I was not amazed but disgusted when John Boehner and his crew tried to justify the extremity of their position by rebranding the wealthy as "job creators." While true in a very basic sense, it obscures the fact that jobs are a cost that is voluntarily incurred only as a result of demand. Hiring has no correlation at all to profits or to income - none. Let me keep more of my money without increasing customer demand and I will do just that - keep it. Perhaps I will spend a little more of it, though probably not, but even if I do it won't help the economy very much. Here is another secret of the well-to-do: we don't really buy much more stuff than everyone else. It may be more expensive stuff, sure, but I don't buy cars, or appliances, or furniture, or anything else more frequently than the average consumer. The things I do spend more money on are services such as travel, entertainment, restaurants and landscaping, none of which generate well-paying middle class jobs. There, in a nutshell, is the sad explanation of what has happened to the American economy over the last 25 years of "trickle down" economics.

I think I'm in love.

Obviously fake.

/:D

RINO

(Rich in name only)

So he makes something like $400k a year? Well, he's not really wealthy, then. That's on the better side of middle class, yeah, but not rich.

hillbillypharmacist: So he makes something like $400k a year? Well, he's not really wealthy, then. That's on the better side of middle class, yeah, but not rich.

FTFA: The threshold for inclusion in the top 1% of income earners in 2008, the most recent year for which published data is available from the IRS, was $380,354, enough for an extraordinary life but nowhere near enough for a harbor berth in St. Moritz. Nevertheless, I am - for now - comfortably ensconced in that demographic. Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan would save me roughly $400,000 a year in taxes, and President Obama's tax proposals would cost me more than $100,000, yet I support the latter and consider the former laughable.

You can haz reading comprehension..

hillbillypharmacist: So he makes something like $400k a year?

From TFA: Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan would save me roughly $400,000 a year in taxes

hillbillypharmacist: That's on the better side of middle class

Though he claims to make significantly more than 400k, if 400k/yr is "middle class", then the term has lost all meaning.

hillbillypharmacist: So he makes something like $400k a year? Well, he's not really wealthy, then. That's on the better side of middle class, yeah, but not rich.

When the average salary is only 26k a year... Having 400k after taxes, that's rich.

Diogenes: I was not amazed but disgusted when John Boehner and his crew tried to justify the extremity of their position by rebranding the wealthy as "job creators." While true in a very basic sense, it obscures the fact that jobs are a cost that is voluntarily incurred only as a result of demand. Hiring has no correlation at all to profits or to income - none. Let me keep more of my money without increasing customer demand and I will do just that - keep it. Perhaps I will spend a little more of it, though probably not, but even if I do it won't help the economy very much. Here is another secret of the well-to-do: we don't really buy much more stuff than everyone else. It may be more expensive stuff, sure, but I don't buy cars, or appliances, or furniture, or anything else more frequently than the average consumer. The things I do spend more money on are services such as travel, entertainment, restaurants and landscaping, none of which generate well-paying middle class jobs. There, in a nutshell, is the sad explanation of what has happened to the American economy over the last 25 years of "trickle down" economics.

I think I'm in love.

Golddigger.

Ghastly: When the average salary is only 26k a year... Having 400k after taxes, that's rich.

Median.

in before the white-knight "why doesn't he just voluntarily pay more taxes then?" response, which completely ignores the fact he never said anyone should ever volunteer more taxes.

Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan would save me roughly $400,000 a year in taxes

I'm calling shenanigans on that. Unless the author is Oprah or Tiger Woods.

First let me note that I am not part of the yacht and private jet set, which represents an even smaller subset of incomes than mine. The threshold for inclusion in the top 1% of income earners in 2008, the most recent year for which published data is available from the IRS, was $380,354, enough for an extraordinary life but nowhere near enough for a harbor berth in St. Moritz. Nevertheless, I am - for now - comfortably ensconced in that demographic. Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan would save me roughly $400,000 a year in taxes,

I don't think these statements make sense. Someone who currently pays over $400,000 per year in Federal income tax IS part of the yacht and private jet set.

Or am I wrong? Something doesn't add up to me.

vernonFL: Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan would save me roughly $400,000 a year in taxes

I'm calling shenanigans on that. Unless the author is Oprah or Tiger Woods.

FTFA: President Obama's tax proposals would cost me more than $100,000.

He says President Obama's tax proposal would be a 3.5% increase on income above $250,000.

If he makes $3,000,000, a 3.5% increase on income above $250,000 would cost him about $100,000. If he figures 9-9-9 will save him $400,000, he most be figuring about a 14% reduction in his effective tax rate.

So they make roughly $3.5 million per year.

Okay, not Oprah money.

vernonFL: Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan would save me roughly $400,000 a year in taxes

I'm calling shenanigans on that. Unless the author is Oprah or Tiger Woods.

Not Tiger Woods, more like Luke Walton.

What a dumass. Can't these college educated morons understand that it is the out of control spending that is ruining their futures, and not dinky increases to tax revenues by sticking it to those making more than $100K.

impaler: If he makes $3,000,000,

Still middle class.

vernonFL: I don't think these statements make sense. Someone who currently pays over $400,000 per year in Federal income tax IS part of the yacht and private jet set.

Or am I wrong? Something doesn't add up to me.

$3,000,000 a year is a lot, but yachts and private jets are still about 10X their annual pay.

EnviroDude: What a dumass. Can't these college educated morons understand that it is the out of control spending that is ruining their futures, and not dinky increases to tax revenues by sticking it to those making more than $100K.

So what you're saying is, the revenue increases are too small.

Piffle. He only makes $3,000,000 a year? He's upper middle class yes, but he doesn't understand the struggles that the truly wealthy have to go through.

impaler: $3,000,000 a year is a lot, but yachts and private jets are still about 10X their annual pay.

You can get a used S2 in good condition for less than 50k.

//yeah I know you mean p-diddy yacht
//Luke Walton doesn't have a p-diddy yacht
//Luke Walton

tallguywithglasseson: //yeah I know you mean p-diddy yacht

Is there any other kind?

jobs are a cost that is voluntarily incurred only as a result of demand. Hiring has no correlation at all to profits or to income - none. Let me keep more of my money without increasing customer demand and I will do just that - keep it.

EXACTLY! You want to create jobs? Then you have to create demand. And you do THAT by letting the 99% keep more of their money.

Lower taxes on the poor and middle-class. THAT'S how you create jobs.

pudding7: Lower taxes on the poor and middle-class. THAT'S how you create jobs.

This assumes they have money to spend, and that lowering their taxes creates a significant stimulus.

RexTalionis: Ghastly: When the average salary is only 26k a year... Having 400k after taxes, that's rich.

Median.

Median is a kind of average, along with mean and mode.

impaler: Is there any other kind?

Well sure there are, it's just a class of boat.
Not any other kind *I* would buy, mind you.

//twirls mustache
//adjusts monocle

Ghastly: When the average salary is only 26k a year... Having 400k after taxes, that's rich.

No shiat, on what planet is $400 k middle class?

pizen: RexTalionis: Ghastly: When the average salary is only 26k a year... Having 400k after taxes, that's rich.

Median.

Median is a kind of average, along with mean and mode.

True, but I think the point he is making is that if you are looking at mean income, which is often used as a synonym for average, it will be much higher as the vast amount of wealth of the top tier pushes the amount up. Median, however, is a better measure as it shows the actual middle.

I actually found it on Wikipedia, though this is based on 2004 so income inequality is even higher now than then. The median household income for the U.S. is $44,389 whereas the mean household income is $60,528, or an almost 40% higher amount.

tallguywithglasseson: impaler: Is there any other kind?

Well sure there are, it's just a class of boat.
Not any other kind *I* would buy, mind you.

//twirls mustache
//adjusts monocle

Indubitably.

Mugato: Ghastly: When the average salary is only 26k a year... Having 400k after taxes, that's rich.

No shiat, on what planet is $400 k middle class?

According to a Farker from another thread, you're only rich if you could retire tomorrow and never need to work another day in your life. I'm not kidding you, someone actually typed that out.

coco ebert: I actually found it on Wikipedia, though this is based on 2004 so income inequality is even higher now than then. The median household income for the U.S. is $44,389 whereas the mean household income is $60,528, or an almost 40% higher amount.

The median from wages (for a single person) is something like 26k. It was just announced last week.
Link (new window)

coco ebert: Mugato: Ghastly: When the average salary is only 26k a year... Having 400k after taxes, that's rich.

No shiat, on what planet is $400 k middle class?

According to a Farker from another thread, you're only rich if you could retire tomorrow and never need to work another day in your life. I'm not kidding you, someone actually typed that out.

Pfft. That is such a broad criteria that it means that theoretically, everyone is rich (because it left the length of the life undefined).

Where was this guy back then?

Oh, right, the media wasn't reporting all to well the number of rich folk that were saying "Raise our taxes by that tiny amount, we won't notice".

Exception Collection: coco ebert: I actually found it on Wikipedia, though this is based on 2004 so income inequality is even higher now than then. The median household income for the U.S. is $44,389 whereas the mean household income is $60,528, or an almost 40% higher amount.

The median from wages (for a single person) is something like 26k. It was just announced last week.
Link (new window)

That makes sense. The figures I was citing are for household incomes.

RexTalionis: coco ebert: Mugato: Ghastly: When the average salary is only 26k a year... Having 400k after taxes, that's rich.

No shiat, on what planet is $400 k middle class?

According to a Farker from another thread, you're only rich if you could retire tomorrow and never need to work another day in your life. I'm not kidding you, someone actually typed that out.

Pfft. That is such a broad criteria that it means that theoretically, everyone is rich (because it left the length of the life undefined).

He was saying that you could live well-off for many, many years, which amounts to many millions.

RexTalionis: Pfft. That is such a broad criteria that it means that theoretically, everyone is rich (because it left the length of the life undefined).

I think people at least in this country are a little obsessed with retirement. Sure it'd be mice not to have to work but people should get into a profession that they somewhat enjoy so they don't feel like they spent 30 years preparing for when they're old (more if you count school).

coco ebert: RexTalionis: coco ebert: Mugato: Ghastly: When the average salary is only 26k a year... Having 400k after taxes, that's rich.

No shiat, on what planet is $400 k middle class?

According to a Farker from another thread, you're only rich if you could retire tomorrow and never need to work another day in your life. I'm not kidding you, someone actually typed that out.

Pfft. That is such a broad criteria that it means that theoretically, everyone is rich (because it left the length of the life undefined).

He was saying that you could live well-off for many, many years, which amounts to many millions.

Right, but the phrasing was just terribly imprecise. A 95 year old man can retire and never work another day in his life with only about 20,000 bucks in the bank. A man with 30 bucks in his pocket can retire and never work another day in his life, assuming that he dies or commits suicide very soon thereafter.

proteus_b: does that include people who aren't working? children? people who have been unemployed for too long to no longer count as unemployed in statistics? or is it only out of people who are full time working (my guess is the former but who knows...)

All people that earned wages in 2010.

BMulligan: Exception Collection: coco ebert: I actually found it on Wikipedia, though this is based on 2004 so income inequality is even higher now than then. The median household income for the U.S. is $44,389 whereas the mean household income is $60,528, or an almost 40% higher amount.

The median from wages (for a single person) is something like 26k. It was just announced last week.
Link (new window)

If I'm not mistaken, I think that $26K figure was calculated per wage earner, as opposed to per household. Not that it really changes the debate at all.

Something tells me you might be right about that.

I was not amazed but disgusted when John Boehner and his crew tried to justify the extremity of their position by rebranding the wealthy as "job creators." While true in a very basic sense, it obscures the fact that jobs are a cost that is voluntarily incurred only as a result of demand. Hiring has no correlation at all to profits or to income - none.

You, sir, are an idiot. Jobs are a voluntary cost associated with risk. Some risks pay off, and well (e.g., the iPod). Some pay off marginally (e.g., the Zune). Some don't at all (e.g., the DJ Ditty. Remember the DJ Ditty? No?) But none of them happen at all until somebody, somewhere thinks "I can make money on this", and then tries to.

The fact that some risks are (or look) small because the demand is readily apparent does not make creating a job is not associated with risk. Ask any of the people squeezed out of the real estate sector if there is less of a demand for housing (answer: yes). Then ask if that is because people no longer need or want shelter (answer: no). The underlying human need is still there; it is only the collective result of individual risk assessments leading to a willingness to assume mortgage debt which has.

The obvious rejoinder to your mutton-headed claim of "profits/income don't affect hiring" is to examine the contrapositive: "loss of profits/income don't affect firing". Logically, a contrapositive must be true, or the original argument false. Do you think no one gets fired when profits decline? Does anyone?

Lackofname: More 1%ers who support OWS

Of course. Some of them realize the economy is cyclical and money needs to circulate through the economy, not just accumulate at the top.