Household Income

[delldude]

It is data. Not complete data but something. I would say 'better than nothing' but IMHO no data is better than incomplete data. Unless your trying to feed incomplete data as one picture and hope everyone swallows it.
Been there, done that, got a polo shirt...

Wonder if anyone leans on the CBO?

Just sayin'....

 

[delldude]

:huh: :angry: :unsure: :blink:

Double Drivel.....

 

[tech2101]

It is data. Not complete data but something. I would say 'better than nothing' but IMHO no data is better than incomplete data. Unless your trying to feed incomplete data as one picture and hope everyone swallows it.
Been there, done that, got a polo shirt...

By all means, please post another report. If it rebuts the existing, we will discuss it on its merits.

 

[xUT]

By all means, please post another report. If it rebuts the existing, we will discuss it on its merits.

As you well know, I am not privy to the 'actual' data, neither are you.
In a past life, I was a bean counter and in counting beans, one can obscure the bean count depending on what the objective is.

I dispute the data as incomplete, please feel free to post your complete/validated (by me) report and I will look at the data.

If I accept it's validity I will kiss your ass. Otherwise, better start humming the Star Spangled Banner...

DOH!

 

[southwind]

No,

I was just wondering if you even grew up in the United States after reading all of your America hating posts.

It's not America, it's Liberal Demorats I despise !

 

[Dog Wonder]

Guess you don't want to talk about what country you grew up in.

 

[tech2101]

As you well know, I am not privy to the 'actual' data, neither are you.
In a past life, I was a bean counter and in counting beans, one can obscure the bean count depending on what the objective is.

I dispute the data as incomplete, please feel free to post your complete/validated (by me) report and I will look at the data.

If I accept it's validity I will kiss your ass. Otherwise, better start humming the Star Spangled Banner...

DOH!

No need to get nasty.

Where do you feel the data is lacking in the report?

 

[southwind]

Guess you don't want to talk about what country you grew up in.

How did we go from you being part of the "Spell Check Police" to I hate America and what country I was born in?

Dude.........your all over the map and might need to lay off the weed for awhile !

 

[Dog Wonder]

The spell check police was your Frank fetish.

I guess you are answering my question by not answering it.

 

[xUT]

No need to get nasty.

Where do you feel the data is lacking in the report?

I made a post on my opinion and you retorted with a sniping remark. There was no need to do that.
When the data is questioned, you deflect to “Give me your report”.
Just because you accept it doesn’t mean it’s a fact.
I won’t be a jerk if you won’t be a jerk.

I have several suspicions about the data.
Main one being it’s from the CBO.
Why from 1979 to 2007?
I see the ‘adjusted for inflation’ statement but no source.
Also, I would like to see gross income along the distribution quintile that would give us a basis of tax equality/inequality.
Another anomaly is the portion of people whom don’t have enough income to pay taxes. Are they added into this report? I don’t see it.

Here analyze this --- http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/124xx/doc12485/10-2011_FigData.xls

To me, it just looks like another PowerPoint ‘Summary’.

My Opinion, of course.
B) xUT

 

[tech2101]

I made a post on my opinion and you retorted with a sniping remark. There was no need to do that.
When the data is questioned, you deflect to “Give me your report”.
Just because you accept it doesn’t mean it’s a fact.
I won’t be a jerk if you won’t be a jerk.

I have several suspicions about the data.
Main one being it’s from the CBO.
Why from 1979 to 2007?
I see the ‘adjusted for inflation’ statement but no source.
Also, I would like to see gross income along the distribution quintile that would give us a basis of tax equality/inequality.
Another anomaly is the portion of people whom don’t have enough income to pay taxes. Are they added into this report? I don’t see it.

Here analyze this --- http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/124xx/doc12485/10-2011_FigData.xls

To me, it just looks like another PowerPoint ‘Summary’.

My Opinion, of course.
B) xUT

Thank you. I will take a look at it. I did not mean my post as a snipe. I was serious about you giving something else to ponder. You did just that.

My apologies if I came off as being pretentious. That is he first time that has ever happened... :unsure:

 

[FWAAA]

I have several suspicions about the data.
Main one being it’s from the CBO.

I'm being honest here - what motivation would the CBO have to not present an accurate study?

Why from 1979 to 2007?

I addressed that in post #23; the CBO said it chose start/end dates that featured similar economic conditions. Both were years of relative prosperity that preceded recessions. Both featured rapidly rising energy prices.

I see the ‘adjusted for inflation’ statement but no source.

CPI.

Also, I would like to see gross income along the distribution quintile that would give us a basis of tax equality/inequality.

The purpose of the study was to show the real after tax income (including all government transfer payments) of each quintile, not to demonstrate the disproportionate burden of income taxes that falls on higher income taxpayers. Yes, the top 1% pay far more than 1% of total taxes collected. But that's for a different study.

Another anomaly is the portion of people whom don’t have enough income to pay taxes. Are they added into this report? I don’t see it.

Yes, everyone is included in this study - including the estimated 47% of taxpayers who pay no federal income tax.

Here analyze this --- http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/124xx/doc12485/10-2011_FigData.xls

To me, it just looks like another PowerPoint ‘Summary’.

My Opinion, of course.
B) xUT

I'm no apologist for the CBO and I don't carry water for the bottom 80% as my income places me squarely in the top 20%, but the findings are interesting nonetheless.

 

[xUT]

Thank you. I will take a look at it. I did not mean my post as a snipe. I was serious about you giving something else to ponder. You did just that.

My apologies if I came off as being pretentious. That is he first time that has ever happened... :unsure:

No one is perfect, least most of all me...

No Harm - No Foul.
Best to you tech!
B) xUT

Edited by me...

 

[xUT]

I'm being honest here - what motivation would the CBO have to not present an accurate study?
-----------------
I addressed that in post #23; the CBO said it chose start/end dates that featured similar economic conditions. Both were years of relative prosperity that preceded recessions. Both featured rapidly rising energy prices.
---------------------

I am sure someone asked for it or does the CBO crank out reports with no objective? I haven’t seen this study used yet, but it has to be some kind of justification for something?

IMHO, start and end dates were researched for the study is to meet an agenda. Whatever that is!

The purpose of the study was to show the real after tax income (including all government transfer payments) of each quintile, not to demonstrate the disproportionate burden of income taxes that falls on higher income taxpayers. Yes, the top 1% pay far more than 1% of total taxes collected. But that's for a different study.

OK, now I am starting to understand. If all aggregate data were portrayed in a single report which included gross verses net income of every person in the US (including homeless) it may portray the top 1% hide their income through the tax code.
If the top 1% wanted to do that, is the CBO up for sale?

Yes, everyone is included in this study - including the estimated 47% of taxpayers who pay no federal income tax.

OK, but as I have previously stated, “too thick and lazy” as I can not find it.
Kindly show me the data ‘in this report’.
Thanks in advance.

I'm no apologist for the CBO and I don't carry water for the bottom 80% as my income places me squarely in the top 20%, but the findings are interesting nonetheless.

Yep