Economy Sinking Government Knows & Giving Bad Info

reply to post by LightinDarkness

And no jack, I just know how you argue.

Ah yes, by "tricking" me into verifying that your source actually supported your claim, which it did not.

In other words, instead of actually reading the full paper you cherry picked a quote which - actually doesn't disagree with me at all...

So how does this quote prove that poor people will spend the money irresponsibly? By the way, I "cherry-picked" it from the abstract which some people might see as a summary of the contents.

But of course you say:

You see, I met the authors of this study so I know all about the paper and the resulting publication.

So somehow by supposedly knowing these people (cough-liar) you are able to divine the "inner meaning" of their works.

(I really advise you pick another one, thats a pretty bad one for your side) - and somehow claim it means something completely different than what it actually means.

Let us once again define reality using your source. This time from another piece by the same authors:

Many households received income tax rebates in 2001 of $300 or $600. These rebates represented advance payments of the tax cut from the new 10 percent tax bracket. Based on a survey of a representative sample of households, this paper finds that only 22 percent of households receiving the rebate would spent it. Instead, they would either save it or use it to pay off debt...

I think that pretty much speaks for itself.

Once again we see that the poor are not spending the money irresponsibly at all, or as you so eloquently put it:

The low class will go out and splurge...

When all the facts show your wrong, you change reality. Unlike your sources, unbiased sources test their hypothesis when they have theories about the world

Who is trying to "change" reality? The facts are clearly typed, using your sources.

Sorry, nevermind, the matrix has me.
[edit on 1/20/0808 by jackinthebox]

[edit on 1/20/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by jackinthebox


I am sorry that you do not understand that the facts just show your wrong, and that you tactics are predictable enough that you've been exposed. I still await _any_ data from you that verifies _anything_ you say. But you don't actually provide any. You've been exposed. No matter how many times you type it, it does not change reality.

Let us once again define reality using my source:

There is no evidence that the tax rebate spending among low income respondents would stimulate aggregate demand

Your intentional deception of statistics does not change reality. I never claimed anything that disputes the fact that most households would not spend the rebate. Your attempt to spin the statistics does not change reality. I only claimed that the lower class would - which - surprise the paper validates. Once again we see that the poor are spending frivolously when they get rebates.

My sources prove my point. Where are yours?

[edit on 20-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]

reply to post by LightinDarkness


my 2 cents on taxes....YES!! the rich pay most of the taxes...but here's my simple example using just 2 people paying the entire tax bill...i'll call them the "rich", the top 1%, and the "not rich", bottom 99%. and i'll use simple numbers to illustrate:
say the entire tax bill comes to $1 million
the rich has an income of $5 million and pays in taxes $990,000, which is a rate of approx: 19.9% of income
not rich has an income of $50 thousand and pays in taxes $10,000, which is 20% of income
the total taxes paid for both of these is $1 million
however the rich can say they paid 99% of all the taxes and the not rich can only say they paid 1% of all taxes.
sooooo, the rich say "we need a tax break because we pay 99% of all taxes and that is unfair"

Originally posted by LightinDarkness
reply to post by jackinthebox

 

I know of no state where welfare benefits are a loan. The only time you have to pay anything back is if YOU GOT OVERPAID and you did NOT pay it back - in which case, they will continue to try to collect until they get it from your estate. And if you get paid less than 30,000 or so a year, you won't owe a dime in federal taxes.

[edit on 18-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]

Actually light this is true my mom was on welfare for a long time and and whenever she gets tax money supposedly coming back the government takes it for backpay on welfare or something like that . It really is true. Now on jack I dont know how much money u make but when I was making $400 a week at my first job I worked out of highschool I got taxes taken off my payroll but when I filed my taxes I always got it all back minus SSI and Med. If you are paying taxes at the end of the year you need to look at your accounting partner. If you have questions you can always ask me too

Also light the fact is yes the top 3% pay most of the taxes yes but that is because of the sick amount of money that they are making. You cant contend the fact that they pay a lower % than a guy making 80k a year they dont. But hell Ill be GLAD to make their kind of money and pay their kind of taxes. If you want to be a appologist for those people then thats your opinion I just think its funny making the money your making your saying the top 3% are paying their share when their not.

On a side not like Obama said and GOD your making me quote a dem but it is the truth and that is Buffet has offered any CEO of any big corporation to show they pay the same tax % as his seceratary. ONE MILLION DOLLARS!!! Guess how many have showed up to take his challenge....hmmmmm Not a one. The rich pay alot but no where near what they should be.

reply to post by LightinDarkness


Light says:

I only claimed that the lower class would - which - surprise the paper validates. Once again we see that the poor are spending frivolously when they get rebates.

His own source says:

Many households received income tax rebates in 2001 of $300 or $600. These rebates represented advance payments of the tax cut from the new 10 percent tax bracket. Based on a survey of a representative sample of households, this paper finds that only 22 percent of households receiving the rebate would spent it. Instead, they would either save it or use it to pay off debt...

AND...

In 2001, many households received rebate checks as advanced payments of the benefit of the new, 10 percent federal income tax bracket. A survey conducted at the time the rebates were mailed finds that few households said that the rebate led them mostly to increase spending. A follow-up survey in 2002, as well as a similar survey conducted after the attacks of 9/11, also indicates low spending rates

Does anyone else see any evidence here of Light's claim that the poor are spending frivelously?

Better turn your Light on there buddy.

I'm a realist, your the one wanting to punish the rich. I don't care how they got rich, or how they earned their money (as long as its legal). They pay far more than I do in taxes, and it is unfair - however, I am not going to write a check to the government until they force me to. Buffets stunt is well known to be a PR stunt. Buffet knows most CEO payments don't come through ordinary income. I may make $0 in ordinary income and therefore be taxed at 0%, even though I make billions. Thats because all of the salary comes from capital gains or stock options..which - surprise! - are indeed taxed, but because its so huge its not a flat percent.

Welfare as a federal entitlement is not a loan. I'm sorry, but I spent far to many months examining it in more painstaking detail than you can imagine. There is no repayment system in place, UNLESS you got overpaid.

reply to post by jackinthebox


The comedy continues with quoting out of context. All your quoting is things I never disagreed with. Most of the money as a percentage is not spent - no one disagrees. Did it occur to you that perhaps the percentage of the poor making up total spending rates is small - thus the majority did not get spent because the poor were not in the majority? It is simple statistics. But I know it's far easier for you to keep parroting yourself than read the data. My source says:

There is no evidence that the tax rebate spending among low income respondents would stimulate aggregate demand

Where are YOUR sources jack? You spend all your time quoting mine out of context...and yet...YOU PROVIDE NOTHING for your own. Hmmm...

reply to post by LightinDarkness

Did it occur to you that perhaps the percentage of the poor making up total spending rates is small - thus the majority did not get spent because the poor were not in the majority? It is simple statistics.

Simple statistics which you are trying to slant, the same way the government does.

It had occured to me that this was a possiblity, but as you have pointed out, the "less poor" you are, the higher your tax rate. Therefore, your source is only talking about the poor when they say...

10 percent tax bracket.

The rebates only went to the poor. I'm sorry you missed that critical point.

EDIT to add:

You have still shown no evidence that the poor spend "frivelously." You made the initial claim, so prove it.

[edit on 1/20/0808 by jackinthebox]

I'm a realist, your the one wanting to punish the rich. I don't care how they got rich, or how they earned their money (as long as its legal). They pay far more than I do in taxes, and it is unfair - however, I am not going to write a check to the government until they force me to. Buffets stunt is well known to be a PR stunt. Buffet knows most CEO payments don't come through ordinary income. I may make $0 in ordinary income and therefore be taxed at 0%, even though I make billions. Thats because all of the salary comes from capital gains or stock options..which - surprise! - are indeed taxed, but because its so huge its not a flat percent.

Has nothing to do with punishing the rich Light its making the rich pay their share. Let me break this down for you. How they make their money I dont care and I have never said anything otherwise. Light they pay more taxes than you because they earn a HELL of a lot more than you. Now the reason why this subject pisses my off and yes I know a lot about this subject is because I make over 200k a year and I get nailed at a 35% tax bracket. You know how much buffet gets hit with? 15% capital gains. Now why the hell should be only have to pay 15% when I am make a hell of a lot less than him but I have to pay 35%. I am in the worse position on this thread because Im not poor enough to not pay taxes and Im in the highest taxable income bracket. Umm yes 9 out of 10 Ceos pay themselves a salary I dont know where you get your stats there are only a small handful of CEOs that dont pay themselves a salary. Even Buffet has a salary its just a small salary so he doesnt have to pay the hight taxes which in a sense makes him a hypocrite but what he says is true.

reply to post by mybigunit


I would have to say that American in your position are indeed in the "squeeze box." You are too rich to be poor, but to poor to buy corruption.

It is sad to say that I believe this is the real front-line now in the battle between the elites and the public. All that is really left of the middle class is what was once the "upper middle class." The rest of the middle class is about to be shoved over the edge into the bankruptcy abyss. They're finished. Now the system has set their sights a bit higher, and targeted the upper middle class to be sucked dry and thrown into the abyss of poverty and despair as well.



[edit on 1/20/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by jackinthebox


Thats why when people say Im rich I laugh at them. I get nailed in taxes. Im not rich or poor enough. I paid 60k in taxes last year and this yea whew I dont even want to know. Its hard to feel sorry for someone pulling in what I am but its even harder to feel sorry for the top 1% who make millions a year and pay half the tax % as me.

reply to post by jackinthebox


Enough. I have shown the majority of the poor spend frivolously when given government checks, as we see in the case of Katrina and as we now see in the case of previous government tax rebates. You have shown nothing. Instead, you spend time trying to deceive with simple statistics. Where is your evidence?

reply to post by mybigunit


Fine. Cut a bigger check to the government. No one's holding you back from doing so. You want to tax the rich into the poor house, you be the first person to volunteer.

I will never be rich because I'm not in the field to do so, but I will never support punishing people who are successful - regardless of how they got that success. Tax the rich enough, and watch as no one has an incentive to bother getting rich. I am all for a flat tax rate - I'm just not for the "rich" paying a higher percent than I am. Slap a X% tax rate on _everyone_. The difference here is several people indicated instead of a fair tax rate they want to punish the rich and slap them all with some high X% while everyone else gets a low X%.

Populism - which is what some people in this forum are pushing - always fails. When you create a war between classes, you will get a war - how unsurprising. Unfortunately, most people fail to understand that the result won't be good for them. I refuse to drink the class warfare kool aid because I'm not rolling in money. I refuse to lampoon everyone who is more successful than I am. You know why? Because life sucks, and it isn't fair.

[edit on 20-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]

reply to post by mybigunit


I am most certainly well below the poverty line at the moment and in dire straits. However, I was also once quite well off, and know that being upper middle class is by no means "rich." It just means you have some breathing room, for the moment. You won't be at the soup kitchen tomorrow, but there's no guarantee about next week.

This is one of the reasons I like talking to you. Despite being a man of some means, you are not like many others in your tax bracket who are simply oblivious to the fact that there is really not much standing between them and the line at the soup kitchen. And in fact, there are forces at work trying to tumble people from their precarious perch.

reply to post by LightinDarkness


Light I dont think you understand me...why would I pay more to the government when I pay a higher % than anyone in the top 1%. With all this government spending something needs to change either we need to spend less or tax more. I dont see the spending less happening anytime soon.

reply to post by jackinthebox


Im not oblivious to the fact because with more money comes more bills and I can easily have that fall just as easy as anyone else and frankly I think there a lot of problems in this country that people need to address but as long as the lobby controls this government nothing will ever change. I grew up in a single mother welfare house myself Jack and I dont forget where I came from. Im with ya guy and sorry to hear about your position but unless you have the millions in your account even guys like me are feeling the pain.

And frankly people like light are so far to the right that he needs to open his eyes and realize that there are some serious issues. I used to be like him no more than a couple years ago but the more I see these problems come to the more I realize that this government isnt looking out for you or me but only the extremely wealthy.



[edit on 20-1-2008 by mybigunit]

reply to post by LightinDarkness

I have shown the majority of the poor spend frivolously when given government checks...

I must have missed it. Did anyone else see it?

Where is your evidence?

My evidence is repeated:

Many households received income tax rebates in 2001 of $300 or $600. These rebates represented advance payments of the tax cut from the new 10 percent tax bracket. Based on a survey of a representative sample of households, this paper finds that only 22 percent of households receiving the rebate would spent it. Instead, they would either save it or use it to pay off debt...

Any questions?

reply to post by jackinthebox


No one missed it but you.

There is no evidence that the tax rebate spending among low income respondents would stimulate aggregate demand...

Well geez..why would we even hypothesize that. Oh, I know from reading the paper. Because while the poor do indeed take government rebates and spend it on non-essential item, the small percent isn't enough to cause a large-scale economic impact.

Any questions?

Where is your evidence jack? I'm waiting.

[edit on 20-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]

reply to post by mybigunit


I propose a new law. Every rich person spend a year on welfare so they know what it's really like. The catch-22's of the system and what it really takes to survive on less than ten-grand a year.

Don't worry buddy, even if they decide to count you as "rich," you get credit for time served.