Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2017 20:25:47 GMT -7
Even at 40% (which I am sure is higher). That means one in about 3 people are poor in this country. That is huge and the right still wants to throw those people under a bus. We can glaze this in any kind of sugar coating you would like, but it is true. I'm glad lack of being there or working an 80 hr weeks is all it takes to cause a divorce. Seems neither of those affected She Who Must Be Obeyed who is about to finish our 35th year with me. Many times I wished my work week finished at 80 hrs a week or even that I could be in this country. Unfortunately, there was no room in my dufflebag for Die Frau much less die Kinder. Did I forget to mention that this was in a combat zone? No stress there for that gal who hung out her blue star banner praying the star didn't turn gold! Even the 18 months at the Puzzle Palace (a.k.a. Pentagon) wasn't enough to bring on the scheisster lawyers. The 80 hrs a week was still a pipe dream even there. We had 24 years of this. Now for your data claims. 40% are poor? Really. Pew research has an income calculator that places your income as upper, middle or lower income, not only by state and municipality, but the nation's averages too. I think they're using 2014 data, but the US has 20% upper, 29% lower and 51% as middle-income. www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/05/11/are-you-in-the-american-middle-class/Wish I had saved the link but last week Pew showed the 4% loss of the middle class. Of that 4%, 1% dropped to the lower class, but 3% moved to the upper class. The majority of change was upward. Just because you're in that 29% lower-income bracket doesn't mean you're poor. Pew also shows using 2012 data that the poor (poverty) rate is 16%. that's a far cry from your 40%. www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/13/whos-poor-in-america-50-years-into-the-war-on-poverty-a-data-portrait/Your sugar coating is melting. It's an illusion. Do you think anyone wants to tell the people of the good ole US of A that the middle class is shrinking? No, they don't. And as you reply, I will assume your well educated because you speak like you are. If the top earners in the country are making billions a year and the bottom earners are earning next to nothing, where is the mathematical middle? If you make a measly 100 grand a year and you sit on your money because you don't want to risk it in this economy, who are you helping? Are you middle class? Middle class was real in the 1960s but now it is a fallacy that has only lived on in ideology. Look at the income of a CEO in 1960 and compare it to a CEO in 2014. It's crazy. And the only fault at play here is the taxes dwindling for the rich. Have incomes followed inflation? No, they haven't and if they had, the lowest income today would be over 20 bucks an hour. And sure, there is not a paint roller that could be used that could say marriage is a one size fits all thing. I've been married 17 years and against all odds, we made it. But I am a minority and divorce today is a very common thing.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Mar 29, 2017 5:28:11 GMT -7
It's an illusion. Do you think anyone wants to tell the people of the good ole US of A that the middle class is shrinking? No, they don't. And as you reply, I will assume your well educated because you speak like you are. If the top earners in the country are making billions a year and the bottom earners are earning next to nothing, where is the mathematical middle? If you make a measly 100 grand a year and you sit on your money because you don't want to risk it in this economy, who are you helping? Are you middle class? Middle class was real in the 1960s but now it is a fallacy that has only lived on in ideology. Look at the income of a CEO in 1960 and compare it to a CEO in 2014. It's crazy. And the only fault at play here is the taxes dwindling for the rich. Have incomes followed inflation? No, they haven't and if they had, the lowest income today would be over 20 bucks an hour. And sure, there is not a paint roller that could be used that could say marriage is a one size fits all thing. I've been married 17 years and against all odds, we made it. But I am a minority and divorce today is a very common thing. Mar 28, 2017 22:01:42 GMT -5 ranger06 said: "The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want." - Jesus, see Mark 14:7 This hasn't changed since then either. Same goes for the rich. Your question "Do you think anyone wants to tell the people of the good ole US of A that the middle class is shrinking?" was answered already. Your negative reply was already shown to be wrong by me quoting Pew Research. I really don't care that the top earners in the country are making billions a year. Good for them. I care what I'm making and that me and mine are taken care of for food, clothing and shelter. All else is a want, not a need. 51% of the nation being middle class is hardly an idiology fallacy. Oh, and congats on making it to the big 17. Keep it up. Sure divorce is rampant, but it needs not be. It all depends on the dedication between the man and wife every day to make it work. All else is just an excuse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2017 18:01:21 GMT -7
Pew research does not prove anything to me.
What people are using is numbers based on gross income to gauge whether someone is middle class or not. Again, I will say, if the rich makes billions and the poor makes next to nothing, the middle is much higher then a gross number that used to represent a class.
Now, IMHO, more then 55% of the country is poor. Why you may ask? Here, in my area which is the Appalachians, I know a person who has a gross income of a little over $60K a year. In this area, a person grossing that kind of money is in a higher class since most jobs pay minimum wage. Now, to make that kind of money, that person had to go to college for a nursing degree. To the tune of $120,000.
So they make $60K a year. That breaks down to $5000 a month gross. Since I help many people in the area with finances, I know the going rate for taxes is anywhere from 24% to 27% depending on deductions and such. In her case, I know it is closer to 27% so we will go by that.
After cuts= 3,650 She pays about $510 a month for medical $3,140 She has a car and insurance rates are high here. $3,010 She owes for school to the tune of about $580 a month $2430 She needs to eat and feed her kids $2,030 Her rent is $500 $1,530 Her electric runs about $110 a month $1,420 Her water is about $60 a month $1,360 Trash is about $20 a month $1,340 Cable/internet is about $145 a month $1,195 Clothes and such for her and the kids at $200 (she works in a hospital here) $995
She has a $6000 deductible with insurance so doctors are basically out of her pocket. Medicine for kids and gas for work and even lunch at work costs her money. So the remaining money does drop.
The middle class of the early 60s created opportunity because they had money and could take risks with their money. A gross number today doesn't tell the whole story. College costs are out of control, food costs are crazy, medical costs are insane and there are a host of things that nickle and dine us all.
That is not middle class. And this doesn't even speak about the people who go to college and can only get a job flipping burgers. This not me being negative, this is me being a realist and me not using a broad spectrum brush to paint the world.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Mar 29, 2017 20:23:06 GMT -7
Pew research does not prove anything to me. Glad they prove nothing to you as I prefer folks that actually researched and know something about the subject. Guess you're equally clueless about the BLS and Census Bureau too. Now you're claiming 55% of the country is poor. It wasn't even a scant day and a half ago you claimed it was 40%. Mar 28, 2017 at 1:36pm corbint said: "Even at 40% (which I am sure is higher)." I know you're not consistant or even correct as it's only 16% . That, my lad, isn't IMHO. Now to your gal buddy; is she a widow? If not, where is her husband? This great country of ours also gave us the freedom to fail. $120K to become a nurse? Did she knock of the basic courses at a community college? How about a cost share with her hospital employer where they assumed some of the cost with a job at the end - like an internship. Why didn't she work during her school years. She supposedly works in a hospital yet pays double for medical that I pay and I don't work in a hospital. She might want to consider what she needs rather than her wants. Yes, she's middle class. From the link I already provided I put in a non-descript area of West Virginia since the only info you provided stated Appalachians and put in a family of 3. She rates in the upper 53% of her state and 51% of the nation, still in the middle class. Not bad at all. The Nasty Guard and the USAR have medical units and need nurses. Why hasn't she joined? Now for those in college that are flipping burgers. Well guess what - I did the same. I also was a house painter and waited tables. I worked full time while the university was in and worked full time during breaks - sometimes 2 jobs. I didn't get money from my family but started with a massive $500 one time scholarship award from my HS moms group. I owed a whopping $900 when I graduated, my wife $2500. We worked our asses off while in school. And since you're worried about not using a broad spectrum brush to paint the world, want me to post a comparrison of what world poverty looks like compared to us? We've not had an enemy army on our territory since WWII and have clean running water, food, clothing and shelter. Your gal buddy has about $1000 left over after expences every month by your calculations. Cry me a river.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2017 22:04:46 GMT -7
Hey, you told me I was wrong about poverty and that is why I lowered my number even with a disclaimer that I believed it was higher. I got news for ya, $120,000 for college nowadays is nothing and there are many more options at a higher price tag. Your failing to understand and accuse me of not doing research, the middle class has historically created opportunity. If the "middle class" of today is not doing this, they are failing this nation. How many people owned the MSM back in the 1960s? How many people own it today? Hint, you may find it can be counted on one hand. We can surely agree to disagree and that is fine with me. Even the amount of people on food stamps don't align with what you say. therightstuff.biz/2015/09/13/all-those-white-people-on-food-stamps/
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Mar 30, 2017 9:40:03 GMT -7
Hey, you told me I was wrong about poverty and that is why I lowered my number even with a disclaimer that I believed it was higher. I got news for ya, $120,000 for college nowadays is nothing and there are many more options at a higher price tag. Your failing to understand and accuse me of not doing research, the middle class has historically created opportunity. If the "middle class" of today is not doing this, they are failing this nation. How many people owned the MSM back in the 1960s? How many people own it today? Hint, you may find it can be counted on one hand. We can surely agree to disagree and that is fine with me. Even the amount of people on food stamps don't align with what you say. therightstuff.biz/2015/09/13/all-those-white-people-on-food-stamps/You need to review what you write before making weird statements. You first wrote that 40% were in poverty and I corrected you with the Census Bureau's 16%. This was on March 28 as stated by me above. Your 55% claim was made March 29. Do note that a change from 40% to 55% is not lowering but raising the number. A moot point as the poverty rate is still 16%, a far cry from either one of your claims. Now you may have confused this with your claim of Mar 27, 2017 at 8:39pm "(A) whole 55% of this country makes at or under $30K a year..." However, not only was your percentage wrong but this neither states nor implies anything about this being the poverty rate for the nation. $120,000 for a degree. OK, but apparently she didn't shop around and is now paying heavily for not doing her homework. "Students pursuing a bachelor's degree in nursing should plan to spend anywhere from $5,000-$30,000 per year, according to Peterson's College Search. At a four-year public school, the average cost is around $14,000 per year, including room and board, books and fees. At a private school, costs can reach $30,000 or more per year." costowl.com/education/healthcare-nursing-school-costs.htmlRound up the average cost of $14K/yr to $15/k. $15K/yr * 4 yrs = $60K for the degree! She paid $120K. Can one afford it and how/when is it to be paid should have been planned out. It should have been paid as she went through school. If it takes longer than 4 years so be it. It took me 5 and my wife longer. There was a stupid commercial years back about some dude that got himself hopeless in debt by living beyond his means. The ad was trying to sell debt consolidation loans. The answer is not another loan but to live withing his means. He had boys that need to learn to mow the lawn. Get rid of the riding mower and get a push one. Git rid of the boat, the expensive SUV, the $500,000 house in the exclusive neighborhood, etc. BTW, what am I failing to understand? You're not doing research resulted in your mess above. Case in point. Besides, if the middle class was failing the nation, how did 3 of the 4% that moved out of the middle class go into the upper class? Not bad odds. No, we can not agree to disagree. Your statements are false. Worse, after being shown the facts but still insisting that 55% is in poverty now goes beyond simple disagreement and into the realm of lying. Finally, there's that goofy statement about food stamps and your claim that it doesn't back up what I say. Well for one, I wrote nothing about food stamps and second, your linked article makes no reference on the poverty rate or the middle class. FLASH - these are the topics here. Finally you write something correct. Of course it doesn't back me up as it has nothing to do with what I wrote. Now had you done your vaunted research you'd have noted from your article that almost 47 million are on food stamps (assume 2013 data). The World bank for 2014 gave us 321 million total. data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTLThe percent of our population on food stamps is 47 (million)/321 (Million) * 100 = 14.6%. Now food stamps and poverty aren't synonymous, but 14.6% is very close to 16%. Well golly gee wiz. Your linked article did in fact allign with me and the Census Bureau.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2017 16:22:02 GMT -7
Hey, you told me I was wrong about poverty and that is why I lowered my number even with a disclaimer that I believed it was higher. I got news for ya, $120,000 for college nowadays is nothing and there are many more options at a higher price tag. Your failing to understand and accuse me of not doing research, the middle class has historically created opportunity. If the "middle class" of today is not doing this, they are failing this nation. How many people owned the MSM back in the 1960s? How many people own it today? Hint, you may find it can be counted on one hand. We can surely agree to disagree and that is fine with me. Even the amount of people on food stamps don't align with what you say. therightstuff.biz/2015/09/13/all-those-white-people-on-food-stamps/You need to review what you write before making weird statements. You first wrote that 40% were in poverty and I corrected you with the Census Bureau's 16%. This was on March 28 as stated by me above. Your 55% claim was made March 29. Do note that a change from 40% to 55% is not lowering but raising the number. A moot point as the poverty rate is still 16%, a far cry from either one of your claims. Now you may have confused this with your claim of Mar 27, 2017 at 8:39pm "(A) whole 55% of this country makes at or under $30K a year..." However, not only was your percentage wrong but this neither states nor implies anything about this being the poverty rate for the nation. $120,000 for a degree. OK, but apparently she didn't shop around and is now paying heavily for not doing her homework. "Students pursuing a bachelor's degree in nursing should plan to spend anywhere from $5,000-$30,000 per year, according to Peterson's College Search. At a four-year public school, the average cost is around $14,000 per year, including room and board, books and fees. At a private school, costs can reach $30,000 or more per year." costowl.com/education/healthcare-nursing-school-costs.htmlRound up the average cost of $14K/yr to $15/k. $15K/yr * 4 yrs = $60K for the degree! She paid $120K. Can one afford it and how/when is it to be paid should have been planned out. It should have been paid as she went through school. If it takes longer than 4 years so be it. It took me 5 and my wife longer. There was a stupid commercial years back about some dude that got himself hopeless in debt by living beyond his means. The ad was trying to sell debt consolidation loans. The answer is not another loan but to live withing his means. He had boys that need to learn to mow the lawn. Get rid of the riding mower and get a push one. Git rid of the boat, the expensive SUV, the $500,000 house in the exclusive neighborhood, etc. BTW, what am I failing to understand? You're not doing research resulted in your mess above. Case in point. Besides, if the middle class was failing the nation, how did 3 of the 4% that moved out of the middle class go into the upper class? Not bad odds. No, we can not agree to disagree. Your statements are false. Worse, after being shown the facts but still insisting that 55% is in poverty now goes beyond simple disagreement and into the realm of lying. Finally, there's that goofy statement about food stamps and your claim that it doesn't back up what I say. Well for one, I wrote nothing about food stamps and second, your linked article makes no reference on the poverty rate or the middle class. FLASH - these are the topics here. Finally you write something correct. Of course it doesn't back me up as it has nothing to do with what I wrote. Now had you done your vaunted research you'd have noted from your article that almost 47 million are on food stamps (assume 2013 data). The World bank for 2014 gave us 321 million total. data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTLThe percent of our population on food stamps is 47 (million)/321 (Million) * 100 = 14.6%. Now food stamps and poverty aren't synonymous, but 14.6% is very close to 16%. Well golly gee wiz. Your linked article did in fact allign with me and the Census Bureau. In typical right wing fashion, your ignoring the whole point. Your using a monetary value to come up with your middle class figure. I'm using economic drivers to come up with mine. If you make one million dollars a year and you horde that one million dollars and do nothing to help the economy with it (create opportunity or whatever), your economic status in the view of the economy is poor. And your toying with my numbers to try and make me look stupid, won't work here. Listen very carefully, eyes opened and focus on this page. If the middle class in not creating opportunity then their money is not being put back into the economy. 100% of this nation could make 1 billion dollars a year. If only 1% of those people used that money to create business (jobs) then we would be in the same place we are not. Technically there would be people who are rich (1 billion fits that) but we return return to economically poor. If all new income goes to the top 1% because the "middle class" is not creating opportunity, then we are failing and that can only get worse. www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/the-american-middle-class-is-losing-ground/st_2015-12-09_middle-class-03/This would say 29% fits into somewhere in poor. The upper middle has stayed at 12% while the statistical middle has shrunk. Then we have many that are not even counted in data. The elderly, the people that gave up on the work force amd so forth. www.cnbc.com/2016/06/08/us-unemployed-have-quit-looking-for-jobs-at-a-frightening-level-survey.htmlSo I skew the percentage to appease you while you ignore the whole point and go on this statistical rant while I'm saying something else. And as far as college, don't pretend you know a situation. The school she was going to had one nursing class and it took her a year to get in it and it was expensive. Sure, she probably could have moved or whatnot, but that's not easy with a kids. So it is what it is. Dinner time and I'm done with this subject with you. If your tossing numbers like this is some salad and this "middle class" is some lettuce. I care less about looking at gross income and considering that the end all be all to our economy. There are many factors at work that keep this nation great and one of those factors is the middle class creating opportunity. If this is not happening we are economically poor.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2017 17:24:55 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Mar 30, 2017 18:44:19 GMT -7
In typical right wing fashion, your ignoring the whole point. You just lost your entire argument. The Census Bureau is neither right wing nor left wing. Stats are stats and you're ignoring them with your inability to leave your political slant behind. Of course toying with your numbers to try and make you look stupid, won't work here. You've beat me to it and did an excellent job making yourself look stupid on your own. They're your numbers, not mine. About time you used a worthy link, but that 29% is totally different from the 16% of the Census Bureau. The Census Bureau's stats was for individuals, the same population as your false claims of the 40%, then "lowering" (yes, that's your term) to 55%. Had you read and comprehended your linked Pew Research chart you would have noticed it said "Households". The note at the bottom also tells you that the "Adults are assigned to income tiers based on their size-ajusted household income..." Individual income can equal household income only if the wage earner was the sole earner. Adding one or more incomes from other people within the same household changes the household's status. Check out the fill in chart here. politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2014/09/what-is-your-income-percentile-ranking.html#.WN2mkm_yvIVNo, you didn't skew the percentage to appease me while I supposedly ignored the whole point and went on this statistical rant while you're saying something else. Wrong again. You claimed 40% of the nation was poor, then changed it to 55% and earlier claimed "(A) whole 55% of this country makes at or under $30K a year..." You lied and ignored the 16% as given by the non-political Census Bureau even when shown your error. Now had you originally stated households, that 29% could be used and this would be a different story. But, you didn't. And as far as college, I never pretended to know the situation, but in a matter of seconds came up with trends that showed she paid twice as much than the average nurse graduate. She's in the top 51% of this ccountry. As I wrote earlier, this country gives you the right to fail. About time you're done with this subject. Nice to know that you care less about looking at gross income and considering that the end all be all to our economy especially since the opening line of your second paragraph was "(A) whole 55% of this country makes at or under $30K a year..." Mar 27, 2017 at 8:39pm Maybe next time when you start discussing gross income you'll know what you're talking about. Maybe, just maybe you'll leave your political ranting and learn something.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2017 19:18:47 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Mar 30, 2017 20:44:24 GMT -7
Now, I am done. Continue on because all the facts in the world are alluding you. About second time. 1. www.allgov.com/news/unusual-news/majority-of-employed-americans-earn-less-than-30000-a-year-151030?news=857745 Already rebutted as this 2014 SSA based article doesn't include non-taxable income as shown Mar 28, 2017 at 7:21am This link even states "The average wage is a bit higher, $44,569.20." which comes very close to the Census Bureau's 2016 amount. 2. www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/10/goodbye-middle-class-51-percent-of-all-american-workers-make-less-than-30000-dollars-a-year.html Repeat of above. 3. www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2014 Already linked in the above two items. This is the SSA chart. 4. www.againstcronycapitalism.org/2015/10/goodbye-middle-class-51-percent-of-all-american-workers-make-less-than-30000-dollars-a-year/ Repeat of the numbers one and two. 5. www.entrepreneur.com/article/270899 This 2016 blog uses SSA's wrong analysis. Also claims middle class is a minority. The link you posted 3 times back stated that the middle class was 50%. While not a supermajority it is the majority as it is greater than either of the other two. 6. ssgreenberg.name/PoliticsBlog/2016/11/10/goodbye-middle-class-51-percent-of-all-american-workers-make-less-than-30000-dollars-a-year/ Repeat of numbers one, two and four. 7. www.talkmarkets.com/content/us-markets/goodbye-middle-class-51-percent-of-all-american-workers-make-less-than-30000-a-year?post=76069 Repeat of numbers one, two, four and six. 8. theblacksphere.net/2015/11/people-now-earn-welfare-working/ Repeats some of the same stuff as numbers one, two, four, six and seven. 9. www.democraticunderground.com/10027278432 Repeat of numbers one, two, four, six and seven. 10. www.foreconomicjustice.org/?p=15164 Repeat of numbers one, two, four, six, seven and nine. 11. www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/2469473-goodbye-middle-class-51-percent-all.html Repeat of numbers one, two, four, six, seven, nine and ten. 12. www.alternet.org/economy/death-middle-class-more-half-americans-make-less-30000-year Regurgitates numbers one, two, four, six, seven, nine, ten and eleven. 13. www.reddit.com/r/economy/comments/3poxoi/goodbye_middle_class_51_of_all_american_workers/ Another regurgitation of numbers one, two, four, six, seven, nine, ten and eleven. 14. www.theendofamerica.net/goodbye-middle-class51-percent-of-american-workers-make-less-than-30000-dollars-a-year/ Another regurgitation of numbers one, two, four, six, seven, nine, ten and eleven. 15. www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-30/trickle-down-has-failed-wealth-and-income-have-trickled-top-5 Has nothing to do with any of the above nor this subject. "My statistics are much closer to fact then your own. " Really? Closer than the Census Bureau's. What a crock! Of the 14 that had anything to do with the subject: one was the original link, 8 were repeats, two were just regurgitations of the same data, one repeated only some of the same data, one repeated much but went on to make a false claim, and one was the SSA chart the others based their claim. It didn't include total income as the Census Bureau's - the guys that have the responsibility for coming up with this stuff. Wow. Almost all you did was link repeating articles and you want to be taken seriously? Must be your belief in magic as I've already shown a loss in the middle class. No one is arguing it hasn't shrunk. Are you done or are you going to continue on because all your repeated "facts in the world" have alluded you. This might be the same as your claim that a change from 40% to 55% is lowering the percental logic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 0:58:34 GMT -7
Let's see what I have learned in this conversation.
The SSA which counts the income of people who work is wrong and people who collect disability up those numbers. Hmmmm, Okay.
Then all these other sources of information are true? Meaning the ones who don't need to count this data. The Census people were here before I owned my home I think back in 2010. But their data is correct somehow.....
I have said over and over again that the middle class is not creating opportunity. But, you were to interested to talk about a number you seen as false to even acknowledge that fact.
Then:
Post made on a site that focuses mainly on the economy yesterday. That very much made me realize my number is indeed wrong, it's 60 percent. But you say it has nothing to do with the subject when it IS the subject.
I then say:
Which means hypothetically, and you run all over they world as me posting that as some fact.
Let me say this again, one more time, breaker 1-9, does anyone got their ears on?
If the middle class is not creating opportunity, then numbers don't matter. They mean nothing, nothing at all. Your income could be 2 zillion dollars a year and if you are sitting on that money, it does nothing for the economy.
The ZeroHedge link hit the nose on the head and since no new income has come to anyone but the top 20%, I could say 80% is economically poor. But you would get caught up in that number.
I really think the best course of action is to agree to disagree here. Because your not understanding what I am saying and we are arguing back and forth because of that fact alone.
Have a good day.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Mar 31, 2017 5:37:37 GMT -7
The SSA which counts the income of people who work is wrong and people who collect disability up those numbers. Hmmmm, Okay. It would help that you knew something about the subject before proving to all you don't. The SSA chart clearly states that it "... is based on compensation (wages, tips, and the like) subject to Federal income taxes, as reported by employers on Forms W-2." All 14 of your linked sources are invalid as they don't include total income. I already mentioned my disability income and that of my son's that's not included. In the military, nothing that is an allowance is taxible, the same goes for the vast majority of those deployed in a combat zone. Think of it. While deployed I made about $11,000 a month of which only $1000 or so was taxable. The folks at SSA would miss that extra $10K a month ($120,000/yr). Now I was in the lowest pay grade that had this tax liability, so all troops below my pay grade weren't taxed at all. Of a 3,000 man brigade, only one paid any income tax and that was maybe for only 10% of my income. Even when not deployed, when I lived off post I received a housing allowance of about $700 or so a month. It's far more now. It wasn't taxable. That's some $8.400 a year not included on the SSA chart. Additionally, I received just over $100/mo food allowance. That's some $1,3000/yr not counted by SSA. Multiply that by the number of officers in the military and the numbers become substantial. The enlisted living off base had housing and food allowances too - all not counted. Now is it starting to dawn on you that the SSA chart shouldn't be used? There is no agree to disagree as what you've been writing is wrong. Since you've been shown repeatedly the correct data but still push your argument you've now gone to lying.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 6:07:44 GMT -7
The SSA which counts the income of people who work is wrong and people who collect disability up those numbers. Hmmmm, Okay. It would help that you knew something about the subject before proving to all you don't. The SSA chart clearly states that it "... is based on compensation (wages, tips, and the like) subject to Federal income taxes, as reported by employers on Forms W-2." All 14 of your linked sources are invalid as they don't include total income. I already mentioned my disability income and that of my son's that's not included. In the military, nothing that is an allowance is taxible, the same goes for the vast majority of those deployed in a combat zone. Think of it. While deployed I made about $11,000 a month of which only $1000 or so was taxable. The folks at SSA would miss that extra $10K a month ($120,000/yr). Now I was in the lowest pay grade that had this tax liability, so all troops below my pay grade weren't taxed at all. Of a 3,000 man brigade, only one paid any income tax and that was maybe for only 10% of my income. Even when not deployed, when I lived off post I received a housing allowance of about $700 or so a month. It's far more now. It wasn't taxable. That's some $8.400 a year not included on the SSA chart. Additionally, I received just over $100/mo food allowance. That's some $1,3000/yr not counted by SSA. Multiply that by the number of officers in the military and the numbers become substantial. The enlisted living off base had housing and food allowances too - all not counted. Now is it starting to dawn on you that the SSA chart shouldn't be used? There is no agree to disagree as what you've been writing is wrong. Since you've been shown repeatedly the correct data but still push your argument you've now gone to lying. And this counts how exactly? The fact that your disability don't count is a moot point and you are grasping at straws to try and make a point that don't exist. How many people in the military create business? I would say that number is very low or non-existent since the only people who have made all the income is the top 20%. So either what I am saying is true, or these people you speak of should not be in business because they are failing..... HARD. If income is taxable and you work in this country, it is supposed to be counted (military and non-profits of course don't count). But none of this was ever my point, none. Zero. Zilch. Notta. Your missing the point. It's over your head and your showing this over and over and over again. I posted from the SSA because well, it is the SSA and if you make money you are supposed to pay retirement taxes. Who would have that finger on that pulse? Well of course, the place that keeps track of what you pay in of course. But even this is not my point. Your just missing it and you are arguing with me about an issue I didn't even bring up. Economic power.... Read again.... Economic power..... One more time...... Economic power...... Again for good measure..... Economic power. And again, has nothing to do with income. If 80 percent of the people have not seen growth in income over the last the last 20 years, what does it matter what their income is? That group is not creating income. Which means that group is not creating opportunity. And now I lie because you have a comprehension problem. It is always the same thing with the right. You said earlier that I should not make this political, but it is. See, as I said awhile back before this whole thing started, the highest tax rate in the early 60s was 91%. And income inequality was not really an issue. If you worked, you made money and you made enough money to climb the ladder and be something if you chose. Today the ladder is much, much taller and if you are in the bottom 80 percent, you probably won't climb that high. Maybe you will understand this post and who knows but I highly doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Mar 31, 2017 10:24:09 GMT -7
Your just missing it and you are arguing with me about an issue I didn't even bring up. Yes you did. You started crying about your false claim that "(A) whole 55% of this country makes at or under $30K a year and that is gross pay." Then you starting crying about your mom only making $30K/yr and spent 30 years at Walmart. Mar 27, 2017 at 8:39pm You still can't get through your skull that "According to BLS data and using this calculator, $41.4K was earned by 55% of this country for 2016. Mar 27, 2017 at 9:47pm FLASH - you $30K/yr year is far below $41.4K/yr. Then you claimed 40% of the nation was poor and later "lowered" your claim to 55%. Both were shown to be false as 16% is the poor. Mar 28, 2017 at 10:01pm Your argument collapsed when the false emotion was deflated. Your diversion about economic power means nothing until you learn what the mean income is and what is the upper. middle and lower income brackets are. You can't even get the poverty level right and somehow got a breakdown of those on food stamps mixed into this. It doesn't matter that the SSA tracks the money that goes into the SSA coffers. That's their job. But as pointed out repeatedly, this isn't gross income but gross taxable income. There is a lot of income not included in SSA's count that gives the nation a much larger income. And BTW, the amount I expect to get from the SSA is measly compared to what I'm already getting from my military retirement and soon to get from my university retirement. From the SSA's page "Social Security was created in 1935 to promote the economic security of the nation's people." The term "retirement taxes " is conspicuously noticeable by its absence. If you're depending on SSA for your retirement you just exercised your right to fail. Your Chicken Little routine doesn't wash. The same for your attempted political slanted digs.
|
|