Median Income - Still Less Than 2000 Levels

B

Bonestorm

Thrillhouse
The census bureau released their latest figures on median income (as well as poverty and health insurance). The good news is that median income increase over the past year after several years of declining income. The bad news is that median income in 2007 is still less than median income in 2000. And that's before the recent economic downturn.

Also, the poverty rate increased slightly (.2%) and the number of uninsured decreased, albeit with fewer people enrolled in private insurance than in 2006 and more people enrolled in government sponsored plans.

I imagine this is good news for John McCain, a former prisoner of war.

And Superfreak, this helps explain the reason why the tax burden as a percentage of tax revenues for rich folk increased where as the tax burden as a percentage of revenue for poor and lower class folks decreased. Since 2000 the rich have gotten a lot richer while the poor and middling have been treading water if not going under a bit. Where the top 5% earns 50% of the income it's no wonder they pay 50% of the revenues from income tax.


Census Report Here (pdf):

http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf
 
As I said on the other thread Dung, yes that is a part of it. But as I also said, you cannot claim the tax cuts were JUST for the rich. Yes, in dollar terms they are going to get the bulk of tax cuts as they pay the bulk of taxes. When the top half pays 97% of income taxes, there isn't much left to cut from the bottom half.

Bottom line is found by looking at effective tax rates. If every tax bracket either went down or was expanded by the Bush tax cuts, the effective rates for ALL income tax payers had to go down.

This will give you the tax brackets before and after the tax cuts....

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

Note the difference in the lower tax brackets between 2000 and 2008.
 
Superfreak said:
As I said on the other thread Dung, yes that is a part of it. But as I also said, you cannot claim the tax cuts were JUST for the rich. Yes, in dollar terms they are going to get the bulk of tax cuts as they pay the bulk of taxes. When the top half pays 97% of income taxes, there isn't much left to cut from the bottom half.

Bottom line is found by looking at effective tax rates. If every tax bracket either went down or was expanded by the Bush tax cuts, the effective rates for ALL income tax payers had to go down.

This will give you the tax brackets before and after the tax cuts....

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

Note the difference in the lower tax brackets between 2000 and 2008.
Click to expand...


I never claimed that they were just for the rich. They were designed to benefit the rich the most and to give other folks just enough to keep them quiet.

And really, talking about the bottom 50% versus the top 50% is pretty silly.
 
Dungheap said:
I never claimed that they were just for the rich. They were designed to benefit the rich the most and to give other folks just enough to keep them quiet.

And really, talking about the bottom 50% versus the top 50% is pretty silly.
Click to expand...

No, you simply proclaim like many others that they were tax cuts for the rich.

You obviously did not notice or even look at the tax brackets from the link I provided. If you had you would have noticed that for a couple filing jointly....

the 10% tax bracket was implemented up to about $16k... down 33% from the previous 15% bracket.

The next bracket was at 15% which was expanded up to $65,100. Which means people paid the same amount from the $16k level up to the old ceiling of $43,850 and then paid almost 50% less on the next $21k.

The next bracket was 28%... which upped the limit from $105,950 in 2000 to the new limit of just over $200k in 2008. Add in the new 25% tax bracket which went from $65100 to $131,450... so they saved 10% on their taxes from $65100 to $108k and 20% on their taxes from $108k to $131k.

Again, when the bottom half was only paying 4% in 2000 they did not have much to gain from tax cuts as they were not paying much to begin with. Though they still dropped by about 20%.

Side note: Comparing the bottom half to the top half is most certainly relevant when you bring up median income.
 
The uber rich make so much that even a slight income cut to them would produce much greater gains than even grtting rid of taxes for the bottom bracket.
 
one of the favorite talking points of the moveon.moron corwd.
Hey lets bick the top of the internet mania, fools
check out income and unemployment from the tax cuts forward.
Poor people are usually stupid like dungshit
 
Topspin said:
one of the favorite talking points of the moveon.moron corwd.
Hey lets bick the top of the internet mania, fools
check out income and unemployment from the tax cuts forward.
Poor people are usually stupid like dungshit
Click to expand...


Yeah, top. It's great news that for the first time in modern history the median income in this country is at a loss from economic peak to economic peak (2002-2007). Median income has lost ground over that period and will probably be another year or two, almost a full decade, of zero median income growth.

Please explain to me how this is anything but bad news? Let me, guess "more milinheirs."
 
Dungheap said:
Yeah, top. It's great news that for the first time in modern history the median income in this country is at a loss from economic peak to economic peak (2002-2007). Median income has lost ground over that period and will probably be another year or two, almost a full decade, of zero median income growth.

Please explain to me how this is anything but bad news? Let me, guess "more milinheirs."
Click to expand...

Economic peak for 2007????

We are essentially back where we were in March of 2000 when the downturn in the economy began. So theoretically median income should be about where it was. Given the insanity in the late 90's with all the hype of the dot.com/internet/biotech booms, it is not that big of a surprise that it took us a while to get back to those levels after the bubble burst and we saw the dramatic downturn in March 2000-March 2003.
 
Dungheap said:
Yeah, top. It's great news that for the first time in modern history the median income in this country is at a loss from economic peak to economic peak (2002-2007). Median income has lost ground over that period and will probably be another year or two, almost a full decade, of zero median income growth.

Please explain to me how this is anything but bad news? Let me, guess "more milinheirs."
Click to expand...

dung your clueless:pke:
 
Superfreak said:
Economic peak for 2007????

We are essentially back where we were in March of 2000 when the downturn in the economy began. So theoretically median income should be about where it was. Given the insanity in the late 90's with all the hype of the dot.com/internet/biotech booms, it is not that big of a surprise that it took us a while to get back to those levels after the bubble burst and we saw the dramatic downturn in March 2000-March 2003.
Click to expand...

these turbo libs are too stupid to even see what its done since bottoming and then the tax cuts took hold.
they love shooting themselves in the foot with a talking point before looking at the big picture.
Net worth is way up since 2000, that is certainly part of the big picture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top