for the people who support them and hold them up...
they could not do what they do without the mass markets, the workers, etc. but they have no respect for them...and again they is bush/cheney and colleagues...

On way or the other you want the so-called rich to pay lower wage earners more - either by increasing wages (which has lead to outsourcing jobs to other countries - my sister lost her job this way) or by taxing the so-called rich at crazy percentages.

I'm all for a flat tax - the rich have to pay, but so does everyone else. Everyone pays an affordable fair share. Can you go with that idea?

Local Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
On way or the other you want the so-called rich to pay lower wage earners more - either by increasing wages (which has lead to outsourcing jobs to other countries - my sister lost her job this way) or by taxing the so-called rich at crazy percentages.
I'm all for a flat tax - the rich have to pay, but so does everyone else. Everyone pays an affordable fair share. Can you go with that idea?

I could go with that idea in a heartbeat! Whether you make $10,000 a year,$100,000 or a Million...everybody pays a flat percentage across the board.

But that is precisely why it will NEVER fly. The wealthy would actually have to pay their fair share; no loopholes, no gray areas, no funneling, no special "breaks." But since the wealthy for the most part make up the federal government, you can bet they'd pay plenty for that NOT to happen.

The day we have a flat tax system is the day pigs will fly. Make sure you let me know when that day comes.

Just Curious wrote:

<quoted text>
The day we have a flat tax system is the day pigs will fly. Make sure you let me know when that day comes.

You'll want to wear a substantial hat outdoors.