Ten Numbers the Rich Would Like Fudged (Alternet)

Get ready to be awestruck at the sheer numbers.

The amount of money swirling around in tax havens, loopholes and investments, miles and miles above the heads of peasants like us, is mind boggling.

Here's the list from Alternet. Worth reading. Very, very much worth reading: Ten Numbers the Rich Would Like Fudged

The comment section is also worth browsing. Some of the weaker points in the list are highlighted and addressed.

i wonder how it feels like to have $300 million dollars and still complain that you have to pay 10% taxes.

the rich hate paying taxes, while the rest of us are made to believe paying taxes is patriotic.

so who's the idiot.

the only problem i have is that employees are made to pick up the burden of the corporations 10,000 loopholes they exploit, while you don't even have a say on how much of your paycheck is stolen every two weeks.

i laugh when people say i got a money back at the end of the year.

the only reason you got money back is because you overpaid in the first place. and if you don't know the tax code, it'll be a mystery rivalling stone hedge to know if you actually paid the correct amount.

reply to post by Sink the Bismarck!


Some of the information in the top 10 list is completely inaccurat.

2. Only FOUR OUT OF 150 countries have more wealth inequality than us.

In a world listing compiled by a reputable research team (which nevertheless prompted double-checking), the U.S. has greater wealth inequality than every measured country in the world except for Namibia, Zimbabwe, Denmark, and Switzerland.

I noticed it, because I live in Denmark, and found the above information very unlikely. So I looked it up. None of these countries are among the 5 most unequal countries. Zimbabwe is close, but something like 10 from the bottom. It depends on what list you look at, and how you look at them, like before and after taxes.

Anyway, Denmark is usually among the least unequal countries in the world. The Scandinavian model of democratic socialism has proven to be a great 'tool' to combat inequality over and over again.

wow...I always knew about inequality...but these numbers gave a new dimension to this picture.

It is somewhat disgusting.


Thanks for this link...valuable info..

I'm not awestruck, just mad as hell.
Meanwhile they cry "Class warfare" when it's suggested the wealthy pay their fair share.
"But we already pay a bazillion $ in taxes, while you pay a pittance!"
That's because the rich have a gazillion times more money than the rest of us.
Anyways, don't buy into the MSM spin and here's why:

6. Tax deductions for the rich could pay off 100 PERCENT of the deficit. Another stat that required a double-check. Based on research by the Tax Policy Center, tax deferrals and deductions and other forms of tax expenditures (tax subsidies from special deductions, exemptions, exclusions, credits, capital gains, and loopholes), which largely benefit the rich, are worth about 7.4% of the GDP, or about $1.1 trillion. Other sources have estimated that about two-thirds of the annual $850 billion in tax expenditures goes to the top quintile of taxpayers.

10. The American public paid about FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS to bail out the banks. Bonus for the super-rich: A QUADRILLION DOLLARS in securities trading nets ZERO sales tax revenue for the U.S.... A quadrillion dollars. A sales tax of ONE-TENTH OF A PENNY on a quadrillion dollars could pay off the deficit. But the total sales tax was ZERO.

2 different ways to pay off the deficit.
But NO, YOU NEED TO SACRIFICE MORE!!

Originally posted by Mads1987
reply to post by Sink the Bismarck!

 

Some of the information in the top 10 list is completely inaccurat.

2. Only FOUR OUT OF 150 countries have more wealth inequality than us.

In a world listing compiled by a reputable research team (which nevertheless prompted double-checking), the U.S. has greater wealth inequality than every measured country in the world except for Namibia, Zimbabwe, Denmark, and Switzerland.

I noticed it, because I live in Denmark, and found the above information very unlikely. So I looked it up. None of these countries are among the 5 most unequal countries. Zimbabwe is close, but something like 10 from the bottom. It depends on what list you look at, and how you look at them, like before and after taxes.

Anyway, Denmark is usually among the least unequal countries in the world. The Scandinavian model of democratic socialism has proven to be a great 'tool' to combat inequality over and over again.

I didn't like the fact that #2 didn't have any citations, just a 'reputable research team' that wasn't named. I'm not sure who the writer was using as his reference on this one, so I'm willing to concede that this point may be based off a fuzzy interpretation.

I'm not surprised at the lack of sources on that one. Alternet is a site with a very clear agenda and I believe they'll say anything in furtherance of that agenda.

Originally posted by SpookyFoxMulder
I'm not surprised at the lack of sources on that one. Alternet is a site with a very clear agenda and I believe they'll say anything in furtherance of that agenda.

Marketwatch, Tax Justice Network, Tax Policy Center, and so on = not sources?

I figured most ATSers would brush this off when they saw it coming from Alternet, which is why I put that in the title. Figured I'd spare them the pain of reading through it. God forbid ATSers come face to face with the ugly reality about tax avoidance perpetrated by the ultra wealthy.

Meanwhile, the US deficit continues to grow...

Originally posted by Sink the Bismarck!

Originally posted by SpookyFoxMulder
I'm not surprised at the lack of sources on that one. Alternet is a site with a very clear agenda and I believe they'll say anything in furtherance of that agenda.

Marketwatch, Tax Justice Network, Tax Policy Center, and so on = not sources?

I figured most ATSers would brush this off when they saw it coming from Alternet, which is why I put that in the title. Figured I'd spare them the pain of reading through it. God forbid ATSers come face to face with the ugly reality about tax avoidance perpetrated by the ultra wealthy.

Meanwhile, the US deficit continues to grow...

edit on 26/11/12 by Sink the Bismarck! because: (no reason given)

If you'll notice, I was clearly referring to point #2 which does not have a source.

Originally posted by SpookyFoxMulder

Originally posted by Sink the Bismarck!

Originally posted by SpookyFoxMulder
I'm not surprised at the lack of sources on that one. Alternet is a site with a very clear agenda and I believe they'll say anything in furtherance of that agenda.

Marketwatch, Tax Justice Network, Tax Policy Center, and so on = not sources?

I figured most ATSers would brush this off when they saw it coming from Alternet, which is why I put that in the title. Figured I'd spare them the pain of reading through it. God forbid ATSers come face to face with the ugly reality about tax avoidance perpetrated by the ultra wealthy.

Meanwhile, the US deficit continues to grow...

edit on 26/11/12 by Sink the Bismarck! because: (no reason given)

If you'll notice, I was clearly referring to point #2 which does not have a source.

Guess I misread that.

Anyways, number 2 actually does have a source, even though Alternet didn't cite it.

Not sure if this is the study in question, but it's a study that reaches similar conclusions: Study finds median wealth for single black women at $5. It seems like the group responsible for the study was the Insight Center for Community Economic Development, or at least that's what I gathered from the wording in the article.

Does it bother you at all that Alternet is advocating for a position that claims to be supported by facts but fails to mention the source? IMO, this is a huge red flag for ANY website.

Originally posted by SpookyFoxMulder
Does it bother you at all that Alternet is advocating for a position that claims to be supported by facts but fails to mention the source? IMO, this is a huge red flag for ANY website.

Well, feel free to read my previous post and you'll see that they do have a source. Failing to name the source != not having a source and making stuff up.

Any thoughts on any other part of the list?

Originally posted by Sink the Bismarck!

Originally posted by SpookyFoxMulder
Does it bother you at all that Alternet is advocating for a position that claims to be supported by facts but fails to mention the source? IMO, this is a huge red flag for ANY website.

Well, feel free to read my previous post and you'll see that they do have a source. Failing to name the source != not having a source.

Any thoughts on any other part of the list?

I do not have the same blind faith in my media outlets; if they claim to have a source but do not provide it, I don't assume they're telling the truth.

Anyway, this list is a bit fishy. Take number six for example. "Based on research by the Tax Policy Center, tax deferrals and deductions and other forms of tax expenditures (tax subsidies from special deductions, exemptions, exclusions, credits, capital gains, and loopholes), which largely benefit the rich, are worth about 7.4% of the GDP, or about $1.1 trillion."

Okay, which deductions, exemptions, credits, etc? Who knows? They certainly don't provide any follow-up information. It's not a useful article because it doesn't provide the hard facts that people need to make logical decisions.

IMO, this is more of an emotional advocacy piece. It's designed to fire people up, but when it comes to actual information, it's sorely lacking.

Originally posted by SpookyFoxMulder

Originally posted by Sink the Bismarck!

Originally posted by SpookyFoxMulder
Does it bother you at all that Alternet is advocating for a position that claims to be supported by facts but fails to mention the source? IMO, this is a huge red flag for ANY website.

Well, feel free to read my previous post and you'll see that they do have a source. Failing to name the source != not having a source.

Any thoughts on any other part of the list?

I do not have the same blind faith in my media outlets; if they claim to have a source but do not provide it, I don't assume they're telling the truth.

Anyway, this list is a bit fishy. Take number six for example. "Based on research by the Tax Policy Center, tax deferrals and deductions and other forms of tax expenditures (tax subsidies from special deductions, exemptions, exclusions, credits, capital gains, and loopholes), which largely benefit the rich, are worth about 7.4% of the GDP, or about $1.1 trillion."

Okay, which deductions, exemptions, credits, etc? Who knows? They certainly don't provide any follow-up information. It's not a useful article because it doesn't provide the hard facts that people need to make logical decisions.

IMO, this is more of an emotional advocacy piece. It's designed to fire people up, but when it comes to actual information, it's sorely lacking.

You keep claiming that they didn't provide the source, and, by extension, they could be messing with the numbers involved. Fair enough; they only provided a vague description.

However I already went ahead by myself and provided another news story that covered the same economic study, as well as linking to the group that conducted the study (more like a meta-analysis, but whatever). So you should be aware that the source did, in the end, exist, which means that no, they were not just making up numbers for shock value.

I think the list does a good job using real data for being in such a limiting format. If somebody felt the urge to independently verify the conclusions reached therein, I feel that the article provides them with plenty of places to start.

Oh, and saying I have blind faith despite my earlier concessions regarding weak points in the list? Cool. This conversation is over.

Alternet could have easily included a link to the source without increasing the length of the article. Just make it a hyperlink. Yet, they didn't. I wonder why? Could it be that the source doesn't agree with the text? Well, we'll never know, I guess. In order for this list to be useful, you have to put your faith in Alternet. Specifically, faith in that Alternet actually has a source and they're actually describing it accurately.

Now, let's add this together: an obvious advocacy piece + a lack of sources = a highly unreliable list. It's simple.

I don't understand why people start with this "I'm taking my ball and going home, this conversation is over" when their obviously biased advocacy pieces start to get torn down for what they are.