See if our Paparazzi cameras caught you or your friends at any recent events around town.
“O memory, where is now my youth,
Who used to say that life was truth?”
What do the shades whisper to you today?
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
That’s good news for the West End area and for the city. It was a shame when the little grocery store on that block closed, hopefully they’ll get that going again too.
I despise hypocrites:
“All that Hollywood cash has helped pay for ads hammering Mitt Romney for maximizing profits by shipping American jobs overseas during his time at the helm of Bain Capital. But Hollywood knows a thing or two about outsourcing too.
Movie-making is big business, of course. And, when it comes to maximizing profits, the President’s top celebrity supporters have benefited from from outsourcing, Hollywood-style.
Here’s a fresh example: “The Dark Knight Rises,” starring Morgan Freeman (who recently gave Priorities USA, the Obama SuperPAC, $1 million) and Ann Hathaway (who is co-hosting an Obama fundraiser with Harvey Weinstein tonight). There is no more quintessentially American city than Gotham. But where were half the Gotham scenes shot? In the United Kingdom and China. Going overseas may have meant fewer jobs for American workers, but, presumably some tax breaks and fewer union rules.”
As Obama & co. continue the class warfare populist agenda, a few facts. From the CBO:
The bottom 20% of income earners pay .03% of all taxes.
The middle 20%, 9.4%.
The top 20%, 67.9%.
As to the so-called “destruction” of the “middle class”:
The middle fifth of income earners has grown 33% since 1979. The CBO goes on to say the portrayal of such strata, regardless of % strata, as stagnant is false. Most Americans moving up & down at various times in their lives. The most common pattern being starting at lower levels and rising over time.
#2 Who is the hypocrite in the passage you cite, 89hoo? Surely not Morgan Freeman or Ann Hathaway. The decision to move filming overseas would have been made by the producer, director and studio, not by the actors. Blaming them would be like blaming a factory worker when his company moves jobs overseas.
The “one percenters”, the rich and super-rich, on average pay more of their income in taxes than do the middle class.
During the 2000s, the top 5% averaged 28.4% of the total income and paid 40.3% of the total taxes collected.
The IRS reported that the top 400 taxpayers, those with an average income of $200 million, paid 19.9% of their adjusted gross income in federal income taxes in 2009, well above the rate paid by the middle class.
Those with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000 paid about 12% of their adjusted gross income on average.
During the 2000s, the top 5% averaged 28.4% of the total income and paid 40.3% of the taxes collected.
In 2007, the bottom 40% of the population received 14.9% of the total income and only paid 5.9% of all fed. taxes. And more and more Americans (45% of households) don’t pay any income taxes.
The libeals will claim most of those 45% non-payers are hit by the payroll tax (Social Security and Medicare) but about 20% of those households don’t pay either fed. income or payroll taxes. And SS and Medicare payments are returned later.
Obama and the Dems are not as concerned about “fairness” in taxes as they are about promoting class envy in order to gain votes.
Not to mention the people that doubtless went with them to make that movie. It is not remotely the same thing as replacing all of the workers as Romney et al have done all too often. Guaranteed some scenes were filmed here, editing, distributing, sound, special effects, wardrobe, etc. as well. Just not the same.
6 – why not?
4 – the hypocrites are the Hollyweird industry iteself (I’m sure there are exceptions) that blasts Romney for outsourcing. You don’t find that a little disingenuous?
The top 1% earns between 10% and 20% of all income in this country, and holds 30% of the wealth. To repeat….30% of the wealth held by 1% of the population.
It’s only “class warfare” when the other 99% fight back.
Of course, this grid is 3 years old. The 1% has likely made further gains.
People are not as easily fooled as some on this thread would wish, and that graph points to a country headed for revolution.
The income distribution within the United States, in terms of percentages, rival those of third-world countries like Zimbabwe, where the elite 1% bring in and own a vastly larger portion of income and wealth than the bottom 80-90% or so. The only reason people stateside are not fighting more is that, for now anyway, our standard of living is so much higher than the third-world countries with similar income inequalities. But, as wages for the working class continue to remain stagnant, and inflationary pressure on food, transportation, housing, healthcare, etc. continue to reduce discretionary spending for families, the standard of living will continue to decline for the majority in this country…and eventually it will hit a point when people wake up and wonder just what the hell happened.
People have, to a large extent, fought the declining purchasing power of their incomes by working second jobs, having their spouses work, or taking out large sums of debt through credit cards, HELOCS, etc. to maintain lifestyles. We saw with the debts, that such a course was not sustainable…because when the bills came due for all those people who were tapped out, they couldn’t pay the piper…and the economy collapsed under the weight of foreclosures, bankruptcies, and reduced economic spending, which fueled job cuts, declines in growth, and even further bankruptcies and foreclosures and reductions in spending (endless spiral anyone?).
I do not foresee us ever returning to the overall levels of middle class prosperity that were experienced after WWII into the early 1970′s. Perhaps it was not sustainable, or perhaps the implements put into place at the government and economic level that fueled that growth have been systematically deconstructed by a select few, seeking to squeeze the profit from the economy for their own well-being, at the expense of society.
I tend to believe the latter, because empirical and historical evidence indicates that to be true.
Because 89Hoo, movies have been made “on location” for decades. They are jobs that come back instead of jobs that stay gone too. I just do not see a comparison. Now if a studio up and moves to China, you will have a very valid comparison.
Indeed Kristen! “One of the more interesting documents published by the IRS — I know, I know, not the hardest criterion in the world — is its report on the income and taxes of the top 400 taxpayers (pdf). A lot of attention gets focused, rightly, on the remarkably low average tax rate these people pay — less than 17 percent in 2007, the lowest on record.
But I was struck by something else: in several years during the last decade the top 400 accounted for more than 10 percent of all capital gains income in America. Just 400 people!”
11 – “on location” in Gotham City? Gotham City is in the United Kingdom and China? First, I never knew Gotham City was a real city; second, I had always heard it was NYC thinly disguised (have often heard NYC referred to as Gotham, in fact); third, how does that work, Gotham City being located in both the UK and China?
12 – Ironic that Krugman would be pushing bubbles so hard, given that it benefits about 400 people (and he got actually got that one right…I guess even a blind pig can find an acorn occasionally).
4. Jim Lucas – You left out 40% of the inocme. Who pays the other 40%?
9. “The top 1% earns between 10% and 20% of all income in this country, and holds 30% of the wealth…”
Duh, wealth generally grows over time unless mismanaged. That is not rocket science. The rich get richer, so what. That is true for the middle class as well, just in their case the numbers aren’t as large and as my link shows, the middle class is enlarging, not shrinking.
That is the way it always has been, is now, and will be forever.
Maybe Kristen belives that wealth above a certain level should be confiscated from the “rich” and given to those that did nothing to deserve it. Who decides what too much wealth is and what is “fair”?
The wealthy are not wealthy because they made others poor. The size of the pie is not constant, life is not a zero sum game.
Oh, I forgot, “you didn’t build that”! Wealth belongs to others seems to be the liberal’s message!
Class envy runs deep on this blog.
16. John R – Life may not be zero sum, but wealth most certainly is.
#15 Rich, you’d have to ask the CBO. My guess is it has to do with demographic spill-over. Lower-middle, upper-middle, etc.
The point is, lower, middle, upper. Talk to the CBO & perhaps you can get them to break it down to as much minutiae as you prefer.
As usual, there are several ways to look at the pie.
“The fact of the matter is that the American tax code as a whole is almost perfectly flat. The bottom 20% of earners make 3% of the income and pay 2% of the taxes; the middle 20% make 11% and pay 10%; and the top 1% make 21% and pay 22%. Steve Forbes couldn’t have drawn it up any better.”
CBO has lots of “supplemental tables” you can download and study:
“Although the detailed data that form the basis of CBO’s estimates in this report are available only through 2009, other data can provide some insight into more-recent changes in the distribution of income. Those data suggest that income for households toward the higher end of the distribution increased more rapidly than income for households elsewhere in the income distribution in 2010.
Share of Tax Liabilities Increases with Income
Because average federal tax rates rise with income, the share of federal taxes paid by higher-income households exceeded their share of before-tax income, and the opposite was true for lower-income households.
In 2009, the shares of federal taxes paid by households in certain income quintiles were:
Lowest quintile: 0.3 percent
Middle quintile: 9.4 percent
Highest quintile: 67.9 percent
Declines in before-tax income among households in the top income percentile lowered their share of tax liabilities from 26.7 percent in 2007 to 22.3 percent in 2009.
Average Before-Tax Income for All Households Fell 12 Percent from 2007 to 2009 in Real (Inflation-Adjusted) Terms
In 2009, the shares of total before-tax income (which includes government transfer payments, such as Social Security benefits) received by households in certain income quintiles were:
Lowest quintile: 5.1 percent
Middle quintile: 14.7 percent
Highest quintile: 50.8 percent”
It is just not as dire as the wealth protectors want you to believe.
#20 Nothing new here (especially since the data is dated), bet I bet you might have missed this:
“Declines in before-tax income among households in the top income percentile lowered their share of tax liabilities from 26.7 percent in 2007 to 22.3 percent in 2009.”
And, “Average Before-Tax Income for All Households Fell 12 Percent from 2007 to 2009 in Real (Inflation-Adjusted) Terms.”
Or, in reverse of an old saying, a lowering tide grounds all boats. And all tax base (revenues).
#17 Richard, “Life may not be zero sum, but wealth most certainly is.”
To me that does not make any economic sense! Maybe you could elaborate as to exactly what you mean.
Are you saying that as assets grow, ie. wealth; that another part of the economy shrinks?
I do not think that as an individual’s portfolio increases in value that there is a corresponding negative effect on the economy.
Do you really believe that as a person accumulates wealth that someone else suffers? Think of all those accountants, financial analysts, tax lawyers, investment companies, etc., that collect fees! Not to mention taxes paid.
It’s called capitalism! A rising tide lifts all boats!
Seriously Jim Lucas? Desperation does not become you. Yeah, I “missed” them so badly, they are in my post.
BTW, is the data in your #3 more “recent”? What CBO report are your numbers from?
Not for nothing, but being “grounded” in a 30 million dollar yacht is not quite as tough as being grounded in a dinghy.
To #17 (Richard) and #22 (John R): In 1790 (the year of the first US census), the US population was 3,929,214. In 2011, it reached 311,591,917. 79 times as much.
If wealth is truly “zero sum” (never being created nor destroyed, but simply being shifted around from one person to another), then the average American of 1790 was nearly eighty times as wealthy as the typical American today. They had no electricity, no cars, and no computers. Three generations of family were typically squeezed into homes of less than 1000 square feet. Life expectancy was less than 40 years. And despite all this, they were wealthier than most Americans today can ever hope to achieve.
“It’s called capitalism! A rising tide lifts all boats!”
LOL. “yabba dabba doo”. ” Scooby Dooby Doo”. Seriously, a popular quote doesn’t make for reality. Laughable.
Give it up 89Hoo. Liberals always have a rationalization or justification of why their failures to practice what they preach are not hypocritical. Even if they do see the hypocrisy, they will never admit it.
Christian, a couple of points. First, once again you are being purposely obtuse. The “workers” in this case command tremendous salaries that are enabled by a film’s profitability. Everyone involved knows the films are more profitable if they reduce costs by filming overseas. So they celebs that are donating are able to donate such exhorbitant amounts because of outsourcing. Second, are you saying that Obama doesn’t also take money from the producers, directors and film makers that you cite as being responsible for outsourcing?
#23 The mosr recent one, Ms. Saunders, perhaps the same as you cite (thank you) July 10, 2012:
#24 I don’t have a yacht or a dinghy, but do know there are no dinghies without some yachts.
Kristen….I’m not really interested in being lectured to about equality & tolerance by someone who told me that she didn’t care if I died because I disagreed with her about seatbelts:
“You misinterpret me, Jim Lucas, and maybe a post or two of mine is missing here. I most specifically do not care, as you and your continued existance are of no importance to me.”
#25 Absolutely correct. Beat me to the punch.
I am still trying to wrap my head around how agreeing that you have the right to make a stupid choice (re: seat-belts) that might well end in your own death or injury (or that we should “care” if you don’t), is the equivalent of rejecting an opinion on gay rights? Maybe some do need a few “lectures”. It seems to me that anyone against the gay community having equal rights has no standing to speak to equality & tolerance.
I’m sorry, Jim Lucas. I suppose a more caring liberal would be earnestly trying to change your mind about seat belt usage in the interests of your continued longevity. Oh well.
#31 Yes, Ms. Saunders we know, but thanks for again reminding us that tolerance is agreeing with you.
If I was the only person on earth supporting equal rights for gay Americans, then you might have a point. It is not “me” anyone is asking you to “agree” with. Again, rights are not something that is put to a vote.
Jim Lucas – the other 40% is payroll taxes mostly along with some corporate taxes. These taxes are mostly paid by the middle class and must be considered when speaking about who pays what in taxes.
John R and Brian L – there are finite assets in the world, some discovered some not, some valuable some not, but still finite. Those are split among all living beings through various methods, capitalism being one. How they are split and the amount of the asset available is what generally determines its worth. Giving 89hoo his due here, inflation accounts for the growth in wealth??? in most increases simply because you cannot create more of the asset, you can only print mmore money to buy it with.
There are also ideas that are somewhat less limited in quantity. Technology is showing that ideas can be most valuable. Yet the life of the idea is limited by patents, trademarks, theft, and of course new ideas. So their value too are limited and if you have an idea and sell it, I can’t use or sell my idea that is similar. (See Apple vs Google lawsuits).
So if you are making money in your stocks, John R. someone else is indeed losing money unless it is inflation causing the price to go up. If that is the case, then we are all losing (See bubble burst in 2008). The fact of the matter is that except for some timing differences and inflatin, we are still just splitting up the world’s assets. Your wealth means someone else does not have access to those assets or chance to use that idea. Zero Sum!
Name is required
A valid email is required (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Comment is required
Your email address will not be published.All fields are required to comment.
Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:56:04 +0000