What should the federal tax brackets be?

[The Duke]

I don't define middle class as a group of people extending from the median income outwards, since I'm not a moron.

2. How much revenue do we need?  Your system would bring close to a trillion dollars in new revenue over what we already recieve.  Why would we have to raise taxes by such an exorbinant amount when it would bring our revenues to $500 billion over our expenditures?  Again, you don't even consider this question.

I think it is highly unrealistic to define the 'Middle Class' as anything other than those in the middle of the economic heirarchy!  I know conservatives like to think the middle class are the professionals living in comfortable suburbs, but in fact those people are statistically Upper Middle Class.  In fact what many people perceive to be middle are in fact in the top 20%!  What this means is that many people have a grave misapprehension of how poor most Americans are.

As for what do so with the extra Revenue, I should've thought my intent would be obvious - redistribute it to those at the bottom of the economic heirarchy. 

By the way, how did you calculate I would bring in 1 trillion in new revenue?  Laboriously, or is there a calculator somewhere?  I've been looking for one...

Historically, this is not what middle class has meant.  It has never before, nor does it now, mean the middle of income levels.  The term began as a description for the bourgeoisie, they were the "middle class", the class between the nobles and the peasants.  They were very wealthy though, often more wealthy than the nobles.

Middle class to most Americans means what it has always meant historically, a lifestyle between that of the downtrodden and that of the elites.  Hence, someone making even $200,000 could easily be considered middle class.

[opebo]

I don't define middle class as a group of people extending from the median income outwards, since I'm not a moron.

2. How much revenue do we need?  Your system would bring close to a trillion dollars in new revenue over what we already recieve.  Why would we have to raise taxes by such an exorbinant amount when it would bring our revenues to $500 billion over our expenditures?  Again, you don't even consider this question.

I think it is highly unrealistic to define the 'Middle Class' as anything other than those in the middle of the economic heirarchy!  I know conservatives like to think the middle class are the professionals living in comfortable suburbs, but in fact those people are statistically Upper Middle Class.  In fact what many people perceive to be middle are in fact in the top 20%!  What this means is that many people have a grave misapprehension of how poor most Americans are.

As for what do so with the extra Revenue, I should've thought my intent would be obvious - redistribute it to those at the bottom of the economic heirarchy. 

By the way, how did you calculate I would bring in 1 trillion in new revenue?  Laboriously, or is there a calculator somewhere?  I've been looking for one...

Historically, this is not what middle class has meant.  It has never before, nor does it now, mean the middle of income levels.  The term began as a description for the bourgeoisie, they were the "middle class", the class between the nobles and the peasants.  They were very wealthy though, often more wealthy than the nobles.

Middle class to most Americans means what it has always meant historically, a lifestyle between that of the downtrodden and that of the elites.  Hence, someone making even $200,000 could easily be considered middle class.

Fine, but this doesn't detract from my point that only a small minority of Americans in fact meet the generally perceived definition of 'middle class'.  In fact the great majority of Americans are working poor or at best lower middle class.

[A18]

Poor is a relative term. No one with air conditioning, running water, and cable is poor as far as I'm concerned.

Much more comfortable lives than rich people had 200 years ago, certainly.

[opebo]

Poor is a relative term. No one with air conditioning, running water, and cable is poor as far as I'm concerned.

Much more comfortable lives than rich people had 200 years ago, certainly.

Your subjective perceptions are irrelevant to others.  What people lived like 200 years ago has no bearing on the observable changes in income and distribution over the last 30 years.  Essentially the 'I walked two miles in the snow to school, so you kids should feel lucky' argument is just a nostalgic canard.

[A18]

Quality of life has also gone up since 1975.

Prosperity has far-reaching effects.

[opebo]

Quality of life has also gone up since 1975.

Quality of life has gone down for the bottom 80%, and up for the top 20% since 1975.

[John Dibble]

Quality of life has also gone up since 1975.

Quality of life has gone down for the bottom 80%, and up for the top 20% since 1975.

Back it up.

[opebo]

Quality of life has also gone up since 1975.

Quality of life has gone down for the bottom 80%, and up for the top 20% since 1975.

Back it up.

They have lower wages, less money, and a lower share of national income, something I have 'backed up' in several other threads on here. 
Some helpful links (the first one is especially interesting:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/rdi7.html
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h02ar.html
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h04.html
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h12ar.html
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/ie2.html
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/ie3.html
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h02.html
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/rdi3.html

[John Dibble]

Quality of life has also gone up since 1975.

Quality of life has gone down for the bottom 80%, and up for the top 20% since 1975.

Back it up.

They have lower wages, less money, and a lower share of national income, something I have 'backed up' in several other threads on here. 
Some helpful links (the first one is especially interesting:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/rdi7.html
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h02ar.html
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h04.html
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h12ar.html
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/ie2.html
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/ie3.html
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h02.html
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/rdi3.html

Opebo - you have yet to connect this to overall quality of life. If wages or income goes down, but the cost of many goods goes down as well, then your argument is moot. Price and availability of goods is not static. I've pointed out before that many factors are involved in quality of life other than just income, yet you ignore them.

Let me present another example to you - there are two different people, single, who make different incomes. Person A makes 25k a year. Person B makes 40k a year. Initially, you'd assume that B has better quality of life. Upon closer inspection, A has paid off his house and car and is living quite comfortably, while B still has payments on his house and car, has racked up 30k in credit card debt, and is having a hard time just making it. A has the lower income, but his quality of life is superior. Now, such may not be the norm, but it does happen - quality of life is not dependent upon income alone.

[opebo]

Opebo - you have yet to connect this to overall quality of life. If wages or income goes down, but the cost of many goods goes down as well, then your argument is moot. Price and availability of goods is not static. I've pointed out before that many factors are involved in quality of life other than just income, yet you ignore them.

I ignore them primarily because I think they are transparent attempts to explain away a massive increase in inequality by suggesting that TV sets are cheaper, or people get more enjoyment out of life because their betters have a computer or because the internet exists.  In fact of course, the things that make up the vast majority of working class people's expenditures - primarily housing, but also transportation, education, and health care - have all increased enormously in price.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This example has absolutely no bearing on the discussion, as person A is merely living upon past income - he must have recieved a decent income at some point, or he wouldn't have been able to own a house, etc.  No, the simple fact is that as part of a conscious political policy inequality is being increased, and quality of life is being reduced to the point of desperation for the majority of Americans. 

[A18]

Homeownership is at a record high.

Prefer a 1975 car to a 2005 car? I'm sure someone can arrange a trade.

Education is still free.

Health care is more expensive, supposedly. So cry.

I guess you prefer VCRs to DVD players, records to CDs, slide rules to scientific calculators, Atari to Xbox. I guess you think 1975 movies are a lot more entertaining and high-tech than 2005 movies.

If you honestly think quality of life has gone down for Americans over any sustained period of time, you're an idiot, plain and simple. Not even a blind socialist hack would tell you that.

[phk]

We should cut taxes and increase welfare, Republican style.

[The Duke]

I don't define middle class as a group of people extending from the median income outwards, since I'm not a moron.

2. How much revenue do we need?  Your system would bring close to a trillion dollars in new revenue over what we already recieve.  Why would we have to raise taxes by such an exorbinant amount when it would bring our revenues to $500 billion over our expenditures?  Again, you don't even consider this question.

I think it is highly unrealistic to define the 'Middle Class' as anything other than those in the middle of the economic heirarchy!  I know conservatives like to think the middle class are the professionals living in comfortable suburbs, but in fact those people are statistically Upper Middle Class.  In fact what many people perceive to be middle are in fact in the top 20%!  What this means is that many people have a grave misapprehension of how poor most Americans are.

As for what do so with the extra Revenue, I should've thought my intent would be obvious - redistribute it to those at the bottom of the economic heirarchy. 

By the way, how did you calculate I would bring in 1 trillion in new revenue?  Laboriously, or is there a calculator somewhere?  I've been looking for one...

Historically, this is not what middle class has meant.  It has never before, nor does it now, mean the middle of income levels.  The term began as a description for the bourgeoisie, they were the "middle class", the class between the nobles and the peasants.  They were very wealthy though, often more wealthy than the nobles.

Middle class to most Americans means what it has always meant historically, a lifestyle between that of the downtrodden and that of the elites.  Hence, someone making even $200,000 could easily be considered middle class.

Fine, but this doesn't detract from my point that only a small minority of Americans in fact meet the generally perceived definition of 'middle class'.  In fact the great majority of Americans are working poor or at best lower middle class.

Since most Americans believe they are middle class, its hard toa rgue they don't meet their own perceptions of what middle calss is.

[John Dibble]

Opebo - you have yet to connect this to overall quality of life. If wages or income goes down, but the cost of many goods goes down as well, then your argument is moot. Price and availability of goods is not static. I've pointed out before that many factors are involved in quality of life other than just income, yet you ignore them.

I ignore them primarily because I think they are transparent attempts to explain away a massive increase in inequality by suggesting that TV sets are cheaper, or people get more enjoyment out of life because their betters have a computer or because the internet exists.  In fact of course, the things that make up the vast majority of working class people's expenditures - primarily housing, but also transportation, education, and health care - have all increased enormously in price.   

The vast majority of people still have housing, cars(transportation), and education(provided by the state off of taxes), and food(which you didn't bother mentioning) last time I checked. The fact that people can afford tv's, cable/sattelite, computers and internet is also important - would they even be able to get those things if their needs were not met? Heck, the fact that one has any of those things implies that one has housing. The only legitamite thing you mentioned there might be health care, though I have my doubts that all healthcare has gone up(it's usually treatment that is expensive, the normal prevention stuff hasn't really gotten much more expensive as far as I know).

[A18]

Not to mention that the quality of health care is FAR better now.

[opebo]

Homeownership is at a record high.

This is an odd circumstance, given the huge increase in housing prices and the considerable reduction in working class wages.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course the 1975 car was a better value relative to wages than the 2005 car, when new.  I remember back in high school - about 1985 - I bought a 1973 Caddilac as a joke/beater for $500 and the thing was a fantastic car.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To take up Dibble's argurments about quality - the quality of education for the lower classes has plummeted since 1975, while it has stayed the same or improved for the elite.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Consumer electronics have almost no impact on quality of life.  In fact they're largely substitutes for quality of life.  And yes, I think movies made in the 1970's were far better than what is made today.  Entertainment has to do with good stories, writing, and acting - real art - not computer generated explosions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sure any socialist would agree with me that the quality of life for most Americans have gone down precipitously for most Americans since the 1970's.  This is actually something akin to a cliche among retired working class people who see their children and grandchildren struggling at much lower wage levels than they faced.

[opebo]

The vast majority of people still have housing, cars(transportation), and education(provided by the state off of taxes), and food(which you didn't bother mentioning) last time I checked.

Yes, but it takes the incomes of two persons to afford housing, etc.  The onset of the two income family with working mother has masked the enormous reduction in wages (particularly male wages) of the bottom 80% over the last 30 years.

[Bono]

The vast majority of people still have housing, cars(transportation), and education(provided by the state off of taxes), and food(which you didn't bother mentioning) last time I checked.

Yes, but it takes the incomes of two persons to afford housing, etc.  The onset of the two income family with working mother has masked the enormous reduction in wages (particularly male wages) of the bottom 80% over the last 30 years.

I've gone over this:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=124324&page=3

[The Duke]

The vast majority of people still have housing, cars(transportation), and education(provided by the state off of taxes), and food(which you didn't bother mentioning) last time I checked.

Yes, but it takes the incomes of two persons to afford housing, etc.  The onset of the two income family with working mother has masked the enormous reduction in wages (particularly male wages) of the bottom 80% over the last 30 years.

I've gone over this:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=124324&page=3

That's a great link and it dispells much of this Eurosocialist hogwash that no one cna afford anything.  It's because we want, so we spend, so we work that so many people work two jobs.

[John Dibble]

The vast majority of people still have housing, cars(transportation), and education(provided by the state off of taxes), and food(which you didn't bother mentioning) last time I checked.

Yes, but it takes the incomes of two persons to afford housing, etc.  The onset of the two income family with working mother has masked the enormous reduction in wages (particularly male wages) of the bottom 80% over the last 30 years.

It's most likely that the increase in housing, ect. costs is due to the two income family - before women were not as big a factor in the workplace as they are today. When a formerly non-working spouse gets a job, the total income of the family is greater as a result, so prices go up. This has occured in more and more households. Simple economics - as income goes up, so does the willingness to pay higher prices for goods.

So, since you are the expert at digging up this data, has family income increased or decreased? If the individual makes, say, $10k less than he might have 20 years ago(say he would have made $35k then), but the family as a whole makes $15k more, then of course some prices will have gone up, as families make more per person than they did previous. That does not denote that their quality of life has gone down, because in reality their total income will have gone up. So while you simply boil it down to individual income versus price change, what really needs to be considered is the change in total income in families per person relative to the change in prices.

[opebo]

The vast majority of people still have housing, cars(transportation), and education(provided by the state off of taxes), and food(which you didn't bother mentioning) last time I checked.

Yes, but it takes the incomes of two persons to afford housing, etc.  The onset of the two income family with working mother has masked the enormous reduction in wages (particularly male wages) of the bottom 80% over the last 30 years.

I've gone over this:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=124324&page=3

What a bunch of anecdotal nonsense.  I notice they say that 'personal income has tripled over the last 50 years' - a conveniently deceptive broad time period and definition of income.  Median income is the only measure that has any meaning for the working class, as average or total measures like 'personal income' are dragged upward by the huge increases in upper-class income, during the same time period that incomes have gone down for the bottom 80%.   Additionally of course, the first 20 years of the last fifty, from 1955-1975, were the nation's New Deal hayday of redistributionist Keyensianism - of course incomes went up then.  It is highly deceptive to include this period in any calculation of income change over the subsequent right wing period.

[The Duke]

The vast majority of people still have housing, cars(transportation), and education(provided by the state off of taxes), and food(which you didn't bother mentioning) last time I checked.

Yes, but it takes the incomes of two persons to afford housing, etc.  The onset of the two income family with working mother has masked the enormous reduction in wages (particularly male wages) of the bottom 80% over the last 30 years.

I've gone over this:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=124324&page=3

What a bunch of anecdotal nonsense.  I notice they say that 'personal income has tripled over the last 50 years' - a conveniently deceptive broad time period and definition of income.  Median income is the only measure that has any meaning for the working class, as average or total measures like 'personal income' are dragged upward by the huge increases in upper-class income, during the same time period that incomes have gone down for the bottom 80%.   Additionally of course, the first 20 years of the last fifty, from 1955-1975, were the nation's New Deal hayday of redistributionist Keyensianism - of course incomes went up then.  It is highly deceptive to include this period in any calculation of income change over the subsequent right wing period.

Name a New Deal program that has been abolished.

If New Deal programs are the cause for prosperity, then we must assume that their impact is universal and does not end unless they are abolished.  So, which New Deal/Great Society program has been abolished who's purpose was to redistribute wealth?  Certainly not Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment benefits, or any others.

[opebo]

The vast majority of people still have housing, cars(transportation), and education(provided by the state off of taxes), and food(which you didn't bother mentioning) last time I checked.

Yes, but it takes the incomes of two persons to afford housing, etc.  The onset of the two income family with working mother has masked the enormous reduction in wages (particularly male wages) of the bottom 80% over the last 30 years.

I've gone over this:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=124324&page=3

That's a great link and it dispells much of this Eurosocialist hogwash that no one cna afford anything.  It's because we want, so we spend, so we work that so many people work two jobs.

Europeans work far fewer hours, get eight week vacations, and still afford the same stuff.

[Bono]

Europeans ... get eight week vacations,

No, we don't.

[opebo]

The vast majority of people still have housing, cars(transportation), and education(provided by the state off of taxes), and food(which you didn't bother mentioning) last time I checked.

Yes, but it takes the incomes of two persons to afford housing, etc.  The onset of the two income family with working mother has masked the enormous reduction in wages (particularly male wages) of the bottom 80% over the last 30 years.

I've gone over this:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=124324&page=3

What a bunch of anecdotal nonsense.  I notice they say that 'personal income has tripled over the last 50 years' - a conveniently deceptive broad time period and definition of income.  Median income is the only measure that has any meaning for the working class, as average or total measures like 'personal income' are dragged upward by the huge increases in upper-class income, during the same time period that incomes have gone down for the bottom 80%.   Additionally of course, the first 20 years of the last fifty, from 1955-1975, were the nation's New Deal hayday of redistributionist Keyensianism - of course incomes went up then.  It is highly deceptive to include this period in any calculation of income change over the subsequent right wing period.

Name a New Deal program that has been abolished.

If New Deal programs are the cause for prosperity, then we must assume that their impact is universal and does not end unless they are abolished.  So, which New Deal/Great Society program has been abolished who's purpose was to redistribute wealth?  Certainly not Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment benefits, or any others.

Welfare has been greatly reduced, as has unionization.  Social Security doesn't actually do any redistribution from class to class.  The main change has been in tax policy, unionization, and the reduction in the real minimum wage.   I suppose the obvious conclusion is that even in those good old days, not enough was being done.

You point brings up the obvious - that there may be other sources of inequality.  Globalization is the one most talked about.  However a liberal or keynesian response to this new economic situation would have been to greatly increase redistributive programs.