|
Post by ranger06 on Apr 14, 2017 20:05:42 GMT -7
Because you've no choice but to mess it up. The same with you attributing made up statements to me. Note that you've still failed to show proof of them. No, you stated 1,000,000,000/.5=60. Then you said friend who is 72, a retired engineer (worked for the army corps of engineers) agrees with you. You claimed he is educated and way better at math then you could ever hope to b e. News flash - you paid your friend no favors. He's as faulty in elementary math as you are. Hope he has a grasp as to what the middle class is. You sure don't. Troll..... End it! I have asked over and over and you beg to keep this going. Believe your masters and leave us with a brain and independent thought to do the thinking. Move on.... Wow, another made up claim you attributed to me. Where did I beg you to keep this going? And since you keep responding - you are the troll. Now about your lack of math and economics skills. Tell me again how that "friend who is 72, a retired engineer (worked for the army corps of engineers) agrees with you. You claimed he is educated and way better at math then you could ever hope to be."
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Apr 14, 2017 19:59:33 GMT -7
corbint, can you explain how tax cuts directly caused the raise in income for the top earners? That doesn't make sense to me. If one's tax rate drops, they have more discretionary dollars. The incentive to demand extraordinary wages would seem greater if taxed at 90%. You have a point there. Assume I'm middle class and make above the median income of Alabama at $60K/yr. How is a tax cut going to raise my income? It doesn't. There is no change. My income remains $60K/yr whether a tax break occurs or not. A tax break did not increase my income to say, $70K/yr. It does mean I have more of the original $60K/yr to spend as I see fit (discretionary dollars).
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Apr 14, 2017 19:36:10 GMT -7
I have said over and over and yet, over again that the middle of one billion is 500 million. Why would I mess up the math? Because you've no choice but to mess it up. The same with you attributing made up statements to me. Note that you've still failed to show proof of them. No, you stated 1,000,000,000/.5=60. Then you said friend who is 72, a retired engineer (worked for the army corps of engineers) agrees with you. You claimed he is educated and way better at math then you could ever hope to be. News flash - you paid your friend no favors. He's as faulty in elementary math as you are. Hope he has a grasp as to what the middle class is. You sure don't.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Apr 14, 2017 17:37:16 GMT -7
Your [sic] a special kind of idiot. No, you're screwing up the math because you can't help but to do so. Learn to do simple division. Learn basic statistics and what is the middle class. Make your mama proud. I agree. The current method to define the middle class is hardly old garbage. I agree. That you attribute fabricated claims to me is - remember - a lie. I agree. Of course I don't understand what you're trying to say because you don't understand what you're trying to say. As stated before, you need to understand the statistics of how the middle class is defined. Until your do your argument is just gibberish. I agree.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Apr 14, 2017 17:16:27 GMT -7
I'm screwing up math for your entertainment master. You are missing a basic thingy ma bopper which I keep repeating master. Your using old garbage to back your stance master. .... EVER understood what I am trying to say. No, you're screwing up the math because you can't help but to do so. Learn to do simple division. Make your mama proud. The current method to define the middle class is hardly old garbage. That you attribute fabricated claims to me is - remember - a lie. Of course I don't understand what you're trying to say because you don't understand what you're trying to say. As stated before, you need to understand the statistics of how the middle class is defined. Until your do your argument is just gibberish.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Apr 14, 2017 15:48:11 GMT -7
That's nice, ignorant one. You can take the average of 2 points. You did your elementary math teacher proud. However, you still flunked statistics, not to mention economics. Yes, yes master. You have showed me that the shrinking middle class is a fallacy created by newer ideology. You have showed me that the people in the 60s, though economically middle class, is better being poorer today. Oh, and you also showed me that that half of 1 billion is 60. Thanks so much. I am now worried that I am rich and a robber might break into my house to steal my abundance of wealth. Good thing I have guns. Are you ever muddled. Less than 2 weeks back I posted an article showing the middle class was shrinking and posited where the 11% difference between 1971 and 2015 went. Apr 2, 2017 at 11:18am " HealthCare not WealthCare" Often stated ideology isn't part of defining the middle class. You missed again. Never mentioned anything that the $60K/yr is better than anything. I never stated half of one billion is anything. Your screwed up equation made no sense. When you divide by 0.5 you're actually multiplying the numerator by 2. 1,000,000,000/0.5 = 1,000,000,000*2=2,000,000,000. If you consider yourself rich, be happy. Understand statistics and basic math you'd be happier.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Apr 14, 2017 15:32:54 GMT -7
Not a problem. Hoofie is probably laughing his butt off from these posts.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Apr 14, 2017 15:07:55 GMT -7
1,000,000,000/.5=60 Ignorant one....... OUT! That's nice, ignorant one. You can't take the average of 2 points. Even that is beyond your comprehension.You did your elementary math teacher proud. However, you also flunked statistics, not to mention economics and basic math. When you divide by 0.5 you're actually multiplying the numerator by 2. 1,000,000,000/0.5 = 1,000,000,000*2=2,000,000,000.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Apr 14, 2017 14:12:45 GMT -7
............................................................................................ ^------^------------------------------^----------------------------------^ Bottom| Claimed middle|-------- Real middle|---------------------Top| Top is 1 Billion Middle is 500 million Bottom is 0 And somehow 60 is middle? Again, agree to disagree? Learn how to do statistics, then you just might be able to write intelligently on this subject. Until then all you write is garbage. Can't agree to disagree with ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Apr 14, 2017 14:11:54 GMT -7
............................................................................................ ^------^------------------------------^----------------------------------^ Bottom| Claimed middle|-------- Real middle|---------------------Top| Top is 1 Billion Middle is 500 million Bottom is 0 And somehow 60 is middle? Again, agree to disagree? Learn how to do statistics, then you just might be able to write intelligently on this subject. Until then all you write is garbage.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Apr 14, 2017 13:51:58 GMT -7
I agree that you've no clue as to the topic. Whew... We done? Not when you've been shown proof that $60,000/yr is above the median income in all but 10 states and D.C. but still claim $60K/yr isn't middle class. Even in those exceptions that $60K/yr is still within the lower and upper limits of the middle class.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Apr 14, 2017 13:40:59 GMT -7
It's not fine. You're peddling falsehoods with no clue of what you write. Worse, you're proud of it. Learn the language of the economy and maybe you'll be taken seriously. Again, agree to disagree. I agree that you've no clue as to the topic.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Apr 14, 2017 13:35:41 GMT -7
It's not fine. You're peddling falsehoods with no clue of what you write. Worse, you're proud of it. Learn the language of the economy and maybe you'll be taken seriously.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Apr 14, 2017 13:09:27 GMT -7
These are mathematic norms that are used to perpetuate feelings of class. We should agree to disagree. Because your never going to see things the way I do and I am never going to submit to old ideology. That's just the way it is. Wow. Don't you even dream of taking an economics class, or a class on anything for that matter. We are not free to define our world just because we get some wild hair to do so. If you wish to discuss a topic you must learn the language to do so. There are no mathematic norms that are used to perpetuate feelings of class. There is a methodology used to define it. Best learn it if you wish to discuss this topic. We can't agree to disagree. What you put out is gibberish. Your so called "old ideology" (whatever that is) proved this point.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Apr 14, 2017 11:16:06 GMT -7
An argument I was in about a week or so on this forum proves my point. I got told I was being educated by people in this forum and the truth is, I wasn't. Just because I don't see things in a way that baby boomers see things does not mean I am wrong. And we can play this blame game all day long and have differing opinions and that is fine. But don't treat me like I am uneducated and like I lie and like I am ignorant because I don't think like you do. We can say $60K a year is middle class when the top earns trillions a year and the bottom earns nothing? Well, call me stupid but the math does not line up and that's old ideology left over from the 60s when a foreman might of made half (read, middle class) of what the owner might have made. And now with owners of companies making 293 times what the average worker makes, that person would have to make about 147 times what they make now to be in the economic middle. Yhea, I'm so dumb to not think old fashioned. And yep, I need school because I know how to do math. You were being educated but as shown by your statement, you didn't learn. The definition and range of the middle class is driven by math, or more specifically, statistics. What you feel, the way baby boomers see things, the way you think, "old ideology" (whatever that means), differing opinions, what a foreman made in the 60's or even your political slant have nothing to do with this. That someone makes "trillions" in immaterial. A review of simple math: To get the average (mean), all the incomes (by individuals or household) are added together and divided by the population. But the median, rather than the mean is used. That is a plot of all the incomes (data points), the income in the exact middle is the median. Foe example, you have 101 data points,. The median is 51 because it is the exact middle - there are 50 of less value and 50 of greater value. The mean and median are rarely the same value. To get the distribution curve, a plot is made with each income plotted along the x-axis, the number who made that level on the y-axis. This will give the normal distribution or bell curve. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviationI'm not an economist, but let's assume one standard deviation either side of the median now defines the middle Anything greater is defines the upper and anything the lower classes. Now you can get the income ranges by which class you want. In this analysis, Pew defined middle class households as those earning 67%-200% of a state's median income. For Alabama, household incomes between $28,566 and $85,698 (inclusive) are considered middle class with $42,849 being the median income. (US Census Bureau's 2013 American Community Survey). www.businessinsider.com/middle-class-in-every-us-state-2015-4Of course this didn't consider the size of the household. In 2013 Alabama, $60,000/yr not only is in the middle class, but is also considerably higher than the median income. Now maybe you see why we can't just agree to disagree.
|
|