I Dream of Gini
These three statements can all be true at the same time:
1. An annual income of $250,000 does not make you rich.
2. An annual income of $250,000 leaves you better off than most other families, by a long shot.
3. The Politico's Roger Simon is an idiot.
The 'splodin pie chart under the thumbnail below provides data on the incomes of tax filing units -- households in the common parlance -- for 2007. Source is the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. The data is here. It should be clear that $250K puts you well above most others -- above 96 frakkin' percent, to be more specific.
On Hardballs the other night, Simple Simon was wringing his hands over how "low" the $250K cut-off is. He imagines this to be a middle class income. But middle of what? Chevy Chase, Maryland?
To be sure, $250K doesn't make you rich. When I think rich, I think mansion, boat, expensive cars, servants, second homes. $250K doesn't get you there, especially if it's based on two earners rather than one, doubly so if you reside in an area with relatively high costs of living.
At the same time, $250K is a reasonable cut-off to set for reversion to the tax system we had before 2001. One man's 2000 tax system is another man's class war. Let's just keep in mind that the aggrieved class does not include Joe the Plumber, and probably not his boss either.
In light of the pie chart, $250K is really quite high. Maybe you can finance liberalism from $250K. There's no point in arguing about it right now. But you can't finance social democracy. Nor can you finance the projected run-up of health care costs from there. Nor half the projected run-up, following brilliantly successful health care reform.
Apparently "Reality Bites."
February 28, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with everything you've got here Rotwang.
I would add only this... while I agree that $250K doesn't make one rich, from the standpoint of the family that makes $50K annually you are rich. Rockefeller you ain't, but you remain rich in the eyes of most of your fellow citizens who are making it and trying to keep their families together on an incredibly small sum. They, by the way, don't get to keep the entire $50K. They're really living on a whole lot less due to social security, medicate and income taxes. The average American family would gladly trade their income and lifestyle for that of the hard-pressed $250K family.
Thus, it seems only good manners for those making $250K and up and those who pander to them to keep their friggin mouths shut about having to pay a bit more in tax under Obama which is still less than they ought to have to pay. This is particularly true the higher up the income scale you go.
February 28, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, that should be "mediare" and not "medicate" above.
February 28, 2009 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oy! I mean "medicare". Sorry.
February 28, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, oleeb! I can always count on you to cut through the bs and make the sensible argument from the populist's perspective - which is exactly the perspective the original patriots took as they sipped their beers at Faneuil Hall.
March 1, 2009 2:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
As much as they cared about the common man, our original patriots were hardly populists. They created a system in which blacks were 3/5 of a human and only landowners had a say in governing the country. They were patriots to be sure for having defeated King George and for creating a system that allowed for a long, slow perfecting over the intervening 230 years, but populists they were not.
March 1, 2009 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, but how I wish you had the chance to tell that to Sam Adams to his face, and perhaps to the thousands standing on the wharf during the Boston Tea Party as well!
I would of course expect an argument on semantics from you, jason, but despite the particular anomalies in the original Constitution that reflected the prejudices and the realities of the times, it cannot reasonably be argued that this is anything but a populist document enacted from within a populist movement. I believe nearly 250years of interpretation and refinement would support my argument.
To the best of their abilities, these patriots remained true to the principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence, and I know of no better document outlining the parameters for populist governance that has ever been written, even to this day.
To look down one's nose and apply today's standards to the leaders of this country over 200 years ago is to sniff reprovingly as any good Tory might do. But it doesn't diminish their amazing accomplishments on behalf of the people one iota.
March 1, 2009 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course I wasn't speaking of Sam Adams or any of the more working class patriots from the era, but that hardly makes the entire system one rooted in populism. The entire system was one designed to transfer the power and wealth from a noble aristocracy to one rooted in commercial interests.
Why do you always offer straw-man arguments that have very little to do with my main point?
I am not arguing semantics. I am arguing intellectual honesty and historical context when trying to put our forebears up on pedestals. Accusing me of being a "Tory" doesn't negate the basic facts of my argument which is that this experiment in representative democracy started with enormous inequalities built in and has remained mostly unequal ever since, notwithstanding our advancement in other areas.
I am not sure why you spend so much time trying to paint history with the brush of ideology viewed through rose-colored glasses.
March 1, 2009 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The entire system was one designed to transfer the power and wealth from a noble aristocracy to one rooted in commercial interests."
And now we have what, an aristocracy of commercial interests (big business and lobbies)? Where is the noble democracy... is it in Obama's sights?
March 1, 2009 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
True enough, eds. I believe the noble part of our Democracy has always been the people - we've just been mostly absent from the conversation.
I believe that understanding underlays a lot of Obama's strategies. He has been the first politician in my lifetime to start putting the onus on the American Citizen to roll up their sleeves and help make this country better. Having said that, with all the same Clinton-era people in the cabinet and his inner circle potentially making the same huge mistakes the made a decade ago is my biggest problem with the new administration.
We have time for a small learning curve on this, but Obama is going to need to be very skilled and creative to get the kind of performance he needs out his entire team in a very short period of time.
March 2, 2009 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
As far as Clinton blindness being snuck into the Obama White House, except for maybe Hillary I am will to believe that Obama is being smart rather than dumb about bringing in the people he does. And Hillary might work out well, it's not like she was a failed version of Albright from 93-00 or in the Senate.
That means that he's not bringing them in for old ideolgies (as Bush did with Rumsfeld and many others) but for their intelligence and experience.
Sadly, the evidence is hardly conclusive so far. Orzag strikes me as a good guy, B+ to A-. Geithner gets at best an Incomplete (he gets some benefit of the doubt for another month or so). I give Obama a B so far. I'd like to see Volcker's panel making some waves against the Summers' version of Rubinomics, too.
March 2, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
RIP Studs Terkel. I wish I could hear what he would have to say about this mess.
March 1, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is perhaps a blessing that Studs passed on the eve of Obama's Inauguration, leastwise for him. I'm certain that if he were here, he would be busy interviewing all who were affected by this - and even those most responsible for causing the mess - and we would have some pretty poignant looks into our situation.
As a child of the Great Depression, he often spoke of that experience. Romanticized somewhat in an appreciation of the people leaning upon one another for support, but always with a mistrust of the cruelties that could be visited upon us as well, one to another.
Yeah, I miss him, too. His death marked the end of an era, I believe, and we are all poorer for it.
March 1, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Besides, if I understand Obama's proposal correctly, your taxes are only increasing on the money you earn above $250,000 (and that's $250,000 after deductions). To get hit with a significant tax increase you'll need to be earning well above $250,000. There's no real definition of "rich," but if your AGI is greater than $250,000, you're probably earning at least $300,000, and the tax increase is just $45 for every $1,000 your AGI exceeds $250,000.
February 28, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stop interrupting a good sob story with some facts. It always kills me when the "rich" complain that they have to pay so much higher a rate on their income than I do. We both pay the same rate on the same income. Actually, because of FICA, the low income people pay a larger percentage on total income up until you get considerably above my income.
February 28, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Purple State and hoppy, you guys nailed it.
We keep hearing about $250k, how it isn't that much, etc. This is a scare tactic!! It's supposed to make people who make $150k, or $190k, or $220k, worry that they're dangerously close to having Uncle Sam pick their pockets.
But if you make $250,001 per year, your taxes will only go up by 4.5 cents.
And if you make $300,000 per year, your taxes will go up by only $2,250.
If you had to pay FICA tax on everything you made, you'd already be paying way more!
So people who actually make this much need to STFU about it, and (the vast majority of) people who don't make this much should definitely get off it. This is truly the least of our worries now.
-- ARG
March 2, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, sort of: deductions start to phase out, so earning about $250k (for a couple, or $125k for someone single like me), your AGI number can be pretty close to your actual earnings.
I'm not going to cry in my beer about my $5, or $50, or even $500, tax increase though. I can afford it.
March 3, 2009 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agree with all three. Especially #3 (Politico is run by polidiots). But I have to say on behalf of my brethren making 10% of that $250 G, it sure looks “rich” from down here. Oleeb and Purple State are right that it’s about what one makes above and beyond survival necessities and virtual taxes that can’t be evaded by lower income people. As with most of Obama’s proposals, this one starts from the center, so the Chevy Chaseans will always be able to argue from that starting point further right.
February 28, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe $250,000 should be the Median income. All of a sudden, mortgages, energy, taxes, vacations, food, and kids education would become a LOT more affordable for the majority.
How 'bout we increase wages? Think the GOP will go for that?
I'd happily pay more taxes in return for a liveable wage.
February 28, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bwakfat,
the $250,000 every one is referring to is the bottom line of those who will see a tax increase.
Lets not forget the rest of the gang, those making many millions a year; those worth tens or hundreds of millions. Hedge fund managers hwo make tens of millions but pay at the 15% cap gains rate. The coroprate sharks that treat the corporations they head as their personal piiggy bank. The hang with the mail drops in the Caribbean, or inside the Swiss bank accounts.
Lets not have any crocodile tears for the gang that's been on the gravy train for the last 30 years paying either no tax or less a rate than the vast majority of the public.
February 28, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
God, what a bunch of whiners. I really like the guys who think income is assigned randomly to people who didn't earn it. I also like the relatively poor at $50K who are richer than 95% of humanity. Then there's the group that doesn't realize that if you took EVERYTHING from the top 4%, it still wouldn't pay for all the Obama plan.
Perhaps you all should consider that even if one took everything more from the top, and it still isn't enough... it's going to come from you. I believe that was RotWangs point. Get ready to pony up. Heh.
February 28, 2009 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
“I also like the relatively poor at $50K who are richer than 95% of humanity.”
Exactly. And what does that make the couple at $250,000 or the individual earning $200,000 a year? Middle class? I think that was Rotwang’s point. What the wealthy have or have not “earned” is another story. The real middle and working class has been ponying up. But you’re right, they’ll have to pony up for generations to come to bail us out of this mess created by the rich trying to get richer.
February 28, 2009 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tsk. Be nice to the rich. You need them much more than they need you. If nothing else they,(top 10%) pay the majority of taxes. Income and payroll.
February 28, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yassah. Now if we can get that down to the top 2-3% paying the majority of taxes, along with some of the bigger corporations who pay little to nothing (and pass it on anyway) we'll be getting somewhere.
February 28, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The top 5% pay 60.5% of income taxes. Happy yet?
February 28, 2009 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
How much of the wealth do they own?
February 28, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who cares? We're talking income here. I'm sure a cap gains tangent will be along sometime.
February 28, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
as to how much of the wealth they own,shooter says; "who cares", heh he heh. I'll tell you who cares, those that see the relevancy.
February 28, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still keeping the victim role going? Even after Obama ascending to the Presidency? Tsk.
February 28, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
What percentage of income goes to them?
Of course it's relevant, and you can't even quote accurate figures, you have to resort to misdirection.
Seems to me, you are an apologist, a not a particularly effective one.
February 28, 2009 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually you'd find the answer to your question in my link elsewhere, but it works out that the top percentiles pay about 1.5x the tax burden, they earn in income.
For the top one percent that's 18% of income, paying 27% of all Fed taxes including SS. That's in 2005.
That said, remember that coveting your neighbors money is greedy.
February 28, 2009 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Neighbors?
LOL.
I want my neighbors to quit struggling because all the gains THEY made in productivity and wealth THEY produced is being hoarded by these poor little rich boys.
The rich aren't my neighbors, they are the pigs at the trough sucking off the public teat a lot more than any Welfare Queen.
You are a funny little thing. I mean, it's idiotic to kiss the ass of those that 'trickle down' on ya guy. Grow a pair and stand up for yourself.
February 28, 2009 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
February 28, 2009 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Really now . . .
Then you must qualify as the bliss genie.
Back in your bottle now and stop pissing in your cereal.
~OGD~
March 1, 2009 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
actually we should all be pretty happy about what we are about to see, because it isn't anything the world hasn't already been able to see how well it works.
jerkwads like you keep spouting off as if obama is undertaking some grand experiment or leading us into uncharted waters. but it is not so. grab a history book (or even a recent-history book) or look beyond our national borders and you can find all the examples we need to build an economy that is both equitable and dynamic.
you just need to pull your head out of your own ass to see it.
March 2, 2009 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
But 60.5% of income taxes on over 60.5% of the income, and income taxes are only 37% of federal revenue while Social Security payroll taxes are 36% and the payroll taxes are paid 100% on incomes under 100K.
March 1, 2009 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look at the second table 2005.
Top 10% of taxpayers earn 41% of pretax income.
Top 10% of taxpayers pay 55% of tax, includes SS.
That's the top 10% paying over half everyone's taxes with less than half everyone's income. Did you want to harness them to the plow and make them pay for everybody else?
The bottom 40% pay virtually nothing or get a check from the Government. That isn't enough for you?
March 1, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is quite wrong, in that one is poor without the help of the rich, but the rich need the whole works to guarantee their wealth. Eat gold, my worthies.
Those better off do not give anyone a job, the business they work for, or may own, hires, in order to realize income. There is a limit on what one can earn without help, so others are hired to handle production,or customers, or shipping.
Of course, you may think that watching the market and doing research on cost/price ratios and so on is work, and I will stipulate such. Then it's OK if you pay tax on your earned income, since you benefit from the existence of society, laws, courts, government services, foreign policy, the defense budget, etc. As Adam Smith put it, the wealthy have a larger stake in the economy and the health of society, and it is appropriate they should pay proportionally more tax.
As Rotwang points out, the reversion to the previous marginal brackets is modest at worst, and trivial in the eyes of most of us.
February 28, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
What most folks such as yourself neglect to note is that the infrastructure rich people enjoy is largely paid for by rich people. Everyone else contributes a very small portion of the bill by comparison. Like it or not, they are free-riders to some extent. And as such, they should find the nearest rich person and buy them a cup of coffee with compliments.
That said, nobody really quibbles about progressive taxation. It's all a matter of degree. Personally, I think that when one gives more to Government than one keeps, it's indentured servitude. Sorry Tom, but being greedy about other people's money is not good.
February 28, 2009 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
We do agree, in that infrastructure is indeed paid in large measure by the wealthy. But they would not have built the New York water system on their own decision, or the interstate highways, and so on.
We differ on the exact rate, I guess. Obama's plan simply returns to recent rates, anyway.
February 28, 2009 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
shooter asks;
When was the last time a poor person sent jobs offshore? What poor person was responsible for building the makiladoras across the Rio Grand?
March 1, 2009 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, I guess Reagan was a greedy bastard, because for most of his presidency, the top marginal rate was 50% or higher. About 11 percent higher than Obama's proposed tax. Three more percent won't do anything those people other than help stop the bleeding from the holes that George Junior punched into our leaky ship.
March 1, 2009 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
"You need them more than they need you"? Every rich person I know got that way by ripping people off, getting other people to work for too little or inheiriting it from someone who did one of those things. So who needs who? Anyway people shouldn't get crappy about it all. It's just the way of the world.
Of course to be honest, every rich person I know is miserable or their families are. I'm not sure but it does seem to screw up peoples' priorities.
Maybe that's the dividing line. $250k isn't enough to screw up your priorities all by it self. Hense not rich!
February 28, 2009 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Progressive taxation is the rising tide lifting all boats (even the supertankers), tax cuts for the wealthy is a trickle that evaporates before it reaches the bottom. Aside from progressive taxes and individual salaries, you’re really cheer-leading the wealthy and the corporate system run amok that has made or kept them wealthy.
What have three decades of reaganomic small-government deregulated trickle-down free-trade free-markets brought us? A global economic meltdown where the too big to fail must be bailed out by the too small to afford it. Progressive taxation isn’t just a fair and sensible system; it’s also crucial to real economic recovery.
If the short-sighted gamblers on Wall Street and in the corporate boardrooms could focus on maintaining and retaining business here for their employees, they’d see that paying living wages and government investment in infrastructure, research, education, etc. will benefit them more in the long run.
February 28, 2009 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
February 28, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am using headline news in that this budget is about economic recovery and reform as much as anything. Tax and budget proposals are made in light of the economy we have. I’m not denigrating any person in particular, but I am denigrating the system that has allowed many at the top to profit off of working and middle class (including those earning $250,000 or more). If I’ve misread you as an apologist for this unregulated “free-market” capitalism that is bringing America down, then I apologize to you.
Obviously, the financial market is a system that relied too much on trust and I'm not talking about Madoff who was just a ordinary crook taking advantage of the worship of the market. In a strict sense, the Masters of the Universe were law-abiding. The problem being the Masters wrote the laws that they could abide. Of course, I don’t denounce honest business. Still, even though I make an honest living like most everyone, I don’t see CEOs or corporations as providing my lifestyle.
Do you think anyone who condemns the legalized fraud from corporations that have bought our government is like the “Unibomber” [sic]? It’s telling that you would use an insane luddite as an example of someone who doesn’t buy into the great consumer society and reaganomics. Sadly, I’m pretty much caught on the merry-go-round of conspicuous consumption and disposable lifestyle propped up by debt (an economy backed by financial markets) that everyone else in this country and, unfortunately, most of the world is now.
February 28, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
February 28, 2009 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough. Perhaps you don’t get it because there‘s nothing to get. That is, people who deride corporations are deriding the corporate stranglehold they have on our society and government; not the existence of Kroger’s or Ford or the local Mom and Pop shop per se.
Wal-Mart, on the other hand, is a prototype of the “new economy.” This is not the economy that you seem nostalgic for- a manufacturing-based economy backed by production of real products through fair competition, not a service economy based on over-leveraged financial markets (i.e. loan sharks) derivative speculation on a dollar that loses worth as a reserve almost daily. Our corporate-government complex basically sold that old economy, piece by greedy piece, to China mostly.
The financial sector and Big Business have gone through cycles of great regulation following a collapse in the economy like the one we have now (the Reform Era after several severe recessions and monopoly abuses in the late 19th century, after the Great Depression, etc.). Call it “market correction.”
February 28, 2009 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're a smart cat, Don, and I appreciate your style of debate.
Shooter may have many ideas that you don't agree with (me either, at least as far as the mythical "Free Market" is concerned) or think of in a different way, but you never fail to be polite and willing to at least see the other position, if not agree with the statement in question. You then confidently and logically explain your thoughts.
I think more of this sort of dialogue will help this country heal in the long-run and wanted to let you know I am behind it one-hundred percent.
March 1, 2009 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can’t stay on here but thanks. Anyway, I was going for mean and nasty, but I guess I need to work on expressing myself better. So, screw you, man :)
March 1, 2009 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
So consider this, lobbyists have so much influence, because our governmental structure has reached it's limit to comprehend current issues much less regulate them. The latest example is the stimulus bill which one and all admit not reading before making law. Lobbyists only have as much power as the political participants allow. Corporatism then would be a failure of the political process, not a system defect.
Indeed. And why not? There are designers, and there are builders. We are in a global economy now, and much to the chagrin of many, nations are individual members of a real unregulated market. We can't dictate terms to China, and they can't dictate terms to Germany. As for the dollar, it's at near record highs as the world's reserve currency. It's a little early to declare surrender on that front.
March 1, 2009 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
shooter says:
shooter believes the free market exists,
I'll bet he also believes "free trade" exists too. heh heh heh.
March 3, 2009 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
shooter says:
No it isn't, the system we've been living under lo these many years is as close to unbridled capitalism as you can get, and that's not the best system available. This system you seem to support is responsible for the economic tsunami we're living with.
March 1, 2009 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
No John. This is a failure of regulation to do it's job. The Wash Post reminded me this morning how Robert Rubin rejected Brooksley Born's push to regulate derivatives under the CFTC. That alone would have averted much of the pain we have now. There's the SEC slumber, and Congressional promotion and protection of Fannie and Freddie. No, Capitalism did what it does well, the mitigating forces of regulation fell by the wayside in it's desire to take credit for the good years.
It's not perfect but it's still the best system available.
March 1, 2009 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
shooter says:
Typical right wing tactic, offer a strawman.
What guys are they who think this?
March 1, 2009 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon John get with the program. It's one of RotWang's responses in the comment section. You're going to have to better than this to elicit any more responses.
March 1, 2009 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
shooter,
I went through Rotwang's comments and couldn't find the following, which you attributed to him.
"I really like the guys who think income is assigned randomly to people who didn't earn it."
March 1, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gad. Look directly below this comment and in two or three responses, you will happen upon RotWang saying....
I think one of us is ready for a time-out.
March 1, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
shooter,
this;
is not this;
March 1, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is such an overly simplistic way of looking at our system. Obama has no choice but to put everything we are spending on the books and then create a plan to spend it more wisely on things that offer a better return on investment.
We need to stop feeding the cancerous capitalism you seem to cherish and start feeding a more sustainable version that doesn't leave a stinking, choking ruin in its wake. Mostly, I find that much of your commentary lacks historical context or any real understanding of what the top marginal rates in this country have been for the last 100 years or so.
It's not a class war to raise the top marginal rate by 3% and to limit some deductions over a certain amount. How is that the people making more than $250K aren't the real whiners? I know plenty of people at that level or higher who haven't said word one about their tax increase. The ones who have spoken about it, really don't care one way or the other.
It is a very small sliver of a very small slice of society that you are out here tilting windmills for.
March 1, 2009 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am crying a river for all those poor not rich folks.
February 28, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually those at the top assign themselves income, which is part of the problem.
As things stand the Obama budget is funded with the help of a modest increase on those at the top. As Purple State points out, it's not as if you get some giant Monty Python weight falling on your head when your income goes from $250,000 to $250,001. The top rate on the extra money, after the recession is over knock on wood, will be 39.6 cents on the dollar, plus 1.45 cents for the Medicare piece of the payroll tax.
There will be an issue of increases well down the road if we don't get a grip on health care spending, but for the time being the Obama budget adds up.
Note that absent the Obama budget we get screwed with private health insurance premium increases too. The problem is not too much government, but too much market in a service ill-suited to markets -- health insurance.
February 28, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Assign themselves income? Some CEO-Board combos maybe, but that's going to stop forthwith.
You're being coy about states with income tax. Let's assume someone lives in California. They pay 9.3% starting at $40k! That totals up to just over 50%. Should the SS tax be levied an all income. That would bump the total to just over 57%. Add in property tax, sales tax, gas tax, cable tax, phone tax, and a carbon tax to cove the act of breathing, and some two thirds of marginal income goes elsewhere.So, the next question would be, at what point does one think giving most of one's profit to Government isn't worthwhile?
In my book it isn't the person wanting to keep more of what he earns that's greedy... it's the person who covets those earnings for himself.
February 28, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The wealthy don't need us huh? Get a life pal. Without the little people the rich would have to work and that's something they seem all too incapable of doing.
February 28, 2009 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shooter, Since the state income tax is deductible, you have to discount the state marginal rate by the top Federal rate, roughly 40 percent, so the 9.3 is really 5.6 (1-.396 x 9.3). The rest of the SS tax does not apply at this level on the margin. The other taxes do not apply to marginal increases in income. In addition, the property tax is deductible. So with the 9.3 percent we are really up to 39.6 + 1.45 + 5.6, which by advanced math is much less than "two thirds of marginal income." So your miscalculation explains your excitement, but it is not well-founded.
February 28, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Californians get hit for 47% or so, if one doesn't count all the other tax increases? No it isn't two thirds, but it IS nearly half. Even so, as you say, it isn't enough to pay for what's been proposed.
February 28, 2009 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
shooter,
rotwang scored a tko. Pick up your ball and go home.
March 3, 2009 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
The rich don't need the lower classes? My Goodness, Shooter, who in the world would be the night butler? Who, pray tell, would wax the Yaucht? How in the world would they get the bath water drawn?
February 28, 2009 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suggest that the rich, having much more to lose:
Let them fund the military budget and all the other programs that assure their continued prosperity.
Let them also pay for medical research that insures they won't succumb to some dreaded disease, carried and spread by the unwashed lowly class.
And maybe they should also pay for police and fire protection, since the poor living in shanty shacks, don't have that much to lose.
Then maybe we the poor would be so beholden to the rich, because of the benefits we would derive, from their financial support.
Seeing how we the poor would need to get to work in order to benefit the rich and business operations, because the rich are so worried about the need to employ us, the ungrateful working class.
Do you think we could get you, the rich, to support an infrastructure, reliable enough, so the rich could bring their products to market?
Does the principle apply? That to whom much is given, more is expected.
February 28, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meanwhile the bottom two quintiles get money back from the Treasury. We are now at de Tocqueville's tipping point of Democracy failing, because the non-taxpayers can vote themselves anything they want from the Treasury.
This news should make your day.
February 28, 2009 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
To Shooter
It really doesn't make my day. The system works against all of us, it pits each against the other.
I've been poor and I've been rich, I prefer rich, despite the taxes.
My father and I performed construction services, for Doctors and Lawyers.
I'll never forget when one of the attorneys told us, he really doesn't pay the taxes; his clients do. As he explained, as the government taxes him, he passes the cost onto the client.
I suppose some business owners could do the same.
I am not so sure that blue-collar workers could do so. How can the workers compete with outsourcing oversees? Who really benefitted by this arrangement?
How can the worker fight the manipulation of market forces? A manipulation to create more profit at the expense and detriment to the unskilled working class?
Taxes are high for everyone. I personally thought the military budget was breaking the bank.
What are you willing to pay for?
I like Obama's plan to cut our dependence on foreign oil for our energy needs. But I'm broke, so will we be captives for lack of sufficient funding.
Who will save us, if not those able to pay the upfront costs?
If you want to agree with me, to start anew, don’t bail out the banks. Help the people to throw off this debtor’s prison.
Clear my toxic debt, and I'll pitch in to finance these energy plans, or other plans to assure America's future.
I don't want to be a burden, but under this current SYSTEM, I am unable to assist you.
If the rich are unwilling to step up in America’s time of need, I suppose were screwed.
If your suggesting we overthrow this System, what will you replace it with?
February 28, 2009 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
February 28, 2009 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Federal, state, and local revenues totaled nearly $4.7 trillion in 2006. Tax Policy Center
What percentage of that total did the "rich," however defined, pay?
Over to you, shooter242.
February 28, 2009 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good question. All I can speak to is what I have numbers for, Federal taxation. If you have something to add, have at it.
March 1, 2009 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shooter wrote “ Rich people are rich because they have something better to offer that we are willing to trade our dollars for”.
You are so right about that. They can offer bribes; they can trade dollars to effect legislation.
Shooter wrote "We all benefit when something gets cheaper via overseas labor. As for competing, why is it overseas car companies will build plants here, while the UAW is sucking wind?
For short-term gains, being able to buy cheaper goods, some of our citizens have destroyed the Tax base.
It’s like having a brother who knows your immediate family is in need, but instead he gives his money to a stranger.
Then telling you, be well fed, be well-clothed and good health to you. Then looking down on your plight, reasoning about your lack of industriousness.
The only sound of sucking wind, is as Ross Perot stated, the sucking sound is the loss of jobs and tax base in America.
Shooter wrote “If you're asking me to forgive your debt, no thanks….the system is fine, it's the regulators that failed.
Banks having the ability to charge excessive fees on credit cards, and all the other mischief they are doing to the consumer, is not so much about regulators, as it is about Greed.
You feel you can’t forgive the debt, of your own citizens, your band of brothers. The very ones you need to depend upon, in the foxhole.
Shooter wrote "The rich can't save you either.
Then it’s like I wrote “ If the rich are unwilling to step up in America’s time of need, I suppose were screwed.
Rich and poor will suffer the same fate. Diminising value
Maybe then the rich will reflect back on how good they really had it, when the shame of poverty affects them.
March 1, 2009 4:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently you are unable to read your own table, or perhaps you choose to read it selectively and not in the context of the original post. Rotwang allows that $250 K is "not rich," except in the relative sense of a lot better off than most everyone else. Based on Table 4.B. Summary Table 1 of the link you provide, the mean "before tax" income of the highest quintile is $231 K, and based on the known shape of the curve at that point, the median will be lower. Consequently, somewhere around 10% of the population is in the "not rich" $250 K or better income range (I am sure a little more searching would soon turn up the true proportion). The next table shows that the top 10% of the population pays 54.7% of total federal taxes, not the 87% (meaninglessly linked solely to income tax) that you assert.
Strictly on the benefit principle, we can ask whether the wealthiest 10% of the population gets 55% of the benefit of the federal government. One way to ask that is to ask what would it matter to the typical person on the street if China swept in and took control of our country tomorrow. Other than a little hurt national pride and a restricted ability to complain about the government, not much. But, the rich folks would find it different. They may find restricted freedom of movement (comparatively), loss of major assets, subjection to different economic institutions and decision making, loss of ability to control wealth, etc. So, perhaps they (the rich folks) *are* the principle beneficiary of the government. In which case, perhaps they should pay for it.
February 28, 2009 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh. I note you skipped over the part showing how much more of the revenues the top 10% contribute versus the percentage of income they earn. Ah, statistics.
As for the Chinese taking over, thinking your life wouldn't change is fatuous. How good are you at rice farming?
Tsk.
March 1, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Vietnamese peasants had it all figured out.
They were so sick of the fighting.
All they wanted to do was feed their families and raise enough to provide, other staples.
Instead they had to fight the French, and the American Capitalists, and the Communists.
When all they wanted was to live in peace, raise their kids and put food on the table.
Today we American families are stuck between the Capitalist Republicans and the Capitalist Democrats, each fighting for control. Maintaining each of us as prisoners to be used as capital for their continued dominance. Then crying because the maintenance fees are unacceptable and reduce their profits.
Look at the Nomadic tribes of America: Having destroyed their way of life in the name of Capitalistic expansion, reducing productive citizens to welfare dependant. Then kicking them to the curb, because they are now a burden.
That's the attitude of some of the rich; who through exploitation are senseless in their responsibility to work for the good of the Nation.
The rich have designed a SYSTEM, which has become burdensome to the working class.
In my opinion, it's in the best interest of members of the Rich to pay the taxes.
Keep your senses, keep your heads, ask Aristocratic France.
March 1, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is an old joke that goes...
A parishioner is talking to his Pastor, saying, but, Pastor, if I tithed 10% do you realize how much money that would be? I could never afford that! The Pastor replied, well, my friend, how about we pray that God give you a job that doesn't pay so much, so you could afford to tithe...
$250K may not be rich, as in "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" or "Housewives of Orange County", but it is hella comfortable...I know...I never made nearly that much and I'm doin' just fine...
February 28, 2009 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about. Apologists for the rich always trot out bogus statistics about how much the predators pay in tax and those statistics simply are innacurate. You may be right in terms of income tax but certainly not in payroll taxes or in sales taxes or in many other tax categories. The rich have been getting off easy for a long time. America was strongest when the predators were being taxes at 90 percent and I think that is a pretty equitable rate given that they get most of the society's benefits and protections. Everyone else gets taxed to the maximum they are able to pay so the rich can be treated to the same.
March 1, 2009 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is a reply? Apparently you went back and saw that the top 10% of earners earn 41 % of income while paying 55% of taxes. Is that an objection? That is the MEANING of progressive taxation. But, is 55% an adequate share? Taxes protect property more than income (read the Constitution with an eye as to what is actually protected). What share of the property is held by this small share group of people own?
Also note the definition of income:
The critical words here are:
This is the meaning of Rotwang's assertion that the really wealthy assign themselves income. When you have a healthy wad of cash, you can leave those capital gains unrealized. That is the same thing as saying your bank account interest that you haven't drawn out isn't income. The "little people" earn this income and it is counted, even when they leave it alone to continue accruing more capital. But the truly wealthy just leave their larger shares of capital wealth alone and it is never "income." So, what is their true share of income? We know for sure that it is more than 41%, that is the part they have to count. We also know they are the principle owners of capital, so likely it is a whole lot more than 41%.
Stop whining. Rich people sound like crybabies when they whine about paying their fair share of taxes.
March 1, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tsk. As opposed to slackers whining that someone else isn't paying their share for them? Perhaps you've seen my observation that wanting to keep more of one's earnings, isn't greedy... coveting that person's earnings for yourself is.
That said, everything is a matter of degree. Are you advocating that the top 10% should pay a larger portion of Federal taxes? How much larger? They cover 55%, Are you looking for 70, 80, 90, 95%? Why not go for 100%? Heh.
March 1, 2009 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
125% will be fine with me. They owe us a refund for the last 30 years of greed.
March 1, 2009 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought it was some other guy that was a chicken. Come back when you have the integrity to honestly answer a straight question.
March 2, 2009 7:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a hen.
How dare you, you addle-pated greedy lout. You'd let your fellow citizens starve so you could put another notch in your bank account. Gold that you neither need nor use for the betterment of your fellow man. How utterly shameful and creepy is that? How much is enough for you? 1000x the lowest paid employee? 10,000x? Is that enough yet? Does everyone but a thin slice of the population need to be crawling in poverty for you to be satisfied?
Not only is gluttony a sin, but it is a DEADLY sin.
Look, if you don't think that rich folks should be paying a higher percentage of their income after deductions then people barely making enough to feed and house themselves, there is something really wrong with you.
It's a sad and sick thing, really, and the founders of this country looked down on the utter selfish malevolence you have fouled up this thread with. I say yes, lets return to the tax structures of old. 90% on anything over a million, because if you are going to be a petty criminal and steal wealth from your fellow citizens, they should be able to recover it.
Go back under the slimy rock you crawled out from under. The world doesn't need a lecture about "coveting" from an amoral dickhead like you.
March 2, 2009 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
You be da man, Rotwang. You be da man!
March 1, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pardon my semantic deficiencies...
The first problem is that income is not wealth.
"Everyone" says "rich" but the truth is that $250K is a very high gross income in the USA and $150K is a very high net income (after estimated 40% taxes). If one lives frugally ($15K/yr), one could become a millionaire in under 8 years not even counting investment success (income or capital gains)... then one might have BECOME modestly wealthy. Investing that successfully at 4% after tax beginning the first year, would provide an endowment income of about $60K/yr, enough to retire on after 8 years. Is one not rich at that point?
If one instead spends $135K/yr and thus saves only $15K, one lives AS IF rich but does not accumulate much relative wealth, only a modest cushion of less than one year's expenditures.
Living off of credit cards may allow also people to live AS IF rich, for a short time. Ditto using home equity once they have it. But neither is income and neither is or builds personal wealth (tho' having a high credit limit might correlate with at least marginal wealth, and if the borrower doesn't default it does ironically help build the wealth of the lenders).
Income can build wealth, and wealth can generate income.
The second problem is the use of "middle class" -- it's not the same as "middle income" (nor the same as "middle wealth"). It creates a particular indefinite stereotype, a shoe which doesn't fit all the relevant feet.
It's clear that Obama (and "everyone") is including most or all working class people in his "middle class" references. We can elaborate the definition a bit:
Does "average" truly apply to those who live on incomes between $15K and $150K?
It seems that "middle class" these days means "not aristocratic but above the poverty line".
February 28, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a New Yorker I'm pretty sensitive to the argument that a couple making a combined $250K isn't rich since we're a high tax state, goods are more expensive and rent is astronomical but Rotwang's right -- that's not the point. As expensive as New York City is, most couples live here on far less income than that. Besides, state income tax is already deductible from Federal taxes so it's not as if the Fed haven't tried to do right by people in high tax states.
One important point here, and I think Purple State made it very well, is that this tax increase amounts to a rounding error for most people. It's nowhere near punitive and if it does the trick by helping our economy into recovery, then people will make far more money than they will pay out in taxes. In short, I'll take a higher tax rate now in exchange for an economy that gives me a shot at getting into the top bracket!
February 28, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billionaire Mort Zuckerman was on the McLaughlin Group yesterday praising the tax increase--and unlike Shooter and Joe the Plumber he'll actually be paying it. Lots of wealthly people are like this: real patriots willing to help out their country in a time of need. Shooter doesn't need to feel sorry for us. We're glad to serve.
February 28, 2009 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, of course, paying the extra taxes won't change Zuckerman's life one bit. He'll continue to live very well, he'll continue to invest where he sees opportunity and he'll continue to use his fortune to build an even bigger fortune.
People who think that the rich will just shut down rather than pay taxes don't know much about rich people.
February 28, 2009 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Z's life will change in one way: Instead of cycling his cash flow to his favorite charities and vendors, he will be having some of it done by a bureaucracy. If he was above average, that will be a net loss. If he was below average, it will be a net gain (less waste, better results).
People who think that those who might owe a lot of tax won't seek tax shelters don't know much about realworld economics and politics (viz UBS). So we need to monitor shelter pathways carefully lest we drive income and other taxables further underground (or overseas).
February 28, 2009 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Calendar Year 2009: After 36 years at the same job, my income will creep over six figures--just. I think of myself as well paid and wealthy "enough" for my life choices. I cannot feel too too sorry for someone earning in one year what I earn in 2.5 years, and certainly not sorry for those who earn in a year what I'll earn throughout my life. I don't feel over-taxed, either--though I sometimes feel underserved. I'm think the kind of transparency Obama has promised and is on the way to fulfilling will go a long way towards directing my concerns toward the spending which offers no social value, and maybe organizing a public lobby to redirect it toward spending creating the greatest social capital.
For those who missed it, the PBS documentary "People like us" is illuminating and very funny: http://www.pbs.org/peoplelikeus/
February 28, 2009 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
you present a nice concise argument on the subjective side. How do we deal with the non-subjective (often called the objective) side which shooter alludes to (voters taking money from the Treasury)?
February 28, 2009 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting idea, and I'm going to take it literally. I like the "non-subjective, often called the objective" argument. It raises the question about objectivity and what is objective in economics. But my main interest is in the example, which shows me something. Our very language moves us to the subjective side because we speak by analogy and metaphor, and the language embeds a bias. "Take money from the treasury" has a subjective bias to it...a very different one from "receive money from the treasury". I'm going to think about this some more, but right now it is 7:00 and I have to catch a bus (nice little metaphor there) to go warble with my church choir.
March 1, 2009 7:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Objectivity has [at least] two faces [in economics and in general].
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/eds/2009/02/two-faced-objectivity.php
One objective of the Treasury remark is to point out that simply raiding the bank isn't productive and usually isn't moral. If we don't produce what we consume, we must trade or steal in the long run. This could be called an ethic of sustainability.
I look forward to your return to the thread!
March 1, 2009 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
The thing that stands out the most in this thread in the disdain Shooter has for the poor. Wealth is not earned no matter what some jackass tells you. Wealth is status. Money, a mere vehicle of wealth, is manipulated when that status is threatened by printing more money. This inflation destroys the status of lower class buy reducing an already limited buying power. The wealthy are unaffected by inflation because of asset ownership.
Shooter senses the poor people's hatred of the rich and returns the favor. He justifies his status with fantasies of not needing workers. Shooter don't choke on your own self importance. We are angry because a CEO on the job for 14 days can write himself a check for 22 million and health care for life.
You keep acting like this and something bad is going to happen. You'll give yourself a heart attack at the very least.
February 28, 2009 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah; shooter242's an idealist.
And as an idealist, he's failed to address the practical problem of rent seeking. Until he does, his paeans to the free market and the sanctity of contracts must be taken with a grain of salt.
February 28, 2009 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is interesting. How about a particular example for me to chew on? As defined by the wiki selection, rent seeking is basically human nature and it's tendency to gain security in an uncertain world. That's a pretty broad subject. Getting down to cases would help.
March 1, 2009 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Civil litigation and ambulance chasing?
The wiki article does offer some other examples...
March 1, 2009 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a shame that this post is now focused on the topic of Shooter when the original topic of under-taxing the wealthy has so much more substance.
Another shame is the way the wealthy (presumably those like Shooter) distort the statistics they cite. It is true, of course, that the top 5% of taxpayer (based on AGI) pay 60.14% of all Federal Income Tax. That sounds like a shocking percentage until one realizes that those folks actually earn 36.7% of the AGI income.
And of course those numbers in themselves understate the situation on the ground. 36.7% of AGI may represent 85% or so of disposable income. (That number is straight out of my rectal orifice, so don't go quoting me -- it's just a guess.)
The fact that billionaries pay taxes at a rate of less than 21% is a national scandal. The fact that you pay a higher percentage of your income in taxes than Bill Gates (because you pay 6.2% of your income in payroll taxes and Gates does not) is a national disgrace.
February 28, 2009 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's the matter? Disappointed that the top 5% isn't paying 100% of income tax rather than 60%? Isn't that what you really want? A total free ride? Of course it is, all the benefits with none of the responsibility. Tsk.
As for Bill Gates, conflating capital gains taxes with income taxes is dishonest. Do you think homeowners that sell their house (capital gain) should pay 39.6% of the gain to the Feds, 8% more to the State, local if in NYC, and whatever transfer fees apply? In short tax capgains at 50% or so?
If not, then neither should Bill Gates when he sells his stock.
March 1, 2009 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry you felt the need to attack my honesty rather than make a point. I feel bad for you, but understand the need to strike out when backed into a corner from which you can't escape.
What's the matter? Disappointed that the top 5% isn't paying 100% of income tax rather than 60%?
I don't recall saying that, and I certainly didn't think it. But let me flip that around on you: Are you disappointed that 50% of the income is paying 60% of the income tax? Really? Please justify that astonishing position. Are you a flat taxer? That would certainly be advantageous to your fellow billionaires, but would I don't thik anyone but you and Steve Forbes believes it would work.
Isn't that what you really want? A total free ride? Of course it is, all the benefits with none of the responsibility.
Once again, personal attack. Try thinking with your big head for a second. The little one needs a rest. The free ride is being taken by the people who are getting the most financial benefit from our system and paying at a 20% rate while garbage men and grape pickers pay more.
As for Bill Gates, conflating capital gains taxes with income taxes is dishonest.
I agree.
Do you think homeowners that sell their house (capital gain) should pay 39.6% of the gain to the Feds, 8% more to the State, local if in NYC, and whatever transfer fees apply?
Well, of course not. Do you?
If not, then neither should Bill Gates when he sells his stock.
Now who's conflating? Sale of a primary residence != sale of securities except in the world of the ultra rich. That problem has already been legislated out of existence. I'm quite surprised that you didn't know that.
March 1, 2009 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah, while I'm at it, the table says the lowest forty percent of taxpayers (presumably garbagemen and/or grapepickers) not only don't pay anyincome tax, they get cash back. Looks like you have no room to complain anywhere about inequality of taxburdens. Prejudice and bigotry. Tsk.
March 1, 2009 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
No sex lately?
Tsk
~OGD~
March 2, 2009 3:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shooter sez:
Let them eat shit. Are there no workhouses? No prisons?
March 2, 2009 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't attack your honesty. I attacked your integrity...
Much easier than trying to make sense, isn't it?
...and am about to attack your competence.
You might at least make an attempt to do so competently.
The actual figures are: the top 5% of taxpayers - earn 31% of income - but pay 61% of income tax. Objecting to that is hardly astonishing.
So you are an adherent of the Flat Tax! You are correct that it is objectionable that those who earn 31% of the income pay 61% of the income tax. Sixty-one percent is far too little for them to pay.
But bringing that ignorance in here is a waste of my time.
Attempting to educate you does seem to be a waste of time for both of us. Rather like attempting to teach a pig to whistle.
It's just bigotry and prejudice.
Insults are just so much more fun than reason, aren't they? And MUCH less work. Adieu.
March 2, 2009 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody is fooled by the Republican rhetoric anymore. Back in 1984 when "Trickle Down" voodoo economics was the newest shiniest shell game in town, people were fooled. And they were fooled up to the point where our economy has fallen apart at the seams. The favorability numbers that remain strong for Obama in putting out his budget, the mandate majority that was voted in in this election followed rapidly by his handing in a budget that looks exactly like he said it would, is keeping support for this new direction strong. The only thing bewildering about what is happening now is that the Republican opposition and their mouthpieces are still pretending that it's 1984 and that you can still fool all of the people with trickle-down voodoo economics. I truly believe that rank and file Republicans really, truly believed that they would get their trickle. And now that it is ruining the economy and making thousands of jobs vanish by the day, they are ready to try progressive taxation again, particularly since it is the only thing that is going to pay down our deficit.
The only people weeping for the rich and the teeny tiny bump in their taxes, are the Republicans who are counting on their votes.
February 28, 2009 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
But there aren't many votes there. I think the Reps have lost the national battle and are hanging onto their state or local constituencies and donors. Endgame.
March 1, 2009 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong side of the river, sir:
Frank, Thomas. The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule. New York, 2008. p. 11.
Happy days.
March 1, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those here that are ok with splitting the pie
up more ways are making a huge mistake.
We should be focused on making the pie bigger.
I think it's disgusting that there is so much
apparent envy over the material possessions that
someone else has. Don't blame your lack of such things on those folks.
This country sure looks like it's taking a turn to
the liberal left and looks to use tools such as
income redistribution to achieve those goals. This
is very dangerous and the results will not be good
for anyone.
March 2, 2009 2:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
[selective amnesia/nearsighted galucoma] + [copy/paste] = *yaaawnnnn...*
March 2, 2009 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's no realistic prospect of making the pie bigger over the short term... probably not over the long term, either. The short-sighted policies and fast buck mentality of the past decade have ensured that. Splitting the pie more sensibly is about all we can do at present.
March 2, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink