Post by: Tallpine on December 01, 2007, 12:58:16 PM
Quote
roundup of Gallup health polls over the past four years finds that Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to report having excellent mental health.
The survey found that 58 percent of Republicans polled reported having excellent mental health. Only 38 percent of Democrats and 43 percent of Independents reported the same.
The survey found that 58 percent of Republicans polled reported having excellent mental health. Only 38 percent of Democrats and 43 percent of Independents reported the same.
Draw your own conclusions ......
Post by: drewtam on December 01, 2007, 04:12:05 PM
http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/the_demographic.html
Post by: Nitrogen on December 01, 2007, 05:24:35 PM
Post by: Len Budney on December 02, 2007, 04:37:21 AM
Post by: Tallpine on December 02, 2007, 07:35:57 AM
Post by: ilbob on December 02, 2007, 07:39:50 AM
You don't see as many Republican politicians claiming the world is coming to an end as you do Democratic politicians.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 02, 2007, 08:19:40 AM
Conservatives think it's a weakness to admit to having problems. As Newty said, "Conservatives eat their own."
Liberals deny exceptionalism. They think it isn't possible for anyone to be better than anyone else. Thus, if one person has mental problems, all must have mental problems. Those who think they don't have problems must therefore be deluding themselves.Conservatives do eat their own. That's because we expect our leaders to be exceptional. When it turns out that any given leaders isn't exceptional, we try to replace him with someone who is.
I also think it has a lot to do with the never-ending stream of false negativity that Liberals have to buy into. The planet is dying (it isn't), we've lost the war (we're doing pretty well), the economy sucks (far from it), nobody can get ahead (anyone can and lots do), we're all victims (no we aren't), we live in a nation of bigoted racist sexist homophobes (no we don't), rich Republicans are out to get you (yeah right) ...on and on it goes. It's a mental health minefield. If the rank pessimism doesn't depress you, then having to believe things that don't square with reality will wreck your sanity.
Post by: Manedwolf on December 02, 2007, 08:25:46 AM
Conservatives think it's a weakness to admit to having problems. As Newty said, "Conservatives eat their own."
Liberals deny exceptionalism. They think it isn't possible for anyone to be better than anyone else. Thus, if one person has mental problems, all must have mental problems. Those who think they don't have problems must therefore be deluding themselves.Yes. Witness the projection that goes from from the ranting Bradyites, when they babble that touching a gun makes you violent or have violent thoughts. Excuse me? When I touch a gun, my thoughts are either "I like this grip" or "I do not like this grip", and a thought bubble of groups on paper. You think the individual saying such things about the violent thoughts is, in fact, projecting? That they have buried inappropriate rage issues and shouldn't touch a deadly weapon? I think so!
Regarding exceptionalism, the best kid's movie ever if you want your kids to grow up with the RIGHT idea is "The Incredibles". Brad Bird snuck in some nicely subversive conservative thought. Three in particular. A rant about "every day they come up with new ways to celebrate medocrity" in regard to schools (!), a kid's statement that "Saying everyone is special is another way of saying nobody is.", and a villain's plan to make everyone "super" so no-one will be.
I was rather pleased.
And yes, Brad Bird continued that in his latest movie, with a message that while not everyone has certain innate abilities, those who have those abilities can come from any level of privilege or class, and it's up to them and their own efforts to make the most of their gifts and rise with them. I never expected to see the original "American Dream" in a modern movie like that.
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 02, 2007, 08:50:32 AM
Conservatives think it's a weakness to admit to having problems. As Newty said, "Conservatives eat their own."
How are the two statements connected?
I don't agree with the first part, but I think you're close. I think people who don't complain about mental health problems, but choose to go on with life and just try harder, are more likely to be conservative, or on the right-hand side of libertarianism. Boot-straps and rugged individualism, and so forth.
Post by: Len Budney on December 02, 2007, 08:58:14 AM
Conservatives think it's a weakness to admit to having problems. As Newty said, "Conservatives eat their own."
How are the two statements connected?
Showing weakness before one's fellow conservatives is like an alpha male showing weakness to his pack: getting torn apart by wolves.
Quote
I don't agree with the first part, but I think you're close. I think people who don't complain about mental health problems, but choose to go on with life and just try harder, are more likely to be conservative, or on the right-hand side of libertarianism. Boot-straps and rugged individualism, and so forth.
That's the good aspect of denying weakness: it encourages people to overcome. The bad side is that one daren't seek help even when one is overwhelmed. Christian churches can be that way too. We claim we're a "hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints," but in too many cases the consequences of admitting one's problems can be too dire to contemplate.
--Len.
Post by: RevDisk on December 02, 2007, 09:12:25 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,314491,00.html
Draw your own conclusions ......
Quote
roundup of Gallup health polls over the past four years finds that Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to report having excellent mental health.
The survey found that 58 percent of Republicans polled reported having excellent mental health. Only 38 percent of Democrats and 43 percent of Independents reported the same.
The survey found that 58 percent of Republicans polled reported having excellent mental health. Only 38 percent of Democrats and 43 percent of Independents reported the same.
Draw your own conclusions ......
My conclusions are that the study is amusing, but means little to nothing. I love that people are unable to differentiate the fact that it is not a poll of actual mental health, but rather people's perception of their own mental health. "58 percent of Republicans polled reported having excellent mental health", keyword being 'reported'. The test wasn't done by shrinks using objective methods to try to find realistic results.
I'm sure the majority of folks who post here will chuckle and choose treat the numbers as being actual prepresentations of mental health. The poll just says that Republicans are more likely to believe (well, report, but let's assume honesty here) they have good mental health. I'd think it'd be more informative to actually see how many actually are mentally healthy vs how many reported being mentally healthy. ie, are people honest and accurate in their opinion of their mental health.
My apologies for pointing out reality.
Post by: Iain on December 02, 2007, 09:18:57 AM
This comment should be taken as seriously as the original poll. So someone is bound to ignore it, and someone else is likely to fail to read this disclaimer and lay into me.
Post by: El Tejon on December 02, 2007, 09:31:14 AM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 02, 2007, 09:59:58 AM
Conservatives think it's a weakness to admit to having problems. As Newty said, "Conservatives eat their own."
How are the two statements connected?
Showing weakness before one's fellow conservatives is like an alpha male showing weakness to his pack: getting torn apart by wolves.
Quote
I don't agree with the first part, but I think you're close. I think people who don't complain about mental health problems, but choose to go on with life and just try harder, are more likely to be conservative, or on the right-hand side of libertarianism. Boot-straps and rugged individualism, and so forth.
That's the good aspect of denying weakness: it encourages people to overcome. The bad side is that one daren't seek help even when one is overwhelmed. Christian churches can be that way too. We claim we're a "hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints," but in too many cases the consequences of admitting one's problems can be too dire to contemplate.
--Len.
This is one of the underlying issues in most liberal vs conservative disagreements. It's a difference of premises. The conservative is likely to believe that anyone can overcome, that our biggest limitations are self-imposed and needn't be. Liberals are likely to believe that nobody can succeed on their own, we all need help (presumably from government or society), and that it's wrong to deny this truth. The really interesting thing is that both are true for the people who believe them.
Lots of social and political issues resolve down to this difference in premises. We end up debating the issues, each side convinced that we're right. And that's the kicker: we are both right, given the way in which our different premises lead to different real-world outcomes.
I think this poll on self-reported mental health is skirting the edge of something really profound.
Post by: Manedwolf on December 02, 2007, 10:32:42 AM
This is one of the underlying issues in most liberal vs conservative disagreements. It's a difference of premises. The conservative is likely to believe that anyone can overcome, that our biggest limitations are self-imposed and needn't be. Liberals are likely to believe that nobody can succeed on their own, we all need help (presumably from government or society), and that it's wrong to deny this truth. The really interesting thing is that both are true for the people who believe them.
I believe in self-empowerment, and find the typical liberal's attitude to be both defeatist and that of a child wanting mommy to hold their hand, that they can't solve a problem on their own.
Hence, my views.
Post by: griz on December 02, 2007, 12:54:00 PM
I think reality is a little more complex than that.
Post by: member1313 on December 02, 2007, 03:33:24 PM
Yup, it's the Democrats that are nuts.
Post by: Manedwolf on December 02, 2007, 03:38:05 PM
Did you seriously just quote Fox news?
Yup, it's the Democrats that are nuts.
Yup, it's the Democrats that are nuts.
As opposed to what? "These aren't plants, really" CNN? "We're going to use Olbermann as our figurehead" MSNBC?
Post by: Tallpine on December 02, 2007, 03:46:26 PM
Quote
Did you seriously just quote Fox news?
Those that know me fairly well know that I rarely post anything "serious"
Seriously though, I have managed to learn that when poop happens in your life, you can forget about it and try to go on with your life, or else you can get all emotional about it, spend years in counseling and therapy, and then forget about it and try to go on with your life. Either one works, but the former wastes fewer years.
Post by: Len Budney on December 02, 2007, 03:54:28 PM
"Denying weakness" is essentially the same thing as believing you can overcome. It's two sides of the same coin, or rather, the same thing viewed from two different perspectives ("I can do it" vs. "I can't do it").
I guess you could put it that way. When I overcome weakness, I start be acknowledging its existence--I just deny that it's unbeatable. I'm talking about people who deny its existence. They can't overcome what "doesn't exist."
Quote
This is one of the underlying issues in most liberal vs conservative disagreements. It's a difference of premises. The conservative is likely to believe that anyone can overcome, that our biggest limitations are self-imposed and needn't be. Liberals are likely to believe that nobody can succeed on their own, we all need help (presumably from government or society), and that it's wrong to deny this truth.
That's how I liked to view conservatives when I was one, and I still lean toward that viewpoint. But the same people who claim to fear nothing but fear itself, the same "can do" Americans, shake like Jello(tm) for fear that a couple of kooks in a cave are going to topple our government, set up sharia law, exterminate Americans and overthrow western civilization itself. Six idiot Muslim pizza boys actually frightened veterans with their prospective "mass murder" at Fort Dix. Indeed, when I took it for granted that armed, conservative high-roaders would laugh the idea out of the room, and posted with that perspective on THR, I made an enemy for life in Correia, and set the stage for my ultimate ban when the purge came.
So now I'm a bit more cynical. Liberals wobble like jelly for fear that they'll catch cancer without Hillary Care(tm) to fall back on. Conservatives quiver like pudding for fear "Islamo-fascists" will take over their country, destroy their way of life, and eat all their macaroons. Both seem to have major Achilles heels, though.
--Len.
Post by: grampster on December 02, 2007, 04:15:02 PM
PS: The answer to the OP is yes.
Post by: Paddy on December 03, 2007, 07:08:10 AM
Post by: Len Budney on December 03, 2007, 07:10:55 AM
Wake up! The whole 'Republican v Democrat', 'Conservative v. Liberal' thing is just so much pap for the masses. Both parties are full of self serving thieves. They're both pro big government and anti liberty. One borrows and spends, the other taxes and spends. Show me where this Republican president and the last Republican congress exercised any 'conservative' principles.
Whoah, Riley! For a second after reading your post, I thought I wrote it and said to myself, "Damn--I really nailed that!" Then I realized that you wrote it.
Post by: Paddy on December 03, 2007, 07:44:08 AM
National debt grows $1 million a minute
By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer Mon Dec 3, 6:55 AM ET
WASHINGTON - Like a ticking time bomb, the national debt is an explosion waiting to happen. It's expanding by about $1.4 billion a day or nearly $1 million a minute.
ADVERTISEMENT
What's that mean to you?
It means almost $30,000 in debt for each man, woman, child and infant in the United States.
Even if you've escaped the recent housing and credit crunches and are coping with rising fuel prices, you may still be headed for economic misery, along with the rest of the country. That's because the government is fast straining resources needed to meet interest payments on the national debt, which stands at a mind-numbing $9.13 trillion.
And like homeowners who took out adjustable-rate mortgages, the government faces the prospect of seeing this debt now at relatively low interest rates rolling over to higher rates, multiplying the financial pain.
So long as somebody is willing to keep loaning the U.S. government money, the debt is largely out of sight, out of mind.
But the interest payments keep compounding, and could in time squeeze out most other government spending leading to sharply higher taxes or a cut in basic services like Social Security and other government benefit programs. Or all of the above.
A major economic slowdown, as some economists suggest may be looming, could hasten the day of reckoning.
The national debt the total accumulation of annual budget deficits is up from $5.7 trillion when President Bush took office in January 2001 and it will top $10 trillion sometime right before or right after he leaves in January 2009.
That's $10,000,000,000,000.00, or one digit more than an odometer-style "national debt clock" near New York's Times Square can handle. When the privately owned automated clock was activated in 1989, the national debt was $2.7 trillion.
It only gets worse.
Over the next 25 years, the number of Americans aged 65 and up is expected to almost double. The work population will shrink and more and more baby boomers will be drawing Social Security and Medicare benefits, putting new demands on the government's resources.
These guaranteed retirement and health benefit programs now make up the largest component of federal spending. Defense is next. And moving up fast in third place is interest on the national debt, which totaled $430 billion last year.
Aggravating the debt picture: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates could cost $2.4 trillion over the next decade
Despite vows in both parties to restrain federal spending, the national debt as a percentage of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product has grown from about 35 percent in 1975 to around 65 percent today. By historical standards, it's not proportionately as high as during World War II when it briefly rose to 120 percent of GDP, but it's a big chunk of liability.
"The problem is going forward," said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard and Poors, a major credit-rating agency.
"Our estimate is that the national debt will hit 350 percent of the GDP by 2050 under unchanged policy. Something has to change, because if you look at what's going to happen to expenditures for entitlement programs after us baby boomers start to retire, at the current tax rates, it doesn't work," Wyss said.
With national elections approaching, candidates of both parties are talking about fiscal discipline and reducing the deficit and accusing the other of irresponsible spending. But the national debt itself a legacy of overspending dating back to the American Revolution receives only occasional mention.
Who is loaning Washington all this money?
Ordinary investors who buy Treasury bills, notes and U.S. savings bonds, for one. Also it is banks, pension funds, mutual fund companies and state, local and increasingly foreign governments. This accounts for about $5.1 trillion of the total and is called the "publicly held" debt. The remaining $4 trillion is owed to Social Security and other government accounts, according to the Treasury Department, which keeps figures on the national debt down to the penny on its Web site.
Some economists liken the government's plight to consumers who spent like there was no tomorrow only to find themselves maxed out on credit cards and having a hard time keeping up with rising interest payments......................
read the rest of it here
Voting Republican while calling yourself 'conservative' is the height of arrogance and hypocrisy.
Post by: Tallpine on December 03, 2007, 08:15:17 AM
Post by: Fly320s on December 03, 2007, 11:10:52 AM
Quote
What's that mean to you?
It means almost $30,000 in debt for each man, woman, child and infant in the United States.
It means almost $30,000 in debt for each man, woman, child and infant in the United States.
Hell, I'll write a check right now if it means that I won't have to pay taxes anymore.
Post by: Paddy on December 03, 2007, 11:39:17 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on December 03, 2007, 11:40:32 AM
Post by: Paddy on December 03, 2007, 11:46:05 AM
Post by: wooderson on December 03, 2007, 11:54:17 AM
Apparently she (and other people who care far more about electoral politics than I) thinks it can be overcome.
Married women broke for Bush in 2000 and 2004 - almost certainly they move to the Hillary camp against the 'family values' of the GOP front runners (except maybe Huckabee - and I suspect his fundamentalism will awaken dormant feminist tendencies).
I've not met any Latinos who take the "angry white male" stance on Hillary, and with the immigration fiasco they'll almost certainly vote for anyone running as a Democrat to a greater degree than before.
Young people, if they're as active and Democratic-leaning in 2008 as in 2006 won't be put off by Hillary.
Who does Hillary lose that would vote for another Democratic candidate? Maybe some Edwards voters if Huckabee's in the race (anyone run demographic numbers on their support? I suspect there's interesting overlap). But if you're willing to vote for Obama, Hillary isn't a deal-breaker.
Post by: Manedwolf on December 03, 2007, 11:55:32 AM
Post by: wooderson on December 03, 2007, 11:56:34 AM
All shrinking violets, to be sure.
Post by: Paddy on December 03, 2007, 11:58:51 AM
Quote
I do think that the irrational hatred of Hillary - as readily demonstrated throughout APS - is an issue, but there are fewer people with mommy issues about powerful women now than 15 years ago (though some remain, as evidenced by the nutcracker thread...).
That phobia comes from Rush and that other thumbsucking meathead "you'reagreatamerican Hannity" with his 'stop hillary express' evangelism. They both have a large following of koolaid drinking suckers who hang on their every word.
Post by: SomeKid on December 03, 2007, 04:34:00 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on December 03, 2007, 06:32:52 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 03, 2007, 06:41:22 PM
Besides, our masters have now instructed us to hate Ron Paul.
Post by: wooderson on December 03, 2007, 06:55:20 PM
Post by: marine 1 on December 03, 2007, 08:10:02 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 04, 2007, 04:23:44 AM
Post by: Sergeant Bob on December 04, 2007, 05:11:12 AM
Huh?
Quoted for truth. Who brought up gearge, ferenheight 911 and Micheal Moore?
Post by: Tallpine on December 04, 2007, 08:03:57 AM
Quote
Who brought up gearge, ferenheight 911 and Micheal Moore?
Some crazy democrat, I'd guess
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 04, 2007, 01:59:58 PM
That's how I liked to view conservatives when I was one, and I still lean toward that viewpoint. But the same people who claim to fear nothing but fear itself, the same "can do" Americans, shake like Jello(tm) for fear that a couple of kooks in a cave are going to topple our government, set up sharia law, exterminate Americans and overthrow western civilization itself...Conservatives quiver like pudding for fear "Islamo-fascists" will take over their country, destroy their way of life, and eat all their macaroons.
Which one of you conservatives told Len about how we're all sleeping under our beds? We weren't supposed to tell anyone.
But I hope he's impressed that I can type so well with all the quivering.
Post by: Len Budney on December 04, 2007, 04:42:55 PM
That's how I liked to view conservatives when I was one, and I still lean toward that viewpoint. But the same people who claim to fear nothing but fear itself, the same "can do" Americans, shake like Jello(tm) for fear that a couple of kooks in a cave are going to topple our government, set up sharia law, exterminate Americans and overthrow western civilization itself...Conservatives quiver like pudding for fear "Islamo-fascists" will take over their country, destroy their way of life, and eat all their macaroons.
Which one of you conservatives told Len about how we're all sleeping under our beds? We weren't supposed to tell anyone.
Hey. You're scared enough to think that invading Iraq is the only way to save your life.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 04, 2007, 05:04:29 PM
Post by: Len Budney on December 04, 2007, 05:37:18 PM
He thinks that? Says who? Where?
Yawn. OK, end the occupation and withdraw.
"YAAAAAAGH! WE CAN'T DO THAT! We have to fight them over there, or else we'll have to fight them over here! Islamo-fascism!"
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 04, 2007, 05:54:33 PM
Post by: Ned Hamford on December 05, 2007, 05:00:22 PM
I think we've figured out who's crazy.
:takes out a piece of chalk:
:draws a circle and writes 'sane' within it:
:Steps in circle and looks out at everyone else:
Post by: gunsmith on December 07, 2007, 01:27:57 AM
He said that "you can't decide on one issue alone" so I told him to call the police and I'll wait right here for them to arrest me
I had them yell and scream and get all blood lusty and stuff, just because I am firm on gun issues.
Gun grabbers simply never get my vote.
They certainly came off as unstable, many American voters are like my sister, she won't vote for Hillary because she doesn't like her (she hates reading the news or figuring out issues, she's anti gun too)
She might be voting for Edwards because "he seems like a nice man"
Who ever Howard Stern backs gets her vote.
Post by: grampster on December 09, 2007, 04:04:55 PM
At least we got a couple of good things out of the R's. Tax cuts and a nudge back toward the center/right in our federal courts as well as weakening gun control. How many states would have passed Shall Issue, Castle Doctrine, and No Retreat laws if the WH and the H and S were back in full democrat control. There would have been horrendous Fed pressure on the States to back off these things. Look what happened with .08 as drunk. Fed says do it or no road money. Doesn't matter that over 90% of injury/fatal accidents are caused by those testing over .15.
It will be interesting what happens in SCOTUS with the DC gun ban reversal.
Today, America works best when we have a divided government. We get gridlock and that is a good thing for those of us who work, produce, keep the economy going and generally mind our business.
If the citizenry put the House and Senate back to a substantial majority of real conservatives in the sense they stand for what the Contract With America stood for, it actually would be amusing to see Hilary or Obama or Edwards in the White House.
I don't think all democrats are nuts. But a substantial # of the visible, those with a bully pulpit democrats sure manage to self describe themselves in that way with what they say and do.
Post by: Paddy on December 10, 2007, 05:57:34 AM
Quote
At least we got a couple of good things out of the R's. Tax cuts .....
What good are 'tax cuts' when the Republicans borrow and spend at all time record high levels? How is it good to pass debt and more debt and ever accruing interest down to future generations?
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 10, 2007, 06:15:29 AM
Post by: grampster on December 10, 2007, 09:00:50 AM
C'mon.
Without hijacking the thread in that direction (please) if the military expenditures were not there, the goobermint would be rolling in cash (in theory). In reality they would have found some other way to piss it away.
Google The Contract With America. If they would follow that, AND get serious about expoliting the resources we have in N. America What do you suppose would be the condition of our nation?
Post by: grampster on December 10, 2007, 09:03:24 AM
Rile,
C'mon.You are brighter than your comment. And you are old enough to know better than to make the comment in the manner that you did. Lower taxes are the engine of opportunity for business and prosperity and you know that. The trouble is, when lower taxes provide the impetus and cranks up the economy, the bastards we elect go on a spending spree with all the new money the government gets. It's the spending that's the problem and that crosses party lines.
Without hijacking the thread in that direction (please) if the military expenditures were not there, the goobermint would be rolling in cash (in theory). In reality they would have found some other way to piss it away.
Google The Contract With America. If they would follow that, AND get serious about expoliting the resources we have in N. America What do you suppose would be the condition of our nation?
C'mon.
Without hijacking the thread in that direction (please) if the military expenditures were not there, the goobermint would be rolling in cash (in theory). In reality they would have found some other way to piss it away.
Google The Contract With America. If they would follow that, AND get serious about expoliting the resources we have in N. America What do you suppose would be the condition of our nation?
Post by: Paddy on December 10, 2007, 09:41:53 AM
Quote
The trouble is, when lower taxes provide the impetus and cranks up the economy, the bastards we elect go on a spending spree with all the new money the government gets. It's the spending that's the problem and that crosses party lines.
Which is exactly what I said. What difference does it make whether Democrats overspend on 'social programs' or Republicans overspend on war? The result either way is that we, and our children, and our grandchildren on down the line are stuck with the bill. And no amount of tax cuts are going to pay that bill; it will be borne by the middle class (as it always has been), who will be ripped off for the fruits of our labor.
Bush's tax cuts did help the middle class, indirectly. In reality, they were designed to accomodate the very wealthy, who derived more than three times as much benefit from them as did the middle class, who pay the largest amount of taxes.
Quote
Lower taxes are the engine of opportunity for business and prosperity and you know that.
That's been the sales pitch all along, but fewer are buying it today, because fewer are reaping that 'prosperity'. Look around you; more and more people are working more and more hours just to stay even. It takes two full time paychecks to raise, feed and house a family. The middle class is evaporating as corporations and the wealthy shift more income to themselves and away from the working middle class. And puh-leeze don't start with the failed 'trickle down economics' mantra. Reagan's tax cuts did create millions of jobs. The problem is, they were all overseas in mostly third world countries.
Yes, we know who's crazy here, and it's neither Democrats nor Republicans. It's the fools who keep voting both of them into office.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 10, 2007, 02:19:38 PM
National defense is a legitimate and necessary purpose of FedGov. In fact, it's the prime reason we have a FedGov at all. To call it "overspending" when it is both appropriate and necessary is, again, either misleading or dishonest.
The notion that the Iraq war is bankrupting the nation is Democrat propaganda that way too many people are falling for. They may be crazy, but people still listen...
Post by: grampster on December 10, 2007, 02:44:05 PM
The Tax Foundation
2001 L Street, N.W.
Suite 1050
Washington, D.C. 20036
202.464.6200
October 5, 2007
Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data
by Gerald Prante
Fiscal Fact No. 104
The latest release of Internal Revenue Service data on individual income taxes comes from calendar year 2005, a year in which the economy remained healthy and continued to grow, as well as a year with higher-than-average price inflation.
This year's numbers show that both the income share earned by the top 1 percent and the tax share paid by the top 1 percent have reached all-time highs. In 2005, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 39.4 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 21.2 percent of adjusted gross income, both of which are significantly higher than 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of AGI and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes.
(Note: For a detailed paper on the distribution of the entire U.S. fiscal system, including all federal and state and local taxes, read Who Pays Taxes and Who Receives Government Spending? An Analysis of Federal, State and Local Tax and Spending Distributions, 1991 - 2004.)
The IRS data also shows increases in individual incomes across all income groups (see Table 3). Just as the highest earners lost the biggest percentage of their incomes during the recession of 2001, so they have prospered the most as the economy has continued to rebound. For example, from 2000 to 2002, the adjusted gross income (AGI) of the top 1 percent of tax returns fell by over 26 percent. In that same period, the AGI of the bottom 50 percent of tax returns actually increased by 4.3 percent. However, since 2002, as the recession has ended, AGI has risen by 61 percent for the top 1 percent and 10.7 percent for the bottom 50 percent.
In sum, between 2000 and 2005, pre-tax income for the top 1 percent group grew by 19.1 percent. On the other hand, in that same time period, pre-tax income for the bottom 50 percent increased by 15.5 percent.
This pattern of income loss and growth at the top of the income spectrum is the same during every recession and recovery. The net result has also been a sharp rise in federal government tax revenue from 2003-2005 compared to previous years.
The IRS data below include all of the 132.6 million tax returns filed in 2005 that had a positive AGI, not just the returns from people who earn enough to owe taxes. From other IRS data, we can see that 90.6 million of the tax returns came from people who paid taxes into the Treasury. That leaves 42 million tax returns filed by people with positive AGI who used exemptions, deductions and tax credits to completely wipe out their federal income tax liability. Not only did they get back every dollar that the federal government withheld from their paychecks during 2005; but some even received more back from the IRS. This is a result of refundable tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit, which are not included in the aggregate percentile data here.
Including all tax returns that had a positive AGI, those taxpayers with an AGI of $145,283 or more in 2005 constituted the nation's top 5 percent of earners. To break into the top 1 percent, a tax return had to have an AGI of $364,657 or more. These numbers are up significantly from 2003 when the equivalent thresholds were $130,080 and $295,495. Top incomes in 2005 are also continuing to surpass the peak they reached in 2000. At the height of the boom and bubble, $313,469 was the threshold to break into the top 1 percent, and then it fell to $285,424 in 2002 only to finally recover fully last year.
The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns.
Average tax rates increased once again as the economy continues to grow, even though there were no significant pieces of tax legislation enacted in 2005. Overall, the average tax rate for returns with a positive liability went from 11.9 percent to 12.1 percent from 2003 to 2004 and then up to 12.5 percent for 2005. (Note this does not include any refundable credits.)
The 2003 tax cut was the second in three years, but the tax code still remains highly progressive. The average tax rate in 2005 ranges from 2.98 percent of income for the bottom half of the earning spectrum to 23.13 percent for the top 1 percent.
I do agree with your last sentence.
Your comment about social programs vs war is a bit skewed though. Wars end, but I don't think any social program has done anything but grow and grow and grow and grow. We have several generations now that believe their "job" is to be supported by the government programs. Those folks help keep some very questionable people in office because they know those folks, like Teddy Kennedy are their meal ticket. Most of those folks can't pull themselves out of that tragedy of human bondage because their families have been broken down by government fiat and they have no history in their families of any kind of work having any meaning. Don't get me wrong, I don't blame them. It's just that they don't know any different because government has oppressed them for so many generations. They have been trained up to believe that living like they do is their lot and the socialists like Kennedy and his ilk constantly promotes it and is supported by the Jesse Jacksons et al. Men like Bill Cosby are mocked by trying to give others a sense of worth and hope, and elevate a piece of skeet like Sharpton, who preys on and secures their misery while lining his pocket.
I just can't understand why men and women that can reason and have a kind heart can't see this tragedy that goes on and on and on......
Post by: Paddy on December 11, 2007, 07:07:12 AM
Quote
This year's numbers show that both the income share earned by the top 1 percent and the tax share paid by the top 1 percent have reached all-time highs. In 2005, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 39.4 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 21.2 percent of adjusted gross income, both of which are significantly higher than 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of AGI and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes
The comparison here is AGI (Adjusted Gross Income) to the percentage off ALL federal income taxes paid. AGI (line 37 on the 1040) is not the same as Total Income (line 22 on the 1040) AGI is net of a number of downward adjustments to income typically available to wealthy people who have the disposable income to afford these write offs. Why weren't Total Income numbers included in the piece?
Quote
However, since 2002, as the recession has ended, AGI has risen by 61 percent for the top 1 percent and 10.7 percent for the bottom 50 percent.
AGI again. How much has Total Income risen for the top 50%? Even if the author had presented the answer, it would be relatively meaningless, as half the working middle class are included in the top 50%. Nonetheless, still an obvious obfuscation and attempt to mislead the reader.
Quote
In sum, between 2000 and 2005, pre-tax income for the top 1 percent group grew by 19.1 percent. On the other hand, in that same time period, pre-tax income for the bottom 50 percent increased by 15.5 percent.
Quote
he top 1 percent, a tax return had to have an AGI of $364,657 or more. These numbers are up significantly from 2003 when the equivalent thresholds were $130,080 and $295,495. Top incomes in 2005 are also continuing to surpass the peak they reached in 2000. At the height of the boom and bubble, $313,469 was the threshold to break into the top 1 percent, and then it fell to $285,424 in 2002 only to finally recover fully last year.
19.1 percent of $364,657 is $69,650. That's the minimum increase in AGI (again the increase in total income was much greater, but the author chooses not to reveal this data). OTOH the bottom 50% had incomes of <$30, 000. 15.5 percent of $30,000 is $4650 at a maximum.
Neither does the author disclose what percentage of either Total Income or AGI for that matter each group pays in income tax.
You then revert to the sermon on social programs while defending war expenditures. Overspending has the same destructive result, no matter what the purpose. I will tell you this, though. Spending on 'social programs' will increase as more of the middle class drop into near poverty levels and the wealthy get wealthier.
Post by: Paddy on December 11, 2007, 07:12:40 AM
Quote
FedGov spends more on medicare/medicaid in six months than it has on the entire Iraq war to date. Ditto for social security. To compare the "Republican" wars with Democrat's socialism is misleading at best, and an outright lie at worst......................The notion that the Iraq war is bankrupting the nation is Democrat propaganda that way too many people are falling for.
Not a real comparison. Your Iraq 'war' is financed with income taxes, borrowing against future income taxes, and theft from the Social Security funds. OTOH, Social Security and Medicare payments are financed with payroll taxes. Your 'war' has no income support, only expenses.
According to you, Iraq is not all that expensive. And supposedly Bush's tax cuts (for the wealthy) have increased federal collections. So what is the source of the record deficits and why is the national debt under Bush at an all time high?