Half of U.S. pays no federal income tax

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>and you're feeling out on a limb so you've gone to the royal 'we'

No, it was the usual sense meaning "me and others." I was one of the others.

in that case provide some evidence

You first.

Quote

In the late 1960s, Ukrainian mathematicians Vladimir Marcenko and Leonid Pastur derived a fundamental mathematical result describing the key properties of very large, random matrices. Their result allows you to calculate how much correlation between data sets you should expect to find simply by chance. This makes it possible to distinguish truly special cases from chance accidents. The strengths of these correlations are the equivalent of the nuclear energy levels in Wigner's original work.

Bouchaud's team has now shown how this idea throws doubt on the trustworthiness of many economic predictions, especially those claiming to look many months ahead. Such predictions are, of course, the bread and butter of economic institutions. But can we believe them?

To find out, Bouchaud and his colleagues looked at how well US inflation rates could be explained by a wide range of economic indicators, such as industrial production, retail sales, consumer and producer confidence, interest rates and oil prices.

Using figures from 1983 to 2005, they first calculated all the possible correlations among the data. They found what seem to be significant results - apparent patterns showing how changes in economic indicators at one moment lead to changes in inflation the next. To the unwary observer, this makes it look as if inflation can be predicted with confidence.

But when Bouchaud's team applied Marcenko's and Pastur's mathematics, they got a surprise. They found that only a few of these apparent correlations can be considered real, in the sense that they really stood out from what would be expected by chance alone. Their results show that inflation is predictable only one month in advance. Look ahead two months and the mathematics shows no predictability at all. "Adding more data just doesn't lead to more predictability as some economists would hope," says Bouchaud.

In recent years, some economists have begun to express doubts over predictions made from huge volumes of data, but they are in the minority. Most embrace the idea that more measurements mean better predictive abilities. That might be an illusion, and random matrix theory could be the tool to separate what is real and what is not.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627550.200-enter-the-matrix-the-deep-law-that-shapes-our-reality.html?page=3

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[kallend 2,034]

Quote

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.

Ron Paul admits that the bottom 40% own only 0.2% of the wealth, and says it IS a problem.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.

Ron Paul admits that the bottom 40% own only 0.2% of the wealth, and says it IS a problem.

Thanks for the reinforcement of the point in my quote.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.

Ron Paul admits that the bottom 40% own only 0.2% of the wealth, and says it IS a problem.

Thanks for the reinforcement of the point in my quote.

The same is true for robbing Peter to pay Paul International Inc. The only difference however between Paul and Paul International Inc. is that PII has much more "free speech" and therefore "access" to those who amend the tax code and legislate. I know that the theory is that it's supposed to "trickle down" and that all of society eventually benefits. This experiment over the last quarter of a century, and our recent near (global) depression is proof that the model is severely flawed.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I know that the theory is that it's supposed to "trickle down" and that all of society eventually benefits. This experiment over the last quarter of a century, and our recent near (global) depression is proof that the model is severely flawed.

Remind me again - how much tax money are we getting from those companies that bailed out of the country when the burden got too steep?

What is 'welfare' BUT a 'trickle-down' from Fed.gov?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

I know that the theory is that it's supposed to "trickle down" and that all of society eventually benefits. This experiment over the last quarter of a century, and our recent near (global) depression is proof that the model is severely flawed.

Remind me again - how much tax money are we getting from those companies that bailed out of the country when the burden got too steep?

What is 'welfare' BUT a 'trickle-down' from Fed.gov?

Depends on how you look at it. When you work for a company as a lobbyist, write legislation regulating your business so the legislators don't have to be bothered and then reap the Treasury benefits, I'd say it's not so much "trickle down" as it is "throw up".
But yes, money from the taxpayer is welfare, regardless of who gets it.

But to address my earlier point more directly, "trickle down" doesn't work. It was a nice theory but it didn't factor in greed. Even Greenspan addressed it a year or so ago when he said he never imagined that CEO's would put their personal benefit over the health of the company.
25 years ago the average CEO compensation was ~40 times that of the average worker. Now it's closer to 350 times the average worker. Very little is trickling down. Now, to maintain a middle class lifestyle pretty much every family has to have a dual income. The wealthiest 1% owns 40% of the nations wealth. If the trend continues as it has for the last couple of decades then the top 1% will likely have to pay all of the taxes because the rest of us can't afford to.

[billvon 3,009]

>in that case provide some evidence

Sure:

==============
Trading The Minimum Wage For Inflation

Posted: July 24, 2009 at 10:58 am

The federal minimum wage gets a boost to $7.25 an hour today, a move that may hurt the low-wage earners the Obama administration is trying to help.

The result may help send us back 30 years to the era of stagflation.

The logic in raising the minimum wage is that it will help the people who need it most to keep up with the rising cost of basic life necessities. Prices are rising, and appear likely to go higher, even in a stagnant economy.

Government stats such as the Chicago Fed’s National Activity Index say inflation is tame, for now. But where is it headed? The biggest reason to believe inflation will take hold is the high demand for gold, measured in both spot prices and TV informercials for your unwanted jewelery. It shows that the market is pricing in inflation expectations. Over the decades, rising gold prices presage weaker dollars, and rising prices for most everything.

. . .

There is reason to think a rise in the minimum wage could provide some near-term economic stimulus. A study last year by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago confirmed that a minimum wage boost provided more economic benefit than a tax cut. The reason is elementary: Low wage-earners live paycheck to paycheck. Provide them with extra dollars, and they are very likely to spend them immediately.

It all comes at a price down the road, though. Raising the minimum wage is by definition inflationary. It adds to the cost of most anything with a basic labor component; the price of thousands of consumer goods made in the U.S., the price of eating out at a low-priced restaurant, and the prices at most every struggling U.S. retailer that counts on low-wage earners to turn the lights on and run the checkout stands.

It’s the lowest wage-earners that can least afford long-term inflation.

The other big price of a higher minimum wage is the toll on small business owners, which are usually first to start hiring again in an economic upswing. If anything, forcing them to pay higher wages could lead to more layoffs — or at minimum, they will do less hiring than they would otherwise. Forcing higher wages on employers does nothing but increase the likelihood of economist predictions of double-digit unemployment later this year.

Put it all together, and the minimum wage hike provides a bit of near-term economic pickup in exchange for the likelihood of higher costs for most everything, and a further hit to the already weak jobs market.
============================

The Minimum Wage:
Washingtons Perennial Myth

by Matthew B. Kibbe

Thanks to the political clout of organized labor, a number of Washington's lawmakers have once again proposed to substantially raise the minimum wage employers may pay workers. . . .

The simple truth about the issue is that any minimum-wage rate that is forced onto the market will have only negative effects on the distribution of economic justice. Minimum-wage legislation, by its very nature, benefits some at the expense of the least experienced, least productive, and poorest workers.

. . .

Contrary to the claims of many members of Congress, government cannot create wealth by simply passing new laws. Otherwise, Congress would long ago have passed laws prohibiting poverty and establishing a minimum wage of $100, or even $1,000, an hour. In such a world, everyone could be a millionaire. But ours is a world of scarcity, and wealth is a product of the market process, not of legislative fiat.

Simply stated,if the government coercively raises the price of some good (such as labor) above its market value, the demand for that good will fall, and some of the supply will become "disemployed." Unfortunately, in the case of minimum wages, the disemployed goods are human beings. The worker who is not quite worth the newly imposed price loses out. Typically, the losers include young workers who have too little experience to be worth the new minimum and marginal workers who, for whatever reason, cannot produce very much. First and foremost, minimum-wage legislation hurts the least employable by making them unemployable, in effect pricing them out of the market.

. . . .

Many firms, however, may be unable to pass on their increased costs (cue to higher minimum wage) to consumers. It is consumers who ultimately determine the price of any good on the market, and they may decide that a business's product is not worth a higher price. Producers cannot force consumers to buy what they produce, and businesses cannot always arbitrarily increase the prices of their products simply because the government has arbitrarily increased their costs.

This fact has important implications.If a business cannot simply pass along its new labor costs, it must somehow absorb them--by eliminating workers rendered unproductive by the new minimum wage, by replacing labor with more-productive machines, or by cutting back production. Those jobs not eliminated will be more demanding, as employers will use fewer people to produce the same amount of work.

Teenagers suffer most from the adjustments required by an increase in the minimum-wage rate. These workers are generally the least experienced, least skilled, and least productive. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the present unemployment rate for all teenagers actively seeking jobs is 16.5 percent, and the unemployment rate for black teenagers is 36.9 percent, more than double the overall average. The existing minimum wage has contributed significantly to producing these abhorrent levels of unemployment.

. . .

Regardless of the intentions of its supporters, the proposed minimum-wage legislation cannot achieve their stated goal of raising the real income of the poor to a more livable level. Indeed, it is an extremely shortsighted policy that can only breed destruction, by eliminating the jobs of those who need work most: the poor, the young, and those suffering from discrimination.

What has been touted as a matter of basic economic justice turns out to be a self-serving issue for many of its supporters. If the minimum wage is increased, labor unions and their influential friends in Congress will make big gains. Unfortunately, everyone else will lose.

In the long run, however, such policies will hurt every-one. As unemployment increases, business becomes more and more unproductive, and the overall quality of life declines, all Americans will suffer.
=================================

[kallend 2,034]

Quote

Even Greenspan addressed it a year or so ago when he said he never imagined that CEO's would put their personal benefit over the health of the company.

Yeah, amazing blind spot for such a smart guy.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[dreamdancer 0]

so your sources say that the minimum wage is both inflationary and causes unemployment - which is odd because that is what the business community said would happen in the uk when a minimum wage was first proposed. but neither happened. you won't get inflation or unemployment if the minimum wage is set too low to begin with and is merely adjusted to a 'stabilising' level, which is what i propose

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

If the trend continues as it has for the last couple of decades then the top 1% will likely have to pay all of the taxes because the rest of us can't afford to.

The only hope is to sack the Federal Reserve (and other central banks across the globe). It is insane to allow these global bankers to invent money out of thin air with nothing concrete to backup this newly invented money which is then loaned to governments with compounded interest. Every year more and more money collected as taxes only goes towards servicing the debt to these global bankers and we are all becoming slaves to their system. It does not matter if the Democrats or the Republicans are in charge. It does matter if a Conservative or a Liberal is calling the shots. There are all nothing more than puppets to the central bankers.

Unless the insanity of the Federal Reserve is addressed, all the whining from the Left or the Right is meaningless and we might as well be throwing around cheese to go with all the whining. We need a system where money is tied to something concrete (be it gold or something similar) instead of allowing these bankers to invent money out of thin air.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[dreamdancer 0]

....The Minimum Wage:
Washingtons Perennial Myth

by Matthew B. Kibbe

Thanks to the political clout of organized labor...

no bias there
(what did you think of my evidence)

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[billvon 3,009]

>so your sources say that the minimum wage is both inflationary and causes
>unemployment - which is odd because that is what the business community
>said would happen in the uk when a minimum wage was first proposed. but
>neither happened.

From a study of UK employment after 1999:

==========
Since the introduction of a national minimum wage in the UK in 1999, its effects on employment were subject to extensive research and observation by the Low Pay Commission. The Low Pay Commission found that, rather than make employees redundant, employers have reduced their rate of hiring, reduced staff hours, and increased prices.
==========

D'oh!

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

>so your sources say that the minimum wage is both inflationary and causes
>unemployment - which is odd because that is what the business community
>said would happen in the uk when a minimum wage was first proposed. but
>neither happened.

From a study of UK employment after 1999:

==========
Since the introduction of a national minimum wage in the UK in 1999, its effects on employment were subject to extensive research and observation by the Low Pay Commission. The Low Pay Commission found that, rather than make employees redundant, employers have reduced their rate of hiring, reduced staff hours, and increased prices.
==========

D'oh!

but no increase in inflation or unemployment
(but, as you point out, increased productivity (reduced staff hours) - and less welfare payments because people can earn enough to provide for themselves)

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[billvon 3,009]

> It is insane to allow these global bankers to invent money out of thin
> air with nothing concrete to backup this newly invented money . . .

That's not a function of a federal reserve. That's a function of a bank. Credit default swaps, for example, are a way of creating money out of thin air. So is investment in a company. "Sacking the Federal Reserve" won't change that.

>Every year more and more money collected as taxes only goes towards
>servicing the debt to these global bankers . . .

That's like saying you want the government to shut down your bank, because every year more and more of your money goes to servicing your mortgage debt to these evildoers.

>We need a system where money is tied to something concrete (be it gold or
>something similar) instead of allowing these bankers to invent money out
>of thin air.

It's a little late to put that particular genie back in the bottle, I think.

[airdvr 210]

Let's try and do the math. I'm assuming Dick makes 1 widget every hour. Dick makes $7.25 per hour. The widget costs Dick's employer $1.00 to make. The sell it for $10.00. After paying Dick his $7.25 that leaves $1.75.

After awhile some daft liberal comes along and says "we need to double the minimum wage".

Guess what...either the price of the widget must increase or the company goes out of business and Dick ends up on the dole.

Don't be a dick.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

>We need a system where money is tied to something concrete (be it gold or
>something similar) instead of allowing these bankers to invent money out
>of thin air.

It's a little late to put that particular genie back in the bottle, I think.

Unless society takes a step towards making money meaningful again, this insanity where money is invented out of thin air, loaned to governments followed by huge sums of the tax revenues used towards paying the compounded interest payments on this debt, I see no solution. No matter how much people whine, the Bilderberg Group will not be sharing their wealth since they view us all as slaves.

I know my favorite political candidate will never gain power, but every day "None of the Above" continues to look better and better.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Unless society takes a step towards making money meaningful again, this insanity where money is invented out of thin air, loaned to governments followed by huge sums of the tax revenues used towards paying the compounded interest payments on this debt, I see no solution. Not matter how much people whine, the Bilderberg Group will not be sharing their wealth since they view us all as slaves.

I know my favorite political candidate will never gain power, but every day "None of the Above" continues to look better and better.

You forgot that the money that was made out of thin air was seeded by the government at a zero interest rate.

[kallend 2,034]

Quote

Quote

We need a system where money is tied to something concrete (be it gold or something similar) instead of allowing these bankers to invent money out of thin air.

I suggest radioactive Strontium 90. It's hard to counterfeit, easy to detect, no-one would want to steal it, and it has a half life of 29 years which will discourage hoarding.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Let's try and do the math. I'm assuming Dick makes 1 widget every hour. Dick makes $7.25 per hour. The widget costs Dick's employer $1.00 to make. The sell it for $10.00. After paying Dick his $7.25 that leaves $1.75.

After awhile some daft liberal comes along and says "we need to double the minimum wage".

Guess what...either the price of the widget must increase or the company goes out of business and Dick ends up on the dole.

Don't be a dick.

didn't happen in the uk - despite the business community spreading such simplistic fears
(how come when you reduce taxes the economy is stimulated and the result is an increase in tax take)

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[Bolas 5]

Quote

But to address my earlier point more directly, "trickle down" doesn't work. It was a nice theory but it didn't factor in greed. Even Greenspan addressed it a year or so ago when he said he never imagined that CEO's would put their personal benefit over the health of the company.

I really thought Greenspan was smarter than that. He didn't factor in basic human greed? Then again, companies used to be more loyal to their employees so vice versa.

Quote

25 years ago the average CEO compensation was ~40 times that of the average worker. Now it's closer to 350 times the average worker. Very little is trickling down. Now, to maintain a middle class lifestyle pretty much every family has to have a dual income. The wealthiest 1% owns 40% of the nations wealth. If the trend continues as it has for the last couple of decades then the top 1% will likely have to pay all of the taxes because the rest of us can't afford to.

CEO's generally have contracts as their employment can be very short term.

Companies are much larger and making more money. What is considered middle class has also changed drastically as well. (at least 2 cars, much larger house, etc.)

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 3,009]

>Unless society takes a step towards making money meaningful again,
>this insanity where money is invented out of thin air, loaned to
>governments followed by huge sums of the tax revenues used towards
>paying the compounded interest payments on this debt, I see no solution

Fiat money works just fine when the government doesn't screw around with it excessively.

>No matter how much people whine, the Bilderberg Group will not be sharing
>their wealth since they view us all as slaves.

And you really think changing the backing of money will change that? They are in business to make money. They will continue to do so no matter how you back it.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Honestly I do see anything changing.

Public debt will continue to rise, fewer people will be able or even be willing to pay taxes on this debt. The underground economy will grow but violence will always be part of the underground economy. The Bilderberg Group will not be there to bail out the world no matter how much the socialist whine since the Bilderberg Group has created this system to enslave those who are outside of their exclusive club. Every dominate society in the history of humanity has fallen and the USA and it's Western Allies will be no different. The America that was created back in 1776 is dying. Then again there has always been a ruling class and there always will be a ruling class.

Barack Obama is no different than all the others who proceeded him.
He is nothing more than a puppet (McCain would have also been a puppet).

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Honestly I do see anything changing.

Public debt will continue to rise, fewer people will be able or even be willing to pay taxes on this debt. The underground economy will grow but violence will always be part of the underground economy. The Bilderberg Group will not be there to bail out the world no matter how much the socialist whine since the Bilderberg Group has created this system to enslave those who are outside of their exclusive club. Every dominate society in the history of humanity has fallen and the USA and it's Western Allies will be no different. The America that was created back in 1776 is dying. Then again there has always been a ruling class and there always will be a ruling class.

Barack Obama is no different than all the others who proceeded him.
He is nothing more than a puppet (McCain would have also been a puppet).

So the Bilderberg Group is like a drug dealer and the Western Nations are like users, addicts, or junkies.

They want us to keep using them and running up more debt but just because it's there doesn't mean we have to. Also depserate junkies have been known to kill dealers just to get that one last fix.

Sounds like both sides need to take their head out of their ass.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 3,009]

>The Bilderberg Group will not be there to bail out the world no matter
>how much the socialist whine since the Bilderberg Group has created this
>system to enslave those who are outside of their exclusive club.

Complaining about the Bilderberg group enslaving people is like complaining about McDonald's forcing everyone to be fat. Sure, they sell lousy food, and banks loan money on poor terms. Good option for people who do not like this - do not avail yourself of their products.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Well I guess there is no problem then. You are obviously not concerned about the money Central Bankers continue to create out of thin air. So where is the problem? Half of the USA does not pay income tax. Didn't 100% of the USA not pay income tax before the Central Bankers took over almost a century ago? Looks like you guys are 50% of the way getting back to the good old days. Except the good old days did not include the Fed.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over