Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

[lektrode]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

The Stamp Act of 1797 was passed to raise funds to start the US Navy,

uhh... not quite... i'm no historian, but even i know the navy launched earlier that that... (us foahmah new englandahs, ya know.. ;)

the stamp act was used to enlarge the navy, but it 'started' - and there's some sprited argument on this, on precisely where - in october 1775:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...ed_States_Navy
The history of the United States Navy divides into two major periods: the "Old Navy", a small but respected force of sailing ships that was also notable for innovation in the use of ironclads during the American Civil War, and the "New Navy", the result of a modernization effort that began in the 1880s made it the largest in the world by the 1920s.
The United States Navy recognizes 13 October 1775 as the date of its official establishment, when the Continental Congress passed a resolution creating the Continental Navy.

and right heah's weyah the ahgyament stahts: (/downeastah accent ;)

http://www.legendinc.com/Pages/Marbl...ricanNavy.html

http://itemlive.com/articles/2010/10/16/news/news05.txt
Marblehead lays claim to birthplace of U.S. Navy Originally Published on Saturday, October 16, 2010 By Jack Butterworth / For the Item MARBLEHEAD - Perhaps General George Washington should accept responsibility for any unresolved question about the birthplace of the Navy.

In the late summer of 1775, Washington secretly ordered Captain John Glover to outfit a ship and seize "such vessels as may be found on the high seas or elsewhere, bound inward and outward to or from Boston in the service of the ministerial Army."

Washington was results-oriented, a quality that eventually made him the father of his country and also the father of a controversy that had Marblehead and Beverly residents shouting to show support when Beverly native David Ferriero, United States Archivist, presented his research and findings Wednesday at the USS Constitution Museum in Charlestown.

Washington did not order Glover, a Marbleheader, to go to Marblehead or Beverly or any other specific colonial seaport. On Sept. 5, 1775, the Hannah, the first U.S. warship, set sail from Beverly Harbor. It was purchased and refitted as a warship under Glover's supervision in Beverly and manned by a Marblehead crew.

The Hannah was immediately sighted by the British ship HMS Lively and quickly took refuge in Gloucester Harbor.

There are other contenders for the Navy birthplace: Machias, Maine, where rebels commandeered two British ships and used them to capture another; Whitehall, N.Y., where a small fleet was used by Benedict Arnold to hold off British advances at Lake Champlain; Providence, R.I., where the state legislature voted to formally request the creation of a Navy; Philadelphia, Pa., where the Continental Congress authorized the formation of a U.S. Navy on Oct. 13, 1775. Ferriero chose Oct. 13, the date the Navy uses as its official birthday, as the date of his lecture.

Ferriero and archivist Trevor Plante presented evidence favorable to both Beverly and Marblehead. Then Ferriero, who said a year ago that he wanted to establish a definite Navy birthplace, settled for asking for huzzahs (cheers) for each of the six claimants. He noted that Marblehead and Beverly, who had the most supporters in the 100-person audience, got equal amounts of noise and left it a draw.

The subject was discussed during Wednesday's selectmen meeting. Selectman William Woodfin vowed to protest loud and long if Ferriero named Beverly as the birthplace.

"Does the board want to send a letter to the Secretary of the Navy?" Town Administrator Tony Sasso asked, evoking laughter.

"I still don't think there's any question. It was all Marblehead," Selectman William Conly, who attended the Charlestown event, said Thursday. "You've got to walk in the shoes of the sailors, not the politicians. Those guys were just sailors, doing their job - and it had a lot of results."

"The reason they went to Beverly was to avoid the British," he added.

[lektrode]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

The radicals always find time to come out of the woodwork when things are going to hell....

yeah - and they ought to find time to clean out their inboxes once in awhile, so they might be able to 'get the message' ?

[Sharky]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

In saying so, you are also saying you have countervening data.

Please provide it.

My "data" comes from experience and people I know IRL. However, it shouldn't be too difficult to see if you look around. Every product you buy, every store or factory you see, was conceived of and driven to completion by someone. Those same people have a tendency to become wealthy as a result (say with a net worth over about US$2M), precisely because they added value to the world.

I'm not saying there aren't wealthy people who are fraudsters or other criminals -- there certainly are, but they are a tiny minority.

You're welcome to your belief.

But you in a society where you have to pay taxes. So while you're welcome to have this opinion and even to push for this view to become law, at the same time you presumably have to accept that you will have to pay taxes.

Yes, of course I have to pay taxes today. But what I am forced to do today does not correspond with what I think is optimal in the long term.

Either way, simply asserting taxes are against individual rights is a belief - and clearly beliefs are a waste of time to debate.

I disagree. My view is that "beliefs," as you call them, are at the heart of our current problems -- so they are the most important thing to debate.

Regarding individual rights and taxes: my beliefs are not a simple assertion. Do you believe in property rights? Do you accept that property rights are the foundation of individual rights? If so, it's a small step from there to understanding that taxes are against individual rights.

I'd say this data is incorrect for several reasons:

You're welcome to argue it with Thomas Sowell and the IRS, if you like:

http://www.creators.com/opinion/thom...e-percent.html

Because money that just sits around and collects more money to itself doesn't do anything for anyone beyond the immediate possessor.

So if I have money sitting in a bank deposit account, it "doesn't do anything for anyone beyond the immediate possessor"? Yet those deposits act as bank reserves, which in turn make it possible for banks to create loans -- which people use buy houses, start or expand businesses, etc. In the absence of manipulation, the amount of deposits available strongly drives interest rates.

Or have you swallowed the tired Marxist argument that "labor" creates everything of value, and capital has nothing to do with it?

Equal opportunity means exactly what it says: that no one is disadvantaged due to lack of education, lack of health, lack of the ability to gain a living wage, etc to being enabled to be successful.

The outcome of each person's life isn't legislated, only that they have the opportunity.

So you believe government can successfully legislate equal opportunity? I think that's impossible.

Does supply and demand enter the picture anywhere, in your view? There are only a limited number of doctors, for example. Are they not to have any say in who they see or how much they charge? Looking at it from the provider's point of view, ensuring "equal opportunity" sounds an awful lot like slavery.

And what about the money taken from me and others like me to fund these services? Do I no longer have a right to pursue my own happiness, using the fruits of my labor?

[dcarrigg]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

yeah - and they ought to find time to clean out their inboxes once in awhile, so they might be able to 'get the message' ?

Done.

[Ghent12]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

Your assertion is that the rich - defined as the top quintile - contribute more than their share of military manpower.

I pointed out that there is a hereditary component within the military - both higher level officers and specialists like pilots - which skew the ratio. A 3 generation line of colonels and generals can hardly be said to be a regular part of the population even if they are all in the upper quintile in income. Ditto pilots: does the data you point to refer to income while in/after the military or before? This makes a very big difference as well as flight pay pushes pretty much all pilots in the military into the upper quintile for income.

So while your point might be correct, on the other hand you've not yet showed that Buffet was wrong.

For that matter if we looked at the top 400 richest families - is there a single member in the military among them? After World War II, of course, and perhaps even up to excluding Vietnam due to the draft.

The source is the Heritage Foundation; say what you want about their credibility, but their data indicates new accessions from the top quintile account for 22% of total accessions.

Hereditary lineage in the military doesn't work the way your post implies. There is no such thing as "a [blood]line of colonels and generals." The people you think represent that group have, in fact, gone through the entire rank structure all the way from 2nd Lieutenant to Colonel or one of the flag officer paygrades. So at any given time one may have been a Colonel or General Officer, but their son/daughter and grandson/granddaughter certainly were not. All of them have deployed with battalions, squadrons, and ships not only as the Commanding Officers when they reach their apex paygrades, but also numerous times before that when they were just Division Officers or Platoon Commanders and every paygrade in between. Your snobbish post implies that officers don't fight--maybe you should tell that to the families of Vice Admiral James Stockdale, Major Megan McClung, and the many officers that are currently in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the ones that have parents that are or were in the service as senior officers.

By saying, "A 3 generation line of colonels and generals can hardly be said to be a regular part of the population even if they are all in the upper quintile in income," you are essentially claiming that they "shouldn't count" in this discussion. That is bullshit. A professional military force such as ours will have the children of its personnel inspired to join it quite often, and there is no shame or discount to that.

As I said in this post, the data was for accessions and not what paygrade they become after they join--if that were the case, the portion of personnel that the upper quintile makes would actually be significantly higher like around 60%. I see what you mean now when you mention pilots, but that is not relevant to accessions.

Buffett is full of shit on this issue. Complete hackery.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

Remember Joe the Plumber?
Meet Joe the ex-Google executive.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...cb1af82a01.661

[BK]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed - Clowns who dont understand Tax Code

Why is it that its always those who have amassed enough Wealth for two or three life times that ask for Higher Taxes -
Taxes are levied on INCOME- INCOME TAXES - Many of those asking for Higher Taxes either don't need any income or their income flows from Capital Gains from selling Financial assets.

Why Don't they ASK for a TAX on their Asset Base - or an ATM tax that focuses on people who have acquired their Wealth through working at Google or Berkshire Hathaway - (I'm against this) but, I hate how ignorant people are when they attempt to gain Notoriety through asking for Higher Taxes - because they have now made their Money.

[DSpencer]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

If you bothered to look at the link which I provided, you could see for yourself what the relative impact of entertainment has (or doesn't have).

I have no idea why you insist on being condescending on such a regular basis. The link you provided is just BLS data. I'm asking how YOU are defining and calculating "disposable income" since what you calculate looks nothing like the definition of disposable income that I am familiar with.

QUESTION: Is the following how YOU define disposable income

What Does Disposable Income Mean?
The amount of money that households have available for spending and saving after income taxes have been accounted for. Disposable personal income is often monitored as one of the many key economic indicators used to gauge the overall state of the economy.

Calculated as:

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/...#ixzz1ZAAHyqbc

Question: Does this match with the way that YOU calculated disposable income?

I assume what you really meant to calculate was "discretionary income".

Question: Is this what you actually meant when you said disposable income?

What Does Discretionary Income Mean?
The amount of an individual's income that is left for spending, investing or saving after taxes and personal necessities (such as food, shelter, and clothing) have been paid. Discretionary income includes money spent on luxury items, vacations and non-essential goods and services.

Discretionary income is derived from disposable income, which equals gross income minus taxes.

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/...#ixzz1ZADi5mJp

The definition of "personal necessities" is somewhat subjective which is why I asked the question. I would contend that you don't even calculate discretionary income properly either.

I think if you learn the definition of disposable income and then re-read your original post on it, you will see that it makes no sense.

If you want to make up your own definitions for words then so be it. However, I don't think it earns you the right to make smart ass replies when someone wants to know why your definitions differ from the commonly accepted ones.

I know this is a long and antagonistic reply, but if you're going to post multiple times every day in nearly every thread you could try to be respectful. It's important to discuss issues with people who have different views but it's difficult when simple questions are met with insulting replies. I'm sure I've been guilty of this as well.

[mesyn191]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed - Clowns who dont understand Tax Code

Taxes are levied on INCOME- INCOME TAXES - Many of those asking for Higher Taxes either don't need any income or their income flows from Capital Gains from selling Financial assets.

Perhaps what they're asking for or at least hinting at then are high Capital Gains taxes or maybe even to eliminate Capital Gains altogether and just count it as income. Put in some higher tax brackets for these people above $500k a year and it wouldn't be so bad at all I think.

[c1ue]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

My "data" comes from experience and people I know IRL. However, it shouldn't be too difficult to see if you look around. Every product you buy, every store or factory you see, was conceived of and driven to completion by someone. Those same people have a tendency to become wealthy as a result (say with a net worth over about US$2M), precisely because they added value to the world.

You are asserting that the people who operate stores are all millionaires, and all got to that point primarily through their own individual efforts.

According to this view, the corporation doesn't exert significant effect. The value of inherited money doesn't exert significant effect. The impact of banksters is not relevant. The availability of credit, of government subsidies, etc etc doesn't matter.

I don't agree.

I worked in the semiconductor industry, one which many many smart people participated in. However, this industry would not exist were it not for massive government subsidies, both direct and defense related, in the 1970 to 1990 era. Most of the executives which led the various sectors of the semiconductor industry in the 1995 to 2005 era worked for these private companies whose primary revenue source was the government.

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/about/globalinc.jsp

From a mere three thousand in 1990 the number of multinationals has grown to over 63,000 today. Along with their 821,000 subsidiaries spread all over the world, these multinational corporations directly employ 90 million people (of whom some 20 million in the developing countries) and produce 25 per cent of the world's gross product. The top 1,000 of these multinationals account for 80 percent of the world's industrial output.

Regarding individual rights and taxes: my beliefs are not a simple assertion. Do you believe in property rights? Do you accept that property rights are the foundation of individual rights? If so, it's a small step from there to understanding that taxes are against individual rights.

We've had this discussion before.

You believe your individual rights mean you shouldn't have to pay taxes unless you feel like it.

I believe that there is a border between individual rights and collective rights, and that so long as you are a part of society that you must surrender some of your individual rights to the collective rights.

Since these are beliefs, neither of us is going to change the mind of the other.

You're welcome to argue it with Thomas Sowell and the IRS, if you like:

http://www.creators.com/opinion/thom...e-percent.html

Well, I don't see any data from the IRS, but let's look at Mr. Sowell's data. Oh sorry, there isn't any. But let's look at what he says:

Who are those top one percent? For those who would like to join them, the question is: How can you do that?
The second question is easy to answer. Virtually anyone who owns a home in San Francisco, no matter how modest that person's income may be, can join the top one percent instantly just by selling their house.

I've already addressed the point on selling a million dollar house.

On top of this, I'll note the average number of houses sold in the entire city of SF in one year is around 400. This includes condos as well as 2-4 unit buildings.

There were 323,067 tax returns with adjusted gross income of $1 million or more in 2008.

Now that 400 are accounted for by San Francisco home sales, only 322, 667 more to go. Of course in reality only a fraction, very likely a tiny fraction of that 400 actually went straight to capital gains of even $500,000.

Mr. Sowell gets a big raspberry for accuracy on this point.

Next point:

At the highest income levels, people are especially likely to be transient at that level. Recent data from the Internal Revenue Service show that more than half the people who were in the top one percent in 1996 were no longer there in 2005.
Among the top one-hundredth of one percent, three-quarters of them were no longer there at the end of the decade.
These are not permanent classes but mostly people at current income levels reached by spikes in income that don't last.

Again, what Mr. Sowell says is true in a literal sense.

What's missing? The study in question - in presentation form here: http://www.national-economists.org/gov/auten.pdf - specifically notes that while 3/4s of the top 0.01% in 1996 were no longer in that category in 2005, that 80% of them were still in the top 1%.

The 1% categories in 1996: $284,603
The 1% categories in 2005: $463,615

Annual rate of change in 1% cutoff: 5%
Annual CPI increase: 2.2%

I cannot find the 0.01% cutoff point for 1996, but for 2005 it is somewhere north of $10,000,000 income: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05inrate.pdf

As a comparison point:

0.57% of returns in 1996 showed $1M or more in AGI
0.57% of returns in 2005 showed $5M or more in AGI.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/96inrate.pdf

Should we be surprised that many of the 1996 top 1%, and presumably the 0.01% as well, fell out of their categories given that the base numbers for each increased more than twice the rate of inflation for the 1% and increased nearly 8 times the rate of inflation for the top 0.57%?

Mr. Sowell, raspberry #2

The rest of the article rehashes previous points, equally from the same hit piece.

Last note: One very plausible reason for why the 1996 and 2005 tax data show such changes is: the banksters

http://www.law.upenn.edu/academics/i...l%20Street.pdf

In this study, bankster compensation is examined vs. many factors including athlete salaries. The rise of the banksters in the post Glass Steagall era itself could easily explain the AGI threshold changes as well as the purported 'mobility' changes noted in the study referred to by Sowell.

So if I have money sitting in a bank deposit account, it "doesn't do anything for anyone beyond the immediate possessor"? Yet those deposits act as bank reserves, which in turn make it possible for banks to create loans -- which people use buy houses, start or expand businesses, etc. In the absence of manipulation, the amount of deposits available strongly drives interest rates.

Given that bank deposits today clearly don't matter, I'd say your assertion lacks merit. Toss in the 'absence of manipulation' and the concept of deposits making any difference whatsoever to lending is right now a purely theoretical link.

Or have you swallowed the tired Marxist argument that "labor" creates everything of value, and capital has nothing to do with it?

If you've followed anything at all on what I post, you should know that Marxist theory has progressed since the 1800s. Thorsten Veblen, Nitzan and Bichler, and so forth have long since started addressing the concept of Capital in the Marxist unit value of labor conceptual framework.

Marx's erroneous assumption was that capital in his era was purely a function of either government or industry. Capital in pure monetary form was largely useless outside of either context. Obviously this is not true today.

And I personally don't consider Capital to be evil.

On the other hand, I don't consider Capital to be the end-all, be-all either.

There is a balance between the two, but today we've clearly swung very, very far on the side of Capital.

So you believe government can successfully legislate equal opportunity? I think that's impossible.

I think that whether it is impossible or not, it should be a goal.

I don't subscribe to the notion that something desirable should not be undertaken simply because the accomplishment isn't guaranteed.

Does supply and demand enter the picture anywhere, in your view? There are only a limited number of doctors, for example. Are they not to have any say in who they see or how much they charge? Looking at it from the provider's point of view, ensuring "equal opportunity" sounds an awful lot like slavery.

You're rehashing old and tired arguments. I've repeatedly asked those who make statements about "limited number of doctors = limited amount of medical care" to back these up with any type of evidence that there is a shortage of doctors.

Secondly you are again making the assumption that having a public option in health care requires the 'enslavement' of doctors via a 'public option only' health care system.

First of all, a Canada style 'public option' only health care system isn't the only public option choice. Europe and the wealthier parts of Asia all have public options along with private systems. Australia and New Zealand also have public systems along with private practices. In Australia and Russia, both places I've had direct contact with health care, doctors often practice in both public and private systems.

The US is the only one which has a purely 'private' system, and it frankly sucks.

And what about the money taken from me and others like me to fund these services? Do I no longer have a right to pursue my own happiness, using the fruits of my labor?

Sure you do, but the fruits of society that you enjoy are paid for by the collective taxation. Unless you can demonstrate how you completely avoid all these benefits while being a part of said society, why then do you insist that you shouldn't pay for them?

There are plenty of places where there is neither taxation nor the fruits of society.

[c1ue]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

The source is the Heritage Foundation; say what you want about their credibility, but their data indicates new accessions from the top quintile account for 22% of total accessions.

First note: 22% vs. the top 20% income bracket is hardly a significant over-representation especially if the career military aspect is considered.

Secondly the Heritage report I found doesn't speak at all towards the overall population, it only speaks in detail about enlisted recruits.

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...s-and-officers

Looking at this data, and armed with the knowledge that the top quintile in the 2008 Census report was defined as an income of 100,000 or more, we examine this graph from the Heritage report:



According to this, less than 4% of all non-prior service enlisted recruits are from the top 20% bracket - this bracket being defined by the US Census as the $100,000 income level for 2008.

Certainly doesn't support the headline Heritage foundation assertion.

But then, looking at the Heritage Foundation's income data:



The Heritage data says the top quintile is $65K and up for 2006 and 2007, but the 2004 Census says the income at the 80% threshold is $88K: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf with the 2008 threshold being $100K.

I'd say this report is highly flawed. By playing with the top quintile threshold, the appearance of the wealthy's contribution towards military manpower is greatly exaggerated.

Hereditary lineage in the military doesn't work the way your post implies. There is no such thing as "a [blood]line of colonels and generals." The people you think represent that group have, in fact, gone through the entire rank structure all the way from 2nd Lieutenant to Colonel or one of the flag officer paygrades. So at any given time one may have been a Colonel or General Officer, but their son/daughter and grandson/granddaughter certainly were not. All of them have deployed with battalions, squadrons, and ships not only as the Commanding Officers when they reach their apex paygrades, but also numerous times before that when they were just Division Officers or Platoon Commanders and every paygrade in between. Your snobbish post implies that officers don't fight--maybe you should tell that to the families of Vice Admiral James Stockdale, Major Megan McClung, and the many officers that are currently in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the ones that have parents that are or were in the service as senior officers.

By saying, "A 3 generation line of colonels and generals can hardly be said to be a regular part of the population even if they are all in the upper quintile in income," you are essentially claiming that they "shouldn't count" in this discussion. That is bullshit. A professional military force such as ours will have the children of its personnel inspired to join it quite often, and there is no shame or discount to that.

As I said in this post, the data was for accessions and not what paygrade they become after they join--if that were the case, the portion of personnel that the upper quintile makes would actually be significantly higher like around 60%. I see what you mean now when you mention pilots, but that is not relevant to accessions.

I'm not sure where you're getting the "generals don't fight" meme from.

Certainly I didn't say it.

My point was simple: a career military family can hardly be said to be part of the regular population. Significant numbers of career military families which are in the top income quintile, which generals and colonels definitely fall into the income category of, would clearly distort the numbers.

I'd also note that accessions count re-enlistments as well - certainly the no-prior service numbers do not support the 22% number in any way.

Buffett is full of shit on this issue. Complete hackery

I'd say from looking at the Heritage report, that Buffett is thus far more accurate.

[c1ue]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

I have no idea why you insist on being condescending on such a regular basis. The link you provided is just BLS data. I'm asking how YOU are defining and calculating "disposable income" since what you calculate looks nothing like the definition of disposable income that I am familiar with.

I'm being condescending because you're not even trying to understand the point.

The average household spending for all areas - entertainment or whatever - is the best possible definition of spending.

The remaining unspent income is therefore clearly disposable in the household's own view.

If you want to make new categories or define disposable income more closely, then go to the source of data, compute, and present your own counterpoint.

[Ghent12]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

First note: 22% vs. the top 20% income bracket is hardly a significant over-representation especially if the career military aspect is considered.

Over-representation isn't the issue at all. Buffett says, with rhetorical flourish, that the rich don't contribute anything and that the poor and middle class supply it all. He is absolutely incorrect in a semantic and an intended sense, and definitely not "far more accurate."

It should be noted that you're quoting enlisted accession data which is from a different report than the one I referenced which utilized 2003 data.

*Correction*: The report I referenced was also for enlisted accessions, not all accessions.

It is indeed odd that Heritage used the 2000 Census data with 2006, 2007, and later data in order to come up with their figures for the enlisted accession report you found, but even accounting for that and using only the enlisted data, which disproportionately weighs lower-income households heavier due to the college degree requirement for commissioning, it is definitely impressive that the upper quintile (defined as $100k or above household income) provide around 3.5% of the enlisted ranks. It's even more if you use the $91,705 figure for the top quintile for 2006 (or was it 2007?) which means about 5% of the enlisted ranks come from those that can definitely afford a college degree. When you consider all accessions, the upper quintile number gets boosted substantially.

Then when you consider the top two quintiles combined (around $60,000 household income, which if they are "struggling middle class" then they are struggling likely due to their own financial ineptitude more than any reason) there is no remaining doubt whatsoever that Buffett is just mindlessly repeating an old myth that has only trace roots in reality. That's just from the enlisted accessions.

It doesn't matter though to some people--people who think Buffett is correct in his assertions that the rich don't serve while the poor and middle class do all the fighting are the type of people that would use enlisted-only data to support that conclusion.

[DSpencer]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

I'm being condescending because you're not even trying to understand the point.

It's just hopeless to have a reasonable discussion with you.

You constantly ask for sources of documentation. Yet you won't even accept the standard definition of the words and phrases you are using.

In my world: Disposable Income ≠ whatever c1ue says it means

The average household spending for all areas - entertainment or whatever - is the best possible definition of spending.

Straw man alert! Nobody is arguing over the definition of spending. Standard c1ue tactic to derail the discussion.

The remaining unspent income is therefore clearly disposable in the household's own view.

It is PART of what makes up disposable income. Net revenue ≠ Gross revenue. Disposable income - spending ≠ disposable income.

Income remaining after spending? This sounds more like a definition of savings:

What Does Savings Mean?
According to Keynesian economics, the amount left over when the cost of a person's consumer expenditure is subtracted from the amount of disposable income that he or she earns in a given period of time.

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/...#ixzz1ZBHgwTY2

If you want to make new categories or define disposable income more closely, then go to the source of data, compute, and present your own counterpoint.

I have no need to make new categories or redefine words. I simply use the accepted definitions. I've given you the correct definitions and formulas of the terms you tried to calculate. If you want to know the real numbers, compute them yourself using proper definitions. There's no reason to make "counterpoints" when we don't even agree on what words mean.

At this point the discussion adds nothing to the forum and simply wastes everyone's time. I doubt anyone's been on their death bed wishing they'd spent more time arguing on the internet.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

The stats for serving and the stats for dieing differ.

"The preponderance of service members who die in the war come from communities with median incomes between $30,000 and $75,000. The communities least impacted had incomes greater than $100,000. The study's author, Lt. Col. Randolph R. Rotte Jr., a U.S. Army War College senior services fellow with the Joint Center, further notes that upper-income families were slightly underrepresented, at 0.5% of fatalities and 0.9% of the U.S. population."