# News Should the Bush tax cuts be extended?

## Should the Bush tax cuts be extended?

• ### Extend all of the Bush tax cuts temporarily

• Total voters
35

Gold Member
2. Am I really supposed to feel sorry for someone making $535.75 an hour take home? 3. Does asking the above two questions confirm that I'm a Marxist? 1. Not very comfortably, unless it's just a single person with no bills. 2. No. Why would you? 3. If it did, I would be one, too. Nobody has suggested such a thing. How can someone really believe that the difference between themselves and people who disagree with them is whether or not they feel sorry for rich people or don't think it's hard to be poor? Is Democratic Party propaganda really that effective? ps. I did determine the effective tax rates for all of the quintiles and percents. Seems quite progressive to me. Tell that to the members here who repeatedly insist, after being shown that data repeatedly, that it's not only not progressive, but that rich people in general pay little in taxes, while working and poor people pay a lot. Last edited by a moderator: #### CRGreathouse Science Advisor Homework Helper The bottom quintile pays a tax, even though they and the second quintile both get the EITC, because excise and social security taxes are a bit regressive: 10.3% tax rate for the bottom quintile vs 1.9% tax rate for the top 1% There are <= 61 million people in the bottom quintile. According to the BLS (using their latest figures, November 2010), there are 30 million unemployed and 2.5 million more marginally attached to the labor force (people who don't have jobs but want jobs and have looked for a job in the past year, even though they aren't currently looking). On this basis alone, most of the bottom quintile doesn't work at all, and so presumably pays essentially no tax. Of course there are more people who aren't in the labor force, and I'm not sure how this is handled by the statistics. The labor force participation rate is certainly low enough (~64%) that if every person in the US was counted, there would be no bottom-quintile persons in the labor force at all, and all in the second quintile would be either out of the labor force or unemployed. I assume this is not the case (surely they don't count babies in the quintiles?) but I don't know what is. If the only people counted were those in the labor force (employed + unemployed) and the MAttLF, then there would be 199 million people in the quintiles, in which case the unemployed and MAttLF would account for 82% of the bottom quintile. (I don't see how the numbers could get any better for the bottom quintile, since any additional people that are included don't make money and so are in the bottom quintile.) My numbers are too shaky at this point to see what kind of money the employed people in the bottom quintile could make, but it's hard for me to imagine that the taxes they would pay on it would exceed the EITC and welfare for the whole quintile. What think you? #### CRGreathouse Science Advisor Homework Helper Edit: Nothing against OmCheeto, who rocks, but a clarification: 2005 Post Tax Wages (assuming a 2000 hour work year) ______________________yearly_____monthly___hourly Lowest Quintile _____$15,300 _____$1,275 ______$7.65
Second Quintile _____$33,700 _____$2,808 _____$16.85 Middle Quintile _____$50,200 _____$4,183 _____$25.10
Fourth Quintile _____$70,300 _____$5,858 _____$35.15 Highest Quintile ___$172,200 ____$14,350 _____$86.10

All Quintiles _______$67,400 _____$5,617 _____$33.70 Top 10% ____________$246,300 ____$20,525 ____$123.15
Top 5% _____________$369,800 ____$30,817 ____$184.90 Top 1% ___________$1,071,500 ____$89,292 ____$535.75
Hmm. I think the assumption is unwarranted and misleading. While a quick Google search did not give me the numbers, I've seen statistics on numbers of hours worked by quintile (both by household and individually) and it's pretty extreme. On one hand, most of the bottom quintile doesn't work (this is a "we should feel sorry for them" sort of thing, not a "they are lazy" thing), even when the country is not in a recession. On the other, the top quintile works a lot -- 55 or 60 hours a week, maybe? So while assuming 2000 hours per week is reasonable for the middle and fourth quintiles, it's not for the second quintile (which has trouble finding full-time work) and top quintile (which work long hours on average), and it's extremely inaccurate for the bottom quintile (most of whom don't have work).

Of course this may not change conclusions if $60 per hour is considered "high" in the same way$85 per hour is. (I've rounded to the nearest $5 per hour; I'm not comfortable giving more precise numbers without actual data!) #### OmCheeto Gold Member Edit: Nothing against OmCheeto, who rocks, but a clarification: Hmm. I think the assumption is unwarranted and misleading. While a quick Google search did not give me the numbers, I've seen statistics on numbers of hours worked by quintile (both by household and individually) and it's pretty extreme. On one hand, most of the bottom quintile doesn't work (this is a "we should feel sorry for them" sort of thing, not a "they are lazy" thing), even when the country is not in a recession. On the other, the top quintile works a lot -- 55 or 60 hours a week, maybe? So while assuming 2000 hours per week is reasonable for the middle and fourth quintiles, it's not for the second quintile (which has trouble finding full-time work) and top quintile (which work long hours on average), and it's extremely inaccurate for the bottom quintile (most of whom don't have work). Of course this may not change conclusions if$60 per hour is considered "high" in the same way $85 per hour is. (I've rounded to the nearest$5 per hour; I'm not comfortable giving more precise numbers without actual data!)
I think you would go crazy if you tried to analyze all the numbers. That's why I just displayed them without the 3 pages of explanation that the CBO listed for how they got the numbers.

I added the monthly and hourly rates because the annual rates are a bit intangible at the top end.(At least to us who have spent our lives in the bottom 2 quintiles) Can you imagine sitting in your office and having your secretary come in every hour and handing you a $500 bill, announcing "Pay hour!". And then imagine thinking to yourself; "Geez! If I were being taxed at a flat rate, she'd be handing me an extra$200 an hour. I hate these high taxes. How am I supposed to run a household and send kids to college on only $4000 a day?"* :grumpy: *numbers are rounded as I'm getting tired of all this math. #### Al68 Can you imagine sitting in your office and having your secretary come in every hour and handing you a$500 bill, announcing "Pay hour!".
Sure! I imagine it would totally rock.
And then imagine thinking to yourself; "Geez! If I were being taxed at a flat rate, she'd be handing me an extra $200 an hour. Why? Is the$200 part of my income either way? Why would I ever use the word "extra" to describe it? Because Democrats wanted it but didn't get it? Is that the definition of "extra"? I must be misunderstanding your post.
I hate these high taxes.
Sure do!
How am I supposed to run a household and send kids to college on only $4000 a day?"* :grumpy: Why am I "supposed" to do anything, and why would that be a problem, or relevant? #### OmCheeto Gold Member me said: And then imagine thinking to yourself; "Geez! If I were being taxed at a flat rate, she'd be handing me an extra$200 an hour.
Why? Is the $200 part of my income either way? Why would I ever use the word "extra" to describe it? Because Democrats wanted it but didn't get it? Is that the definition of "extra"? Gads. Someone needs to invent poly-dimensional hypertext formatting. Why what? Imagine? Is the$200 part of my income either way?
Yes?
Why would I ever use the word "extra" to describe it?
Because when you get $500, and then you get another$200, the 'another' $200 is called extra. It's like extra sprinkles on your ice cream. Because Democrats wanted it but didn't get it? I don't really see any evidence that either party wants your money. They are just trying to keep the country running. Except in that post office holding board position at the bank, or$$for the election. Is that the definition of "extra"? No. Extra, like I said above, is like extra sprinkles on your ice cream. ie, something more than you expected. Kind of like a tax cut. Only extra, should mean you don't have to pay it back later. ie. We should figure out a way to balance the budget. Not every year. But Overall. And keep government expenses at a minimum, while keeping a non-perpetuating safety net for our poor folk, so they don't revolt and kill everyone like the Bolsheviks supposedly did way back when. I say supposedly, because I wasn't there. I'll ask my friends on Monday. #### Al68 ...ps. I did determine the effective tax rates for all of the quintiles and percents. Seems quite progressive to me. Stop talking sense, Om. You'll get banned from P&WA Does that mean you will retract your repeated (unsubstantiated and absurd) assertions that the rich don't even pay proportionally higher taxes than the poor and working people? And retract your repeated assertions that Republicans have ever advocated such a thing? #### Al68 No. Extra, like I said above, is like extra sprinkles on your ice cream. ie, something more than you expected. An accurate analogy would be an ice cream that I bought with sprinkles that someone else later wanted to take but didn't. I would never use the word "extra" to refer to the sprinkles the ice cream had when I got it, and still has, just because I expected that someone might take the sprinkles. But the important thing is that your characterization falsely implies that I received the$200 from government. That's not where the $200 came from. (Unless you're referring to a government job or contract). And while I know you didn't specifically say that, Democrats often use words like "give to" to describe tax cuts. That's like saying that if I bought an ice cream with sprinkles, then my girlfriend wanted to take my sprinkles but failed to, she would then claim she "gave me" the sprinkles. I don't really see any evidence that either party wants your money. LOL. I don't know what to make of that. Did you think I meant they wanted to take it for their own personal use? Last edited by a moderator: #### OmCheeto Gold Member Does that mean you will retract your repeated (unsubstantiated and absurd) assertions that the rich don't even pay proportionally higher taxes than the poor and working people? And retract your repeated assertions that Republicans have ever advocated such a thing? I'm sorry. I'm old. I have Alzheimers. I can only remember once where I quoted Warren Buffet stating that it was unfair that he paid a higher rate of taxes than his secretary. Or is "don't even pay proportionally higher taxes than the poor" some kind of word play? Russ has a word for similar bouts of linguistic spaghetti in the physics sections. Though I can never keep it in my head. #### OmCheeto Gold Member An accurate analogy would be an ice cream that I bought with sprinkles that someone else later wanted to take but didn't. I would never use the word "extra" to refer to the sprinkles the ice cream had when I got it, and still has, just because I expected that someone might take the sprinkles. But the important thing is that your characterization falsely implies that I received the$200 from government. That's not where the $200 came from. (Unless you're referring to a government job or contract). And while I know you didn't specifically say that, Democrats often use words like "give to" to describe tax cuts. That's like saying that if I bought an ice cream with sprinkles, then my girlfriend wanted to take my sprinkles but failed to, she would then claim she "gave me" the sprinkles.LOL. I don't know what to make of that. Did you think I meant they wanted to take it for their own personal use? Do you hide your whereabouts because of incarceration? That's ok if it is. It would explain a lot. And I really admire your spirit, and hope you do really well when you get out. But if and when you get out, I would recommend this time paying your taxes, unless of course you like it there. #### Al68 I'm sorry. I'm old. I have Alzheimers. I can only remember once where I quoted Warren Buffet stating that it was unfair that he paid a higher rate of taxes than his secretary. Or is "don't even pay proportionally higher taxes than the poor" some kind of word play? Russ has a word for similar bouts of linguistic spaghetti in the physics sections. Though I can never keep it in my head. I was asking turbo-1 to retract those assertions he made previously, not you. Sorry that was unclear. I only quoted your post before his because you correctly characterized US effective tax rates as "quite progressive", and he seemed to agree with your post. Do you hide your whereabouts because of incarceration? That's ok if it is. It would explain a lot. And I really admire your spirit, and hope you do really well when you get out. But if and when you get out, I would recommend this time paying your taxes, unless of course you like it there. LOL. Now that's funny! :rofl: ..It really doesn't matter that you and I understand that Marxist and Socialist are simply political terms... So when you use it as a careless joke, we take it as you so jokingly intended it, as an insult. From the other thread, but I never used the term as a "careless joke" or as an insult. That was my point. The objection was to my using it as an adjective to describe an ideology and propaganda method, not as a noun to refer to a person. But apparently the word has been banned altogether, now, anyway. BTW, where are you from? 6 years on the forum, and still hiding your whereabouts? Where's that Assange guy when you need him? LOL. I use a laptop with a Verizon wireless card. Apparently it hides my location. I currently live (un-incarcerated) in my hometown of Kingsport, TN. My current location (un-incarcerated) is Eaton, OH. I have no reason to hide my approximate location, but I'm not saying which specific strip club or brothel I'm in. Edit: I see in your profile you're an ex-Navy nuke. Small world, I am too. But I served on an aircraft carrier, not a sub. Figured having water on all 4 sides and underneath was enough for me. Last edited by a moderator: #### CRGreathouse Science Advisor Homework Helper I'm sorry. I'm old. I have Alzheimers. I can only remember once where I quoted Warren Buffet stating that it was unfair that he paid a higher rate of taxes than his secretary. I remember going over those numbers and finding them inaccurate -- that Buffet does pay higher taxes even counting FICA for the secretary. (I'm never quite sure how I should count that -- if it was a normal retirement plan it certainly wouldn't count as taxes. But since there's a real possibility it won't pay out for some [beyond just the chance that you don't live long enough] I suppose there's basis for thinking of it as a tax.) #### WhoWee This is more chatty than chat. But anyways, my point seems to have been appropriately expanded upon by others, so I'll throw something new out, which is derived from the http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml" provided earlier. And I do this because the numbers jumped out at me in one of those "OMG" kind of ways. 2005 Post Tax Wages (assuming a 2000 hour work year) ______________________yearly_____monthly___hourly Lowest Quintile _____$15,300 _____$1,275 ______$7.65
Second Quintile _____$33,700 _____$2,808 _____$16.85 Middle Quintile _____$50,200 _____$4,183 _____$25.10
Fourth Quintile _____$70,300 _____$5,858 _____$35.15 Highest Quintile ___$172,200 ____$14,350 _____$86.10

All Quintiles _______$67,400 _____$5,617 _____$33.70 Top 10% ____________$246,300 ____$20,525 ____$123.15
Top 5% _____________$369,800 ____$30,817 ____$184.90 Top 1% ___________$1,071,500 ____$89,292 ____$535.75

Three questions:
1. How do 23.6 million households survive on $15,300 a year? 2. Am I really supposed to feel sorry for someone making$535.75 an hour take home?
3. Does asking the above two questions confirm that I'm a Marxist?

ps. I did determine the effective tax rates for all of the quintiles and percents. Seems quite progressive to me. Just needs a bit of tweaking in my opinion. Maybe a 1/3 of 1% annual increase over the next 10 years. To balance the budget of course.

Lowest Quintile _______4%
Second Quintile ______11%
Middle Quintile ______17%
Fourth Quintile ______21%
Highest Quintile _____34%

All Quintiles ________26%

Top 10% ______________38%
Top 5% _______________41%
Top 1% _______________45%
Are these numbers based on tax returns filed - or are people not required to file a return also included? Also, is the EITC included in this presentation?
The question of how someone might survive on minimum wage is valid. However, the valid response will be situational.

Last edited by a moderator:

#### nismaratwork

Are these numbers based on tax returns filed - or are people not required to file a return also included? Also, is the EITC included in this presentation?
The question of how someone might survive on minimum wage is valid. However, the valid response will be situational.
I would like to pose a question to everyone content to engage in the demonization of "rich people" rhetoric. How much money first needs to be invested in order to achieve earning of $1.0 million/year? Moving forward, what is the incentive for anyone to risk capital if larger and larger shares of earnings will be re-distributed to other people? Something else, given the economy, why does anyone believe the taxable income levels of recent years will be available moving forward? Personally, I'm a business owner and not on anyone else's payroll and, my earning are down significantly from last year and down about 75 percent fron 3 years ago. If you double or even triple my tax rate - I'll still pay less than in previous years. I would also not risk any additional capital. #### nismaratwork I would like to pose a question to everyone content to engage in the demonization of "rich people" rhetoric. How much money first needs to be invested in order to achieve earning of$1.0 million/year? Moving forward, what is the incentive for anyone to risk capital if larger and larger shares of earnings will be re-distributed to other people?

Something else, given the economy, why does anyone believe the taxable income levels of recent years will be available moving forward? Personally, I'm a business owner and not on anyone else's payroll and, my earning are down significantly from last year and down about 75 percent fron 3 years ago. If you double or even triple my tax rate - I'll still pay less than in previous years. I would also not risk any additional capital.
So... was that a yes or a no?

#### WhoWee

So... was that a yes or a no?
Yes or no to what specific question?

#### OmCheeto

Gold Member
I would like to pose a question to everyone content to engage in the demonization of "rich people" rhetoric.
I hope you're not talking about me. I have many rich friends. And I would love to someday be a rich person. I'm sure everyone would.
How much money first needs to be invested in order to achieve earning of $1.0 million/year? That depends on the year, ones "perception", and luck. But based on my knowledge accumulated over the last two years of investing, my best guess would be$17,000,000.
Moving forward, what is the incentive for anyone to risk capital if larger and larger shares of earnings will be re-distributed to other people?

#### nismaratwork

No? I'm not sure we're in agreemeent with the premise of your question.

Again, regardless of the percentage imposed on the "rich" - until the economy rebounds - collections will continue to be less than adequate. Last month the shortfall was roughly $150 Billion. The direction of my question is that, when deciding what to cut or massage in the budget, maybe items that have a large effect on the deficit are better than more ideologically palatable ones which don't. I was wondering if you thought that the items you listed in that post I responded to would make a significant difference, not if it would erase the shortfall. We obviously agree that things need to be cut, so that part of the premise we agree on... #### Al68 ...Because any of that would make up for a$100K gap for post tax in the highest quintiles in general, and from a gap of $176,000 up to a$1,000,000 gap in the top between the top 10% -> 1%...???
Who said anything about "making up for" that gap? That gap is in post-tax income.

### Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving