quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

You are innaccurate....again



http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?time=3

and how does that graph show I am inaccurate?

because that graph shows that as little as 3 months ago gas was at 3.34? but if you click the 6 month graph you'll see it was at 3.68 a gallon, and in MY WORLD, that ALMOST 4.00 a gallon, and it has hovered in that area for ALMOST 6 years

ya know what it took almost a year for em to get it over 3.00 so instead of almost 6 years lets say almost 5 years. OK? better?

better yet click the 8 year graph and it pretty much bears out what I said...

there were spikes during the later years of bush, under Obama they rose STEADILY and until very recently NEVER ONCE dropped below 3.00 a gallon usually spiking and dropping between 4.00 and 3.50ish

The 8 year graph shows a change in price about every 6 mos or so and at no time did the price of gas 'stay' anywhere for 6 years.

Besides, the argument is superfluous. The actual price of gas in the US is subject to big speculative swings not honky because of the price of crude (sweet crude mostly) but swings in supply due to the US being the world's largest gas exporter.

Those exports are always a pressure to keep the price as high as possible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

But that's the difference. It's hypothetical to you.

and to those making minimum wages and paying half their income in rent just to have a roof over their heads.. even for the poor back in your starving musician days it was easier to make & save money (people pay probably around 10% more now of their income in tax than back then).. [8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

But that's the difference. It's hypothetical to you.

The hypothetical is that it is me as an example. It is anything but hypothetical for 1000's of real investors or investors in paper or things, taking real advantage of an immoral tax code.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

But that's the difference. It's hypothetical to you.

and to those making minimum wages and paying half their income in rent just to have a roof over their heads.. even for the poor back in your starving musician days it was easier to make & save money (people pay probably around 10% more now of their income in tax than back then).. [8|]

Exactly the other way around. People pay less tax now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin
and I do tend to post based on personal observation rather than based on some eggheads charts

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

But that's the difference. It's hypothetical to you.

and to those making minimum wages and paying half their income in rent just to have a roof over their heads.. even for the poor back in your starving musician days it was easier to make & save money (people pay probably around 10% more now of their income in tax than back then).. [8|]

Exactly the other way around. People pay less tax now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
And, given that I'm in the fourth quintile now, and the bottom quintile then, exactly, I pay less tax now, and not, as tj claimed, less tax then.
Reading. It's a wonderful skill.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
And, given that I'm in the fourth quintile now, and the bottom quintile then, exactly, I pay less tax now, and not, as tj claimed, less tax then.
Reading. It's a wonderful skill.

Based on the graph, there are zero instances where the percent of Federal income taxes shouldered by the bottom quintile at any point was higher than the percent of Federal income taxes shouldered by the 4th quintile at any point. In the late 2000's, the % paid by the 4th quintile was, roughly, 12% (the lowest) and the highest for the bottom quintile was, roughly, 0%, your math don't add up.

And, as Lucy pointed out: "personal observations are unreliable when talking about facts. "

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


Those deriving either income or capital growth through investments.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


If you want to make proletarian -- worker centric arguments -- I understand that. But that is a separate issue.

quote:

It is important to the country and the economy that the investor class is doing well.

quote:

As I previously stated --- if you are upset about wealth distribution / income inequality --- then make a case to raise capital gains taxes, support unions, and protest globalization. Get behind Elizabeth Warren for President.

quote:

You and some others on this thread remind me of the Russian Mentality. "I have one cow but my neighbor has two. What do I do? Find out a way to get another cow myself? No, I kill one of his cows. Now we're equal."

quote:

In a capitalist system -- if you want wealth -- you have to invest and save and watch the nut compound. Frankly this is a good thing, I'm happy the stock market is up on fundamentals.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
OK Einstein. You show me how a starving artist would pay more taxes now starting out than a few decades back.
I'll wait here. Forgive me if I multi-task while I wait.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
I think you are making a rather stupid and misleading point.
If you have 100 units of wealth and 100 people --- and the top 5 of those people own 61 units of wealth and top 20 people own 84 units of wealth -- yes those top 20 will pay the highest amount of taxes. Why? BECAUSE THEY FUCKING OWN EVERYTHING.
You try to make it seem that poor people are freeloading off the super wealthy. THAT'S FUCKED UP. As in the scenario above, 5 people own 61 units of wealth.
See this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMhvYeQPOcE
What's interesting is that the super wealthy 1% pay a lower marginal tax rate then regular workers because most of their income is derived from capital gains. I think Mitt Romney confessed to paying taxes at a rate of 14.1%. As a percentage of his income he pays next to nothing in payroll taxes.