CaneBrain 95 Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 I apologize.damn right.That's the (paraphrased) first line of their mission statement. I would agree that NPR is not as worthy as say "heating assistance for the poor in the Northern United States" which is also on the chopping block.It's all academic anyway.....the Senate and Obama are going to light that House budget on fire. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 What does that have to do with the fact that they get any money at all?Nothing, I was just making the point that NPR's $400m has almost zero effect on the national budget/deficit, so it seems like a waste of time to worry about it. Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 Nothing, I was just making the point that NPR's $400m has almost zero effect on the national budget/deficit, so it seems like a waste of time to worry about it.And that is the problem.Harry Reid said virtually the same thing about his federally funded railroad in the stimulus bill. It's only $7,000,000,000,000.00. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 And that is the problem.Harry Reid said virtually the same thing about his federally funded railroad in the stimulus bill. It's only $7,000,000,000,000.00.I don't really see the connection. Seven trillion dollars (seriously???) is almost twenty thousand times more than four hundred million dollars.Seven trillion can't be right. That's like, all the money.EDIT: I think it's 7 billion, which also means that your comparison makes more sense. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 Nothing, I was just making the point that NPR's $400m has almost zero effect on the national budget/deficit, so it seems like a waste of time to worry about it.That's about how much we will be getting per year if we raise the tax rates by 1% on the top 1% of the population.Glad you now see that it is a pointless gesture designed to only incite class warfare while ignoring the real problem: Global Cooling Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 That's about how much we will be getting per year if we raise the tax rates by 1% on the top 1% of the population.Can you cite a source showing that to be the case? I'm not saying I don't believe you, I'm just saying I sort of don't believe you. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Can you cite a source showing that to be the case? I'm not saying I don't believe you, I'm just saying I sort of don't believe you. Let's say 1% = $400mmThen 10% would be $4Band 100% would be $40B.Do you think the top 1% make more than $40B a year? Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Let's say 1% = $400mmThen 10% would be $4Band 100% would be $40B.Do you think the top 1% make more than $40B a year?Yes? Probably by leaps and bounds. Rather than citing a source, you just made wild estimates apparently based on nothing.EDIT: Some quick google research shows that you are wrong by a fairly large amount. This is just a quick calculation based on, like I said, quick google research. I was unable to find a source that gave a direct answer to the question. Anyway:In 2010, approximately 144 million individual tax returns were filed. 1% of this, whether it be the top 1% or bottom 1% or anywhere in between, would be about 1.4 million people. This article, by some sociologist at some university (published January, 2011), asserts that the top 1% of earners in the United States earn over $1 million each when averaged (paragraph 8). So that gives us a simple equation: 1.4 million people (the amount of people comprising the top 1%) multiplied by 1 million (the average income for those 1.4 million people) will give us the total amount earned by the top 1% of earners. Note also that this is an extremely conservative estimate, as the source actually says over $1 million on average. I've taken that to mean exactly $1 million, just to demonstrate how far off your estimate was.1.4m X 1m = 1.4 trillion 1% of $1.4 trillion is $14 billion. This is 35 times larger than the number your estimated, and again is an extremely conservative estimate based on the admittedly lazy amount of research I did. It also does not take into account corporate taxes or other non-individual taxes, because I'm not sure if those would be affected by the 1% tax increase on the top 1% or not. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Top 1% isn't a percent of returns, it is a level attained by income. Many of these are Hollywood and sports figures, making tens of millions a year.So your 1.4 million people making over a million is flawed. I believe that the number of people in the top 1% is closer to 150,000...I will look later Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Top 1% isn't a percent of returns, it is a level attained by income. Many of these are Hollywood and sports figures, making tens of millions a year.So your 1.4 million people making over a million is flawed. I believe that the number of people in the top 1% is closer to 150,000...I will look laterCan you explain this further? What is it 1% of? Link to post Share on other sites
Skeleton Jelly 2 Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Can you explain this further? What is it 1% of?If you take all the tax returns filed, it's the top 1% based on adjusted gross income.In 2008, according to IRS data, the top 1% earned $1.7 trillion, paying taxes of $392 billion for an effective tax rate of 23.27%.Adding 1% to that rate would net an additional $17 billion in taxes.Question: did I agree with BG or Tim-Dub? Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Charlie Sheen, Glenn Beck, or Qaddafi?http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/03/its_t...en_beck_or.html Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 If you take all the tax returns filed, it's the top 1% based on adjusted gross income.In 2008, according to IRS data, the top 1% earned $1.7 trillion, paying taxes of $392 billion for an effective tax rate of 23.27%.Adding 1% to that rate would net an additional $17 billion in taxes.Question: did I agree with BG or Tim-Dub?I'm pretty certain you agreed with me, and I also feel validated in that you gave almost the same number ($17b) as I arrived at with my rudimentary calculation ($14b). I think I had a very clear concept of what "the top 1% of earners" means, and I acted accordingly. BG suggested that I misunderstood what was meant by "top 1%," but I think it's fairly clear that he is the one who was confused about what 1% means here.EDIT: If there were 144 million tax returns, then the amount who would be taxed under a plan that raises taxes on the top 1% of earners would be 1.44 million people. This is the assumption I was working under, and which I believe you just validated. Speak up if I'm mistaken though.You also unquestionably validated my claim that his estimation of $400m was drastically low. Link to post Share on other sites
Roll the Bones 74 Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 I don't really listen to NPR, so I never thought about this before, but holy crap!! We are giving them $400MM a year to operate?I know this is ridiculous! Only 400 million! I mean that's a couple days of no-fly zones over Libya. It's apalling it's so low. They ought to triple it! Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 I know this is ridiculous! Only 400 million! I mean that's a couple days of no-fly zones over Libya. It's apalling it's so low. They ought to triple it!The point is, why are they getting anything? Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Sorry Tim, but I'm pretty sure I am right.Why would you listen to JJJ anyway? He probably took a poll and then fudged the results. ( oh wait, never mind, he's not a democrat )You're assumption that 144 million tax returns means 1.4 million is top 1% was where you were wrong. If there are 1000 people, and half make $500, and 490 make $600 and 5 make $700 and 5 make $1000, the top 1% would not include 100 people because that would reach down into the people making $600.But I didn't think the rich were being soaked for $1.7 Trillion every year. So insane the shakedown the government is doing to We the People.Just a travesty.Especially when the government ran a $223 Billion deficit for last month alone. That is more than the entire deficit in 2007 (Bush; war, tax cuts ) for the whole year. In fact that is almost more than any year Bush was in the WH, IN ONE MONTH.the dems though went a long way offering to find $6 billion per year to cut. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 The point is, why are they getting anything?Want to know the REALLY dirty secret?NPR, Grants for Arts, etc...is to subsidize rich people's tastes.Opera, Art Exhibits, Symphonies, etc, all is the rich man's playground. But there aren't enough of them to justify the existence of the NY Opera House or the Philiomonica Orchestra etc.So some rich people put together a thing to give these things huge blocks of money. And the liberals are defending it. It really is funny to watch them stick up for something they would never use, while accusing us republicans of being fools for supporting the policies that only help the rich... Link to post Share on other sites
Skeleton Jelly 2 Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 You're assumption that 144 million tax returns means 1.4 million is top 1% was where you were wrong. If there are 1000 people, and half make $500, and 490 make $600 and 5 make $700 and 5 make $1000, the top 1% would not include 100 people because that would reach down into the people making $600.But I didn't think the rich were being soaked for $1.7 Trillion every year. So insane the shakedown the government is doing to We the People.Reverse order:$1.7 trillion is how much they made. $392 billion is how much they paid.I don't think your definition of top 1% is the normal way of talking about it. It seems like what you're saying is that you start with the total earned by all taxpayers (which is $8.4 trillion) and take 1% of that ($84 billion). The 1% increase in tax would net $840 million with your definition. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Reverse order:$1.7 trillion is how much they made. $392 billion is how much they paid.I don't think your definition of top 1% is the normal way of talking about it. It seems like what you're saying is that you start with the total earned by all taxpayers (which is $8.4 trillion) and take 1% of that ($84 billion). The 1% increase in tax would net $840 million with your definition.Don't get all fancy with your tax talks and math stuff buddy.The normal way of talking about it is that we have tiered people already, and the top 1% is not a number based on quantity of returns, but on subjective tier-ing by liberals who want to have class warfare so they can bring violence to their problems because they have no other solution. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Especially when the government ran a $223 Billion deficit for last month alone. That is more than the entire deficit in 2007 (Bush; war, tax cuts ) for the whole year. In fact that is almost more than any year Bush was in the WH, IN ONE MONTH.The national debt rose $4 trillion under W, the largest rise any President has overseen, although Obama is certain to catch him in ridiculous time. However Obama did of course inherit a terribly crumbling economy, where Bush inherited the best economy we'd ever had. Long story short, you shouldn't use W as an example of managing the national debt well.Also lol @ hating on "the arts." Less art! America!!! You've obviously never been to see the New York Philharmonic if you think they have trouble filling the seats. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 The national debt rose $4 trillion under W, the largest rise any President has overseen, although Obama is certain to catch him in ridiculous time. However Obama did of course inherit a terribly crumbling economy, where Bush inherited the best economy we'd ever had. Long story short, you shouldn't use W as an example of managing the national debt well.8 Years - $4 trillion1 Month - $223 Billion x 12 = $2.45 Trillion in one year x 4 years = $10 Trillion in his full single term.Also lol @ hating on "the arts." Less art! America!!! You've obviously never been to see the New York Philharmonic if you think they have trouble filling the seats.I like the money the government is giving to the arts and NPR. I think rich people pay too much in taxes and if they can get the government to underwrite all their activities, more power to them.Otherwise it would be like $5,000 per seat for an Opera. Sure they can afford it, but why not get the middle class to kick in part of it? Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 8 Years - $4 trillion1 Month - $223 Billion x 12 = $2.45 Trillion in one year x 4 years = $10 Trillion in his full single term.I don't know why you're telling me that. I included the fact that Obama will, "catch him in ridiculous time," and I never disagreed with your numbers on that. I like the money the government is giving to the arts and NPR. I think rich people pay too much in taxes and if they can get the government to underwrite all their activities, more power to them.Otherwise it would be like $5,000 per seat for an Opera. Sure they can afford it, but why not get the middle class to kick in part of it?Only rich people like art. That is a thing that is totally true. Also the government spends huge portions of their budget on the arts. That is another thing that is totally true. Another true thing is that the government subsidizes opera tickets nationwide, or something. Obama's raising the opera tax again! That happens! Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted March 8, 2011 Author Share Posted March 8, 2011 The national debt rose $4 trillion under W, the largest rise any President has overseen, although Obama is certain to catch him in ridiculous time. However Obama did of course inherit a terribly crumbling economy, where Bush inherited the best economy we'd ever had. Long story short, you shouldn't use W as an example of managing the national debt well.Also lol @ hating on "the arts." Less art! America!!! You've obviously never been to see the New York Philharmonic if you think they have trouble filling the seats.You need a history lesson. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 You need a history lesson.Then when was the best economy we've ever had? Since it seems to be a fairly straightforward and simple lesson, I'd appreciate if you offered it. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted March 8, 2011 Author Share Posted March 8, 2011 Then when was the best economy we've ever had? Since it seems to be a fairly straightforward and simple lesson, I'd appreciate if you offered it.It is very simple. It wasn't right after the tech bubble. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now