Does your perception of wealth distribution accurately reflect reality?

[Fat Elvis]

Just curious how close your (both conservatives and liberals) perception of wealth distribution reflects the reality of wealth distribution in the United States. Be honest. If our perceptions about reality are rightly or wrongly skewed one way or another, it helps to clarify why we (both liberals and conservatives) believe some of the things we do.

[KCWolfman]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Good to see you around. You instantly and dramatically improve the quality of discussion around here by leaps and bounds.

LOL - I don't compare to you, but thank you.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Originally Posted by KCWolfman

And 99% of the federal taxes paid in this nation are made by a mere 50%. Only the deluded would refuse to see the problem is on BOTH sides.

It's ABSOLUTELY on both sides. Who makes our standard of living worse in this country? The top 1% or the bottom 1%?

[Pawnmower]

I'm just curious why some Socialst pussy's idea of what wealth distribution 'should' be has any ****ing bearing on reality?

He seriously just asked random people what wealth distribution SHOULD look like and that is supposed to be evidence for something?

Sorry, but this seems utterly meaningless to me..

Let's have a look at the same chart, showing the bottom 40%'s contribution into the tax system.....it is probably negative (receiving more entitlements than paying in taxes) or at best roughly even.......

Playing some scary music and showing some meaningless chart with no context passes for discourse / evidence these days?

Sad

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by 2bikemike

I see it all too often people crying poor but yet driving newer cars and spending continuously to try and stay up with the latest technology. Watching their $150 plus in cable channels, talking on cell phone plans that are costing $100 plus.

Absolutely.....Owning cars, renting apartments that are more expensive than needed, cable/internet/phones/data...Unwise shopping / clothes/dining etc...

I make decent money, and yet I am fairly frugal in many aspects...My car is worth maybe 15g, i never wear nice clothes, my TV is an older projection/dlp still.....haven't upgraded to flat screen.....My house isn't furnished super nice, just basic things...but comfy to me. I have older computers, my newest device is a 299$ kindle....I resisted getting a smart phone for a WHILE and honestly if I wasnt making what I make, Id still have a basic phone.

But, I have saved and invested so much money over the last 5 years, that I am feeling much better about retirement....and life in general.

I constantly see people like in the quote above, who cry poor....yet waste soooooooooooo much money.....

[Loneiguana]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

I'm just curious why some Socialst pussy's idea of what wealth distribution 'should' be has any ****ing bearing on reality?

He seriously just asked random people what wealth distribution SHOULD look like and that is supposed to be evidence for something?

Sorry, but this seems utterly meaningless to me..

Let's have a look at the same chart, showing the bottom 40%'s contribution into the tax system.....it is probably negative (receiving more entitlements than paying in taxes) or at best roughly even.......

Playing some scary music and showing some meaningless chart with no context passes for discourse / evidence these days?

Sad

It's called google. Try it sometime. Here is what I did, you can try it too. Go to google.com, type in Total tax burden by income, research results.

Here is the top result:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/

An quote: "But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He’s paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who’s not getting a fair shake?

Which is why, if you want to understand who’s paying what in taxes, you don’t want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes — you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes — which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more — paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you’re mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that’s another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you’re omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.
But here is really the only tax graph you need: It’s total tax burden by income group. And as you’ll see, every income group is paying something, and the rich aren’t paying much more, as a percentage of their incomes, then the middle class."

Here is another front page result:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505

"Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes"

Moreover, low-income households as a group do, in fact, pay federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data show that the poorest fifth of households paid an average of 4.0 percent of their incomes in federal taxes in 2007, the latest year for which these data are available — not an insignificant amount given how modest these households’ incomes are; the poorest fifth of households had average income of $18,400 in 2007.[6] The next-to-the bottom fifth — those with incomes between $20,500 and $34,300 in 2007 — paid an average of 10.6 percent of their incomes in federal taxes.

Moreover, even these figures greatly understatelow-income households’ totaltax burden because these households also pay substantial state and local taxes. Data from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy show that the poorest fifth of households paid a stunning 12.3 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes in 2011.[7]

When all federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account, the bottom fifth of households pays about 16 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average. The second-poorest fifth pays about 21 percent.[8]"

[Fish]

I'm a critic of entitlements as well. But you also have to consider how most lower class people are purchasing those cars, phones, and other extravagant crap. They're in debt up to their eyeballs. Mountains upon mountains of debt for stupid needless junk that they will never pay off. It's not that they can actually afford their extravagant poor lifestyle. They're constantly borrowing to afford the crap they don't need. It's not just free government money. The median household consumer debt is over $75,000. Overall, consumer debt in America has increased by a whopping 1700% since 1971. Americans have over $800B in credit card debt alone.

Let's not act like all poor people are getting a free government ride...

[Loneiguana]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=why+economic+inequality+is+bad

/I can post links now

[Loneiguana]

Originally Posted by Fish

I'm a critic of entitlements as well. But you also have to consider how most lower class people are purchasing those cars, phones, and other extravagant crap. They're in debt up to their eyeballs. Mountains upon mountains of debt for stupid needless junk that they will never pay off. It's not that they can actually afford their extravagant poor lifestyle. They're constantly borrowing to afford the crap they don't need. It's not just free government money. The median household consumer debt is over $75,000. Overall, consumer debt in America has increased by a whopping 1700% since 1971. Americans have over $800B in credit card debt alone.

Let's not act like all poor people are getting a free government ride...

Leela: Didn't you have ads in the 21st century?"
Fry: Well sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio, and in magazines, and movies, and at ball games... and on buses and milk cartons and t-shirts, and bananas and written on the sky. But not in dreams, no siree.

...

Fry: $30? I can't afford that. Unless... Do you take Visa?
Salesman: Visa hasn't existed for 500 years.
Fry: American Express?
Salesman: 600 years.
Fry: Discover card?
Salesman: Sorry we don't take Discover

...

Amy: Hey! You're springing for Lightspeed? Pretty ritzy!
Fry: No, I can't afford them. Being poor sucks. What kind of world is this where they advertise things not everybody can afford?


/if you don't know that's Futurama, I don't wanna talk to you

[KCWolfman]

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

It's ABSOLUTELY on both sides. Who makes our standard of living worse in this country? The top 1% or the bottom 1%?

If it is BOTH sides, we should fix BOTH sides instead of coming up with Marie Antoinette screaming to the Detroit masses to eat cake in a pretend class warfare.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

It's ABSOLUTELY on both sides. Who makes our standard of living worse in this country? The top 1% or the bottom 1%?

[KCWolfman]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I am sure it was just satire.

[CoMoChief]

Originally Posted by KCWolfman

Our "poor" live better lives than the "middle class" of other nations.

And our "poor" have the benefit of working out of their class, unlike many other nations.

My mom collected food stamps and assisted living while raising 6 kids. She made sure she instilled in us a work ethic and a shame for being on the assistance so we would have a drive to get off of it as soon as possible.

The culture has changed because the mindset has changed. Now the government suggests having food stamp parties to explain the benefits to your neighbors. Now you can get prepared food which costs three to four times as much as grocery foods. Now you are rewarded for taking a handout.

6 kids can be ultra expensive....wonder if your mom knew that or not.

If I was poor, I wouldn't be knocking up my wife/gf. It's kinda common sense.

Now I dont know your situation growing up...maybe the father was deceased when you were at an early age and you're the youngest of the bunch...maybe he was thrown in prison...I dunno. Good for her for instilling a work ethic...it just baffles me why these women have a bunch of kids knowing they have absolutely no way to afford the costs that come with raising children.

[KCWolfman]

Originally Posted by CoMoChief

6 kids can be ultra expensive....wonder if your mom knew that or not.

If I was poor, I wouldn't be knocking up my wife/gf. It's kinda common sense.

Now I dont know your situation growing up...maybe the father was deceased when you were at an early age and you're the youngest of the bunch...maybe he was thrown in prison...I dunno. Good for her for instilling a work ethic...it just baffles me why these women have a bunch of kids knowing they have absolutely no way to afford the costs that come with raising children.

Yup, and she had the offer from the State and County to put us in foster homes so she could live an affordable life without responsibility.

I am not going to explain why, it detracts from the intent of the post. The fact is that what was the norm 40 years ago is not today.

Let me give another analogy instead. Hotels used to charge for clean sheets and towels as well as toiletries. A few hotels found if they gave these things away for "free" (actually hiding the cost in other expenses) they got more clientele. Other hotels were forced to follow suit until it was the norm. What was a premium service became an expected minimum standard. The same is happening with entitlements - more and more is expected to be taken care of.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by KCWolfman

Don't get me wrong, I don't support ANY kind of long term welfare - personal or corporate. But a company has a right to issue billions in executive incentives - it is their personal right, even if it drives them to bankruptcy. Let a company drive itself into the ground, and let's refuse to bail out the idiots instead of acting like our nation will become a wasteland when they fail.

It is not just a few companies. It is an institutionalized problem.

I don't know why we judge the lower class welfare for their spending problems, yet don't judge the boards that are disproportionately compensating their executives. They are both a part of the problem, yet we always pick sides that it's one and not the other.

[KCWolfman]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

It is not just a few companies. It is an institutionalized problem.

I don't know why we judge the lower class welfare for their spending problems, yet don't judge the boards that are disproportionately compensating their executives. They are both a part of the problem, yet we always pick sides that it's one and not the other.

Not me, I am clearly on record bashing both.

The stark reality is that one does provide the possibility fiscal opportunity for many while the other provides a definitive loss of funds for a number of taxpayers. Now the former may also take money from the latter, and that chills me as well.

But ignoring either while attacking the other is just plain stupid, no matter how fiscally conservative you are or how socially responsible you may be.