40,000 New Yorkers Pay 50%+ of the city's taxes!

[The Voice of Reason]

This is always a problem. Someone asks for a source which implies to me they think the whole thing came out their butt. Even when the source is provided, it is then discredited which is a total waste of time in the first place.

A superior move would be to find a more creditable source to the contrary.

Let me get this straight.

You want me to dig up an article that is written by unbiased authors, using credible source material, that doesn't play games with the statistical data every time someone like Zippy or Frostbyte quotes articles from Faux News, the Heritage Foundation, some ludicrous junk email, or some other right wing toilet paper manufacturer?

I'd spend the rest of my life trying to put out that fire.

No - I'll decline your efforts to put the burden of research on me, to rebut this level of tripe contained in Frostbyte's post. If Frostbyte (or you) want to be taken seriously when making a point, it is incumbent on you to provide sources that have credibility.

If I made some obvious left wing claims that were taken from an article that was written by Markos Moulitsas, and at the end of the article he was citing other articles he had written as his source material, you would spit coffee all over your screen. You'd laugh in my face for even submitting such sophomoric support for my position - and you would be right to do so.

If Frostbyte wants to make claims such as those he posted, he should provide a link to the source of his claims. If he wants to be taken seriously, it is up to him to avoid quoting such patently partisan BS as if it were valid.

I submit that Frostbyte doesn't use nonpartisan articles to support his position because they don't exist. He is forced to rely on the work of paid political hacks, and hoping not to have to provide the source. I could be wrong about his motives - but I doubt it.

 

[Sunstone]

The Heritage Foundation does some mighty strange stuff with the numbers now and then. I know that several times in the past, authors of original studies massaged by the Foundation's "analysts" have gone public to repudiate their (i.e. the "analysts") work.

 

[Alceste]

The Heritage Foundation does some mighty strange stuff with the numbers now and then. I know that several times in the past, authors of original studies massaged by the Foundation's "analysts" have gone public to repudiate their (i.e. the "analysts") work.

That's because they are propagandists. Ideological ad-men. I don't see why anybody bothers to discuss the nonsense they write. Do we sit around debating whether 8 out of 10 dentists really recommend Crest? Or whether Tide really gets your whites 50% whiter than other leading brands? No, we just brush it off, and rightly so. Likewise anything coming from a "think tank", right or left. Their raison d'etre is to massage whatever facts seem relevant into a particular POV - and where that doesn't do the trick, make facts up.

It's pretty obvious to me that Rick's authors cherry-picked the "data" that might help them make their point. Right from the get-go, there's a glaring problem because census data by definition doesn't include the homeless. You could have a veritable plague of homelessness on your hands and census the data would never notice. Clearly if there is any factuality to it at all it hinges on where they decided the cut-off point for "poor" would be, both top and bottom.

 

[Reverend Rick]

That's because they are propagandists. Ideological ad-men. I don't see why anybody bothers to discuss the nonsense they write. Do we sit around debating whether 8 out of 10 dentists really recommend Crest? Or whether Tide really gets your whites 50% whiter than other leading brands? No, we just brush it off, and rightly so. Likewise anything coming from a "think tank", right or left. Their raison d'etre is to massage whatever facts seem relevant into a particular POV - and where that doesn't do the trick, make facts up.

It's pretty obvious to me that Rick's authors cherry-picked the "data" that might help them make their point. Right from the get-go, there's a glaring problem because census data by definition doesn't include the homeless. You could have a veritable plague of homelessness on your hands and census the data would never notice. Clearly if there is any factuality to it at all it hinges on where they decided the cut-off point for "poor" would be, both top and bottom.

I agree with what you are saying, but many of these figures are taken straight from John Edwards data as well. I guess my question is, if you own your own air conditioned home with a car in the garage and watch cable TV every day and night while you are given free food and medical attention, are you really poor?

 

[Alceste]

I agree with what you are saying, but many of these figures are taken straight from John Edwards data as well. I guess my question is, if you own your own air conditioned home with a car in the garage and watch cable TV every day and night while you are given free food and medical attention, are you really poor?

So your problem is the alleged census bureau's definition of what "poor" means. Since the homeless are not counted (can't be counted) by census takers, the census statistics say nothing about what being "poor" by a definition that includes everybody - not just people who were at home when the census takers came - might be like. The whole article is a lot of hot air about the definition of a word. It says nothing at all about the actual state of affairs in the US.

I agree with you, this is not a good definition of "poor", but I'm not going to accept without question that the article's claim that's the word the census bureau actually uses to describe the lower quintile of income earners. And since the whole article is based on this claim, I'll give it a miss, thanks.

 

[Reverend Rick]

So your problem is the alleged census bureau's definition of what "poor" means. Since the homeless are not counted (can't be counted) by census takers, the census statistics say nothing about what being "poor" by a definition that includes everybody - not just people who were at home when the census takers came - might be like. The whole article is a lot of hot air about the definition of a word. It says nothing at all about the actual state of affairs in the US.

I agree with you, this is not a good definition of "poor", but I'm not going to accept without question that the article's claim that's the word the census bureau actually uses to describe the lower quintile of income earners. And since the whole article is based on this claim, I'll give it a miss, thanks.

The part that got me going was many families would be above the poverty level if the fathers income was considered. I wonder just how many families just pretend to be seperated to recieve benefits?

 

[Alceste]

The part that got me going was many families would be above the poverty level if the fathers income was considered. I wonder just how many families just pretend to be seperated to recieve benefits?

IME, it's the opposite. People who are a couple sometimes pretend to be "room-mates" because otherwise the state makes the employed person pay the other one's expenses.

Then they come and check, and sometimes your neighbours turn you in, and you have to pay it all back, so most couples don't take the risk.

"Welfare fraud" is not nearly as easy or common as the right wing tabloids make it sound. The standards are actually very rigorous.

 

[Frostbyte]

1. The source was NOT the heritage foundation, although I did find those statistics upon further searching. That article is from 1990 and the statistics I've got are from a book in 2007 and I am currently contacting the author to double check those sources, I will update that as soon as I get a response.

Any article is probably has bias.But that doesn't change the statistics. Numbers are numbers, it's the analysis that makes the difference. Rather than attack the source, I think you should probably attack the content, which you thoroughly avoided. There is NO news organization that is free from bias, and most of them have LEFT wing bias. CNN, and CBS are left wing, and the "journalists" there admit it. MSNBC and The New York times are the absolute worst.

So it is okay for YOU to simply discredit any source that anything "right wing" comes out of ,but everything else is okay? I'd quit looking for unbiased authors if I were you. You won't find them. Everything is twisted. But the article has the statistics and gives sources, you should be able to find sources to the contrary, or they're right. Everything contains bias, the point is to sift through analysis and look at the facts and discuss them.

And might I add that those articles that they wrote, are also researched and provide their own sources, so I don't see your point. Rather than have an extra amount of sources, they reference a place where they have already compiled information.

 

[Frostbyte]

You do realize that in that timespan, the cost of a house went from something like $50,000 to $175,000, right? It's called inflation. If everyone made the same amount for 25 years, there would be a hell of a lot more people living on the streets.

The numbers were adjusted for inflation.

What is the "net worth of a median family"?

Net Worth

The amount by which a company or individual's assets exceed their liabilities.

Median is the middle value. I think "net worth of a median family" is pretty self explanatory.

What are you considering poor, and where did you get these numbers? I could throw out numbers and statistics, too. They're only good if you can back them up. Besides, many of those things aren'y even luxuries, or at least shouldn't be considered luxuries, like washers and dryers, microwaves, air conditioning, and a car

.

Actually having those this is a luxury. They are not necessary for survival, and it is not a right to possess them. I think the people in a significant amount of other countries that don't have them in their home would consider it a luxury to do so. Air conditioning is certainly a luxury, said as one without it. Washers and dryers can be found at a laundromat, it is a luxury to have the ability to use them without leaving the house. A car is the luxury of not having to rely on public transportation. Microwaves are the luxury of being able to cook your own food faster than using a stove. None of these things are essential for life.

 

[Frostbyte]

In reference to taxes:

The top 1 percent of income earners paid about 36.7 percent of federal income taxes and 25.3 percent of all federal taxes in 2004. The top 20 percent of income earners paid 67.1 percent of all federal taxes, up from 66.1 percent in 2000, according to the budget office.

Thats from the NY Times

I hope that source isn't too right wing.


The national Tax payers union has more data too. I would post links to both of these (and more) but I have not yet made 15 posts.

In reference to the original post, a quote from Bloomberg;

"One percent of the people that live in the city, the households that file in the city pay something like 50% of the taxes. In a city that's about 40,000 people so, you know, a handful left, any raise would make it revenue neutral. The question is, "What's fair?" If one percent are paying 50% of the taxes, you want to make it even more? A little over half the people, half the households who file tax returns don't pay any taxes. And about 30% of the households that file get a credit from the government. The government sends them a check. That's the Earned Income Tax Credit."

 

[Alceste]

The numbers were adjusted for inflation.

And would I be correct in guessing you have no idea what the phrase "adjusted for inflation" actually means?

 

[Frostbyte]

And would I be correct in guessing you have no idea what the phrase "adjusted for inflation" actually means?

:sarcastic

Adjusting for inflation is basically the same as monetary conversion rates, in a sense. Money in 1995 was "worth" a different amount than it is today. For example back then a can of beans say, costs a dollar, well if today it takes a buck fifty to buy the same can of beans, they money isn't really worth the same amount.

There are different schools of thought regarding conversions and inflation, different calculations, but all result in answers that are extremely close, and for the purpose of discussion can be considered the same.

Example:

What cost $75000 in 1997 would cost $93920.10 in 2006. Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2006 and 1997,
they would cost you $75000 and $60362.46 respectively.

 

[Reverend Rick]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/w...gin&adxnnlx=1168287624-Z9kDCrEbywzklcB0Uw5+SA

History of Federal Individual Income Bottom and Top Bracket Rates

 

[The Voice of Reason]

1. The source was NOT the heritage foundation, although I did find those statistics upon further searching. That article is from 1990 and the statistics I've got are from a book in 2007 and I am currently contacting the author to double check those sources, I will update that as soon as I get a response.

Now isn't that odd. You claim that the infromation is from an article written in 1990, and yet it contains data from a decade later. Coupled with the fact that you still haven't given us a link to the actual article, while denying that it came from the Heritage Foundation is quite mystifying. After denying that the Heritage Foundation is the actual source of the story, you turn right around and defend it. Strange days, indeed.

Any article is probably has bias.But that doesn't change the statistics. Numbers are numbers, it's the analysis that makes the difference.

No one asserts that all other sources except yours are unbiased. That is a strawman on your part.
As for your statement that "the analysis that makes the difference", you are absolutely correct. As has been noted previously, the Heritage Foundation has a solid track record of cherrypicking data to fit whatever agenda they are foisting off on the rest of us (now where have we seen that before?). The Heritage Foundation has bastardized information before, to the point that the original authors have had to correct them.

Rather than attack the source, I think you should probably attack the content, which you thoroughly avoided.

Apparently your comprehension skills are lacking. The content of the tripe that you posted has been rejected in its entirety. It was written as a piece of political rhetoric. If you think I (or anyone else) is going to bother to address such frivolous fluff on a line by line basis, you are sadly mistaken.

There is NO news organization that is free from bias, and most of them have LEFT wing bias. CNN, and CBS are left wing, and the "journalists" there admit it. MSNBC and The New York times are the absolute worst.

Great. Another soul telling us that only Faux News is "fair and balanced", and the rest of the world is skewed against the forces of good.

But the article has the statistics and gives sources, you should be able to find sources to the contrary, or they're right. Everything contains bias, the point is to sift through analysis and look at the facts and discuss them.

Do you grasp the concept of cherrypicking data? Have you ever heard the phrase "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics"? Do you even think about where these authors are leading you?

Never mind - strike the last question.

And might I add that those articles that they wrote, are also researched and provide their own sources, so I don't see your point. Rather than have an extra amount of sources, they reference a place where they have already compiled information.

So, if I lie to you on Monday, and then quote my own lie on Wednesday, does that somehow make the original lie valid?

 

[Magic Man]

The numbers were adjusted for inflation.

So, $75,000 was adjusted for inflation? Adjusted to what? Was it actually $100,000, or $150,000? You said a larger percentage of the population was making over $75,000 in 2004 (or 2000-something at least) than in 1979. There's no inflation to be taken into account. Of course more people were making more than $75,000 because that amount of money gets you less these days.

Net Worth

The amount by which a company or individual's assets exceed their liabilities.

Median is the middle value. I think "net worth of a median family" is pretty self explanatory.

In that case, it's probably because the net worth of the ridiculously wealthy families got bigger, to the point that it raised the net worth of the median family. It also doesn't account fro truly poor families which have no real liabilities or assets.

Actually having those this is a luxury. They are not necessary for survival, and it is not a right to possess them.

That's one way to look at it, but then again, all you really need for survival is food and water. We're not talking about survival here, we're talking about living like civil human beings, and that generally includes those things.

I think the people in a significant amount of other countries that don't have them in their home would consider it a luxury to do so.

Of course they would. A person in a wheelchair would consider someone walking somewhere or driving a car a luxury. The point is that ideally those people in other countries would have those amenities, too.

Air conditioning is certainly a luxury, said as one without it. Washers and dryers can be found at a laundromat, it is a luxury to have the ability to use them without leaving the house. A car is the luxury of not having to rely on public transportation. Microwaves are the luxury of being able to cook your own food faster than using a stove. None of these things are essential for life.

Again, of course they're not. Clothes aren't essential for life either. Technically they're a luxury. Those things are not luxuries in the normal sense of the word. They are basic staples of Western households, and I, for one, would like for everyone to have the opportunity to have them. I don't want to stop at making sure people have enough food to survive each day.

 

[Frostbyte]

Now isn't that odd. You claim that the infromation is from an article written in 1990, and yet it contains data from a decade later. Coupled with the fact that you still haven't given us a link to the actual article, while denying that it came from the Heritage Foundation is quite mystifying. After denying that the Heritage Foundation is the actual source of the story, you turn right around and defend it. Strange days, indeed.

Excuse me the first part of that is my error. I found an article that was very similar from 1990 and did not notice the banner at the top of this screen. This was laid out basically the same and I assumed it was the same article.


There is no actual article online. Once again, it came from a BOOK. They do still exist. I am in the process of obtaining more information from the author.

And once again, even if they do pick and choose numbers, they still have the numbers. You should show me the numbers they left out to make your point. They cite their sources and give the information they found, and yet you still claim it's no good.

Apparently your comprehension skills are lacking. The content of the tripe that you posted has been rejected in its entirety. It was written as a piece of political rhetoric. If you think I (or anyone else) is going to bother to address such frivolous fluff on a line by line basis, you are sadly mistaken.

Really? Because you've been provided with similar stats and have simply chosen to say that they aren't valid. Actually you haven't even claimed that then numbers aren't valid. Even if the source "cherry-picked" it's information, you should be able to either A) Prove that the information is inaccurate, by comparing it to other, more reliable data or B) Provide the numbers that were "left out" by the organization, in order to prove that they did not paint the entire picture. Instead you claim the entire article to be faulty without discrediting any of it's sources, (other than the last three which I will address briefly) or numbers. You have merely said that it specifically selected data. First of all, isn't that what everyone does? Secondly, if this is the case, you should be able to find out what they left out, but you refuse to do any research after demanding that anyone that disagrees with you has to double and triple check everything.

Great. Another soul telling us that only Faux News is "fair and balanced", and the rest of the world is skewed against the forces of good.

I never said that Fox News is fair and balanced, I merely asserted that the others have bias as well. I believe I said EVERYTHING has bias, everything happens to include Fox News, in case you were wondering. I don't think you can make the case that Fox News is free from Bias when they run Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly basically right in a row.

If you must know, whether you believe me or not doesn't matter, I get most of my news from CNN.

Do you grasp the concept of cherrypicking data? Have you ever heard the phrase "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics"? Do you even think about where these authors are leading you?

Yes, once again, the article, MAY have selected only stats that backed up the argument, however you choose to assert that this makes the entire thing faulty, rather than prove that they cherry-picked or prove the information is wrong.

So, if I lie to you on Monday, and then quote my own lie on Wednesday, does that somehow make the original lie valid?

You have yet to prove that anything in the first article is inaccurate. Did you bother to check the sources you are now discrediting? They were earlier articles by the same people, yes, but those articles were also cited and researched.

You have yet to prove any of the information I stated faulty. You have also not shown that the information was cherry picked.

Instead of finding the left out statistics, or proving any of the sources to be faulty, actually showing evidence, you continue to assert, without evidential proof, that the argument is null. You have continued to attempt to prove it wrong by being insulting, and I imagine that trend will continue.

 

[Magic Man]

:sarcastic

Adjusting for inflation is basically the same as monetary conversion rates, in a sense. Money in 1995 was "worth" a different amount than it is today. For example back then a can of beans say, costs a dollar, well if today it takes a buck fifty to buy the same can of beans, they money isn't really worth the same amount.

There are different schools of thought regarding conversions and inflation, different calculations, but all result in answers that are extremely close, and for the purpose of discussion can be considered the same.

Example:

What cost $75000 in 1997 would cost $93920.10 in 2006. Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2006 and 1997,
they would cost you $75000 and $60362.46 respectively.

Now, if you would kindly indicate how that makes any sense when combined with this, I'd appreciate it. Are you saying that when you say $75,000 in 1979, what you mean is $45,000, and that when you say $75,000 in 2004, you actually mean $100,000? Then why didn't you use those numbers? What you actually did was give one specific number, which cannot be adjusted for inflation.

Originally Posted by Frostbyte
-Between 1979 and 2004 the number of households earning less than $75,000 per year (inflation adjusted) fell by 10.1%. The number earning greater than 75k rose by the same number.

 

[Frostbyte]

So, $75,000 was adjusted for inflation? Adjusted to what? Was it actually $100,000, or $150,000? You said a larger percentage of the population was making over $75,000 in 2004 (or 2000-something at least) than in 1979. There's no inflation to be taken into account. Of course more people were making more than $75,000 because that amount of money gets you less these days.

(emphasis mine)

1. That is what inflation IS. The same amount of money will buy different amounts of things. Accounting for inflation means you make the value of the money equal. So what I originally posted means:

Today, there are more people making what would be equal to 75k in 1979.

Not only are people making literally more than 75000/yr, they are making beyond the equal amount from 1979. I understand I may not be explaining this entirely well, but I dont know how else to put it.

Something that costs 75k in 04 would've cost you 26,832.19 in 1979. There are more people making over that amount today.

In that case, it's probably because the net worth of the ridiculously wealthy families got bigger, to the point that it raised the net worth of the median family. It also doesn't account fro truly poor families which have no real liabilities or assets.

That would happen if this were an average. This is different. If you take all the yearly incomes of every family in America and ordered them from least to greatest, the value in the middle, equal distance from the wealthiest and poorest, is the median. No matter how much the top values raise, this will not effect the median value.

EX. 1 2 3 4 5 (median is 3) 1 2 3 500 624 (median is 3)

That's one way to look at it, but then again, all you really need for survival is food and water. We're not talking about survival here, we're talking about living like civil human beings, and that generally includes those things.

So people that use the laundromat are not living like civil human beings? People who rely on public transportation (or walking) are not living like civil human beings? If that's the case how many people in NYC are not living like civil human beings?

Again, of course they're not. Clothes aren't essential for life either. Technically they're a luxury. Those things are not luxuries in the normal sense of the word. They are basic staples of Western households, and I, for one, would like for everyone to have the opportunity to have them. I don't want to stop at making sure people have enough food to survive each day.

(emphasis again mine)

Everyone has the opportunity to work for a living, and not be discriminated against for race, gender, religion etc. Everyone has the opportunity to go to school, and not be discriminated against. Everyone has the opportunity to make the best of their lives they can. This does not guarantee equal results.

I for one, don't think the person that shows up to work on time and works extremely well should have to earn the same amount as the guy that only shows up half the time. And I don't think that if you make poor choices you should be helped out by everyone else.

 

[Frostbyte]

And actually, why does the source the Heritage Foundation matter at all? I could've just as easily said my sources are this this and this, and listed all the places that they site, how would that make any difference? That is just a compilation of data, and it has it's own sources for each data point, so I still don't see how you can reasonably discredit my information without examining the sources listed by the article.

 

[Sententia]

Which would mean they would owe no taxes and New York would be in big trouble. You do realize that the people who are being demonised are the precise people who have the power to fix the problem. Government does not run things, business people do.

Business is profit driven. They do anything for their share price and pay their Executives incredible salaries and bonuses that are in truth irresponsible and undeserved.

Letting them run the country has never been a good idea.

Government of the people, for the people, by the people.