The Obamanation

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Pay reform? Is that code for we need to not let people more successful than me have what I can't get?

The companies that took the government money are pretty screwed and will have to play by the rules but well run companies who are able to stand and succeed on their own should not have any input at all from the government on pay beyond the legal minimum wage guidelines.

No, it is not code for that. I am saying that, over the past 30 years or so the tax codes have increasingly favored the rich, and not only that, executive pay has gone through the stratosphere while the average workers wages have stagnated severely, plus they have been losing benefits. Capitalism NEEDS checks and balances, and we haven't had any for a very, very long time. Over the past 30 years, the difference between a CEOs pay and the average worker has grown from 30 times more, to about 500 times more. While executive pay has ballooned, middle class wages have not kept up with inflation. If they had, we wouldn't need so many government programs, and people wouldn't be so far in debt. Don't you GET IT?

Minimum wage is a fucking JOKE. Who can live off of that? And you know most other wages for the middle class and working class are based on minimum wage standards, NOT what is fair or how hard the job is or how hard the person works or how valuable they are to the company or the economy, or how profitable the company is. ALL jobs are important. ALL work is important. I'm sick of executives and business graduates thinking they are so much more valuable than everyone else, because they aren't. Without many of the "lower class" or "less valuable" jobs, this country would come to a screeching halt.

[TheMercenary]

None of that matters if the top percent pay the majority of taxes.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

None of that matters if the top percent pay the majority of taxes.

Of course it matters, if the other 99% can't afford to buy products produced by industry.

[sugarpop]

I adore you Merc, but you really are clueless about this particular issue.

[classicman]

Sugarpop<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<issue>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Merc

[lookout123]

Minimum wage is a fucking JOKE. Who can live off of that? And you know most other wages for the middle class and working class are based on minimum wage standards, NOT what is fair or how hard the job is or how hard the person works or how valuable they are to the company or the economy, or how profitable the company is. ALL jobs are important. ALL work is important.

You're right comrade, all jobs are important. If we didn't have someone doing them then there would be a problem. What you don't seem to understand is that pay is not based on whether a job is important or not, but rather supply and demand.

How many people can bag groceries? Pretty much anyone. Welcome to minimum wage.

How many people can efficiently push auto financing through so John Q Public can drive his new Nissan? Not all that many really so the job pays pretty damn well.

How many people have gone through the education and licensing procedures to become financial planners and are willing to deal with the stress? Not that many, that is why the pay is much much more than the grocery bagger.

How many people have gone through medical school and have specialized in neurosurgery? Not many, so they get megabucks.

How many people scratch and claw their way to the top of major corporations? Only a few so they're fucking wealthier than I can even imagine.

How many people have sold their souls and formed the right networks to get them into the White House? Only a few guys so they get to write their tickets for life.

The people themselves are of no more intrinsic value than one another, but the skills and abilities they bring to the table are of a vastly different value. This isn't about the value of man, but the value of skills.

And for the record, minimum wage isn't supposed to be liveable. You can raise the dollar amount to anything you want and it won't make a damn bit of difference ten years later. If you raise the grocery bagger to $30/hour ($60K/year) every job up the ladder will rise in the same curve and in ten years the rich will still be rich and the poor will still be poor and only the numbers will have changed.

[Shawnee123]

That was a great post, cous. Good points.

[Undertoad]

If you raise the grocery bagger to $30/hour you will be bagging your own groceries. Back in the day when the minimum wage was fought to be liveable, every increase matched an increase in unemployment, one to one.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by lookout123

You're right comrade, all jobs are important. If we didn't have someone doing them then there would be a problem. What you don't seem to understand is that pay is not based on whether a job is important or not, but rather supply and demand.

How many people can bag groceries? Pretty much anyone. Welcome to minimum wage.

How many people can efficiently push auto financing through so John Q Public can drive his new Nissan? Not all that many really so the job pays pretty damn well.

How many people have gone through the education and licensing procedures to become financial planners and are willing to deal with the stress? Not that many, that is why the pay is much much more than the grocery bagger.

How many people have gone through medical school and have specialized in neurosurgery? Not many, so they get megabucks.

How many people scratch and claw their way to the top of major corporations? Only a few so they're fucking wealthier than I can even imagine.

How many people have sold their souls and formed the right networks to get them into the White House? Only a few guys so they get to write their tickets for life.

The people themselves are of no more intrinsic value than one another, but the skills and abilities they bring to the table are of a vastly different value. This isn't about the value of man, but the value of skills.

And for the record, minimum wage isn't supposed to be liveable. You can raise the dollar amount to anything you want and it won't make a damn bit of difference ten years later. If you raise the grocery bagger to $30/hour ($60K/year) every job up the ladder will rise in the same curve and in ten years the rich will still be rich and the poor will still be poor and only the numbers will have changed.

I agree with you to a point (I know, that's a surprise:P). In fact I agree with you entirely right up until your final point. The minimum wage should be livable. It shouldn't be enough to pay for two holidays abroad every year and a brand new car; but it should pay enough to put food on your family's table and keep your kids well shod. It should be enough that people don't have to work two jobs and never see their kids just to make ends meet. That doesn't breed happy families. Make the mimium wage a dignified amount. The rest may get paid more, and that's fine,. They can take their holidays and buy their kids a great computer at Christmas.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

I adore you Merc, but you really are clueless about this particular issue.

Not really. The facts are quite clear. A minority of income earners pay the majority of income tax.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Not really. The facts are quite clear. A minority of income earners pay the majority of income tax.

Top income earners (top 2 percent) definitely pay the greatest share of the total federal income taxes (as they should, IMO), but its no where near paying the majority of total federal income taxes (over 50% of the total). Its true the top half of income earners probably pay more than 90% of the total.

Those same top income earners (the top 2%) also consistently see the greatest percentage rise in their income on an annual basis.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Top income earners definitely pay the greatest share of the total federal income taxes (as they should, IMO), but its no where near paying the majority of total federal income taxes (over 50% of the total).

Those same top income earners also consistently see the greatest rise in their income on an annual basis.

This year's numbers show that both the income share earned by the top 1 percent of tax returns and the tax share paid by that top 1 percent have once again reached all-time highs. In 2006, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 39.9 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 22.1 percent of adjusted gross income, both of which are significantly higher than 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes.

The IRS data also shows increases in individual incomes across all income groups (see Table 3). Just as the highest earners lost the biggest percentage of their incomes during the recession of 2001, so they have prospered the most as the economy continued to rebound through 2006. For example, from 2000 to 2002, the AGI of the top 1 percent of tax returns fell by over 26 percent. In that same period, the AGI of the bottom 50 percent of tax returns actually increased by 4.3 percent. However, since 2002, as the recession has ended, AGI has risen by over 81 percent for the top 1 percent (an average of over 20 percent per year) and 17 percent (an average of around 4 percent per year) for the bottom 50 percent.

In sum, between 2000 and 2006, pre-tax income for the top 1 percent of tax returns grew by 34 percent, while pre-tax income for the bottom 50 percent increased by 22 percent. All figures are nominal (not adjusted for inflation).

This pattern of income loss and growth at the top of the income spectrum is the same during every recession and recovery. The net result has also been a sharp rise in federal government tax revenue from 2003 to 2006 compared to previous years.

The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $64,702) earned 68.2 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86.3 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $388,806) earned approximately 22.1 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.9 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Right

the top 1 percent paid 39.9 percent of all federal income taxes..

The greatest share but not a majority. (I thought it was under 33% -a third of the total, but I wont quibble with the tax foundation)

And the income for the top 1 percent consistently increases on an annual basis at a greater rate than any other income bracket.

pre-tax income for the top 1 percent of tax returns grew by 34 percent, while pre-tax income for the bottom 50 percent increased by 22 percent.

[TheMercenary]

Since I am not in the top one percent it does not bother me so much. This is a country made up of a stratified group of income earners. A mega Bell Curve. There will always be a minority that make a bunch and a minorty that are very poor. The problems comes in when a very small percent pay the majority of income taxes, as my link documents, and the majority think that top percent that pay the majority of all income taxes should pay more, while they continue to pay the same, less, or nothing. They need to buy more helmets.

Thats how a progressive income tax works.....and the way its been in the US for 80+ years,....the highest income earners, with a greater ability to pay (disposal income), pay a higher share....and lower income earners who rely solely on their income to meet basic necessities....pay a lower share.