Thread: Chavez snubs US

Originally Posted by Judy

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t18.htm

Here is aggregate weekly hours per month. Approximately 100 hours or just over 30 hours a week.

Full-time 40 hours is 160 hours a month.

No, that's bad math again. Full time is 173.33 hours per month. (40 hours/wk X 52 wks/ 12 months)

Originally Posted by Judy

Per capita income is not "wages".

Per capita income is the total population divided by total money income.

Some of this income is stock earnings and interest.

Its total income not just income from wages.

It doesn't matter whether you're working or not in the per capita income.

That's what per capita means.

Oh. I see. That's why the BEA statistic is called PER CAPITA INCOME?

Stop it, Judy. Anyone with a lick of sense can go to the links I provided and see clearly what "per capita income" is ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNMENT AGENCY IN CHARGE OF TRACKING IT!

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

CG,

If you think the average wage is $90K gross you're living a lot better than the hammer-swingers and landscapers I know. IT pros are complaining that their wages are stagnant or dropping into the $40K range.

I normally agree with you, but to me it's 'your' numbers that are looking a bit skewed.

Keep up, Pinestraw. I NEVER said that $90K was the average income and I defy you to show where I did.

If you can keep up, I was separating the "haves" from the "have nots." That's because when determining who can help who to replace the value of federal assistance, you have to first eliminate those who actually require federal assistance. They obviously cannot help themselves if they are already relying on the government programs to which Judy is referring. So you remove those guys from the lot and take a representative figure for the remaining demographic (those NOT on federal assistance). Follow?

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

As for the reason for choosing someone earning between $50K and 100K gross, that's because they, by definition, are the ones whose money is being taken to pay for those who are living at or near the poverty level. It is unrealistic to try to look at how changing the income of the indigent will help the indigent. For that purpose, you have to look to those who already earn enough money to make a difference. I would think that would be an easy premise to grasp.

By eliminating the VAST majority of workers, those in the $25K to $50K demographic, you denigrate the tax contribution of the workers who sacrifice the HIGHEST percentage of their $$$ to the government. Anybody making the money you're talking about is not 'The Average Joe'.

And yes, those of us in that income range ARE indigent, for all intents and purposes.

What do you propose for those of us that your numbers 'forget'?

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by Judy

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t18.htm

Here is aggregate weekly hours per month. Approximately 100 hours or just over 30 hours a week.

Full-time 40 hours is 160 hours a month.

No, that's bad math again. Full time is 173.33 hours per month. (40 hours/wk X 52 wks/ 12 months)

So that's 13 MORE hours away from 'full-time'.

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

As for the reason for choosing someone earning between $50K and 100K gross, that's because they, by definition, are the ones whose money is being taken to pay for those who are living at or near the poverty level. It is unrealistic to try to look at how changing the income of the indigent will help the indigent. For that purpose, you have to look to those who already earn enough money to make a difference. I would think that would be an easy premise to grasp.

By eliminating the VAST majority of workers, those in the $25K to $50K demographic, you denigrate the tax contribution of the workers who sacrifice the HIGHEST percentage of their $$$ to the government. Anybody making the money you're talking about is not 'The Average Joe'.

And yes, those of us in that income range ARE indigent, for all intents and purposes.

What do you propose for those of us that your numbers 'forget'?

Pinestraw, percentage is a meaningless statistic. The fact is that 90% of all taxes are paid by less than 5% of all Americans. The demographic you name is certainly not in that 5%, but thanks for letting me know that you also favor Socialism, whether you are willing to call yourself a Socialist or not. Let's not play games with the numbers here.

You don't even seem to understand what the discussion was, by the way.

Search with Ask George™
Contents
Economy
Per Capita Personal Income Average Wage Wage and Salary Employment Manufacturing Employment Unemployment Rate Washington Export Activity Social-Economic
Population in Poverty Total Births and Births to Unmarried Mothers Families by Family Type and Presence of Children One-Parent and Two-Parent Families Families in Poverty by Household Type Juvenile Arrests for Violent Crimes Language Spoken at Home Educational Attainment Population
Population Change and Net Migration Population Components of Change Age Characteristics of the Population: 1980 Age Characteristics of the Population: 1980-2000 Population by Race Population by Hispanic/Latino Origin Budget Drivers
State Government FTEs Compared to Population K-12 Enrollment Public Higher Education Enrollment Income Assistance (AFDC/TANF) Caseload State-Supported Child Care State-Supported Nursing Home Caseload Medical Assistance Caseload Prison Inmate Population Juvenile Rehabilitation Institutional Population Projected Change in Budget Driver Populations Change in Medical Costs Revenue & Expenditures
Revenues Per Capita Revenues per $1,000 Personal Income State & Local Government Revenue Sources State & Local Taxes per Capita State & Local Taxes per $1,000 Personal Income State & Local Government Expenditures by Function Expenditures per Capita Expenditures per $1,000 Personal Income K-12 Education Expenditures per Capita K-12 Education Expenditures per $1,000 Personal Income Higher Education Expenditures per Capita Higher Education Expenditures per $1,000 Personal Income Corrections Expenditures per Capita Corrections Expenditures per $1,000 Personal Income OFM Home

Per Capita Personal Income
Inflation-Adjusted
to 2005 Dollars

Year Washington U.S.
2005 $35,234 $34,495
2004 $35,691 $34,036
2003 $34,711 $33,221
2002 $35,065 $33,191
2001 $35,264 $33,389
2000 $35,434 $33,277
1999 $34,315 $31,918
1998 $32,967 $31,223
1997 $31,016 $29,703
1996 $29,900 $28,829
1995 $28,837 $28,089
1994 $28,544 $27,591
1993 $28,210 $27,108
1992 $28,212 $27,100
1991 $27,660 $26,594
1990 $27,515 $26,977

Related Maps

Data
next

Washington and U.S. Per Capita Personal Income
1980-2005
Inflation-Adjusted to 2005 Dollars

Personal income includes all income earned by Washington households, including wages, self-employment income, interest, dividends, rent, social security, and other transfer payments.
Washington per capita personal income has been higher than that of the United States overall in almost every year since 1980.
Income from stock options and software industry wages helped boost Washington's per capita income in the late 1990s.
In the fourth quarter of 2004 Microsoft paid a dividend of $3 per share, which increased the growth rate of Washington's personal income in 2004 by three percentage points above what it would have been without the dividend.
Data Sources:

Personal income: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Inflation adjustment: Washington State Economic and Revenue Forecast Council
Last modified: November 22, 2006
E-mail: OFM.Forecasting@ofm.wa.gov
valid xhtml valid css

Office of Financial Management Home | Contact | Privacy Notice | Intended Use

© 2006 Washington State Office of Financial Management

http://www.ofm.wa.gov/trends/tables/fig101.asp

CrocketsGhost ... this is the statement from your link that you posted. It includes working and non-working people. It even includes social security payments and "transfer payments", interest, stock dividends, and rent.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Pinestraw, percentage is a meaningless statistic. The fact is that 90% of all taxes are paid by less than 5% of all Americans. The demographic you name is certainly not in that 5%, but thanks for letting me know that you also favor Socialism, whether you are willing to call yourself a Socialist or not. Let's not play games with the numbers here.

You don't even seem to understand what the discussion was, by the way.

First off, let me say that I have read every post in this thread, and barring some sort of tumor I think I follow it pretty well.

Secondly, I take offense at your implication that I somehow 'support Socialism' because I've made a few comments about the goofy numbers presented.

Thirdly, what numbers am I 'playing with'? I've simply put your's and Judy's into my trusty calculator and 'Voila', the answers come out.

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by Judy

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t18.htm

Here is aggregate weekly hours per month. Approximately 100 hours or just over 30 hours a week.

Full-time 40 hours is 160 hours a month.

No, that's bad math again. Full time is 173.33 hours per month. (40 hours/wk X 52 wks/ 12 months)

So that's 13 MORE hours away from 'full-time'.

Do you have a point, Pinestraw?

The only meaningful number is what an average person brings home. More important even than the skewed numbers that Judy is providing is the TAKE-HOME. That's a function of both income tax and the taxes implicit in every product you buy, the taxes on your home or factored into your rent, etc. Eliminate that vast bire from the government and everyone comes out FAR ahead.

Do you want a good example? Galveston, Texas took advantage of program allowing local governments to privatize their Social Security/ retirement programs back in 1979. By eliminating just the SS and FICA taxes and placing them in private accounts, the municipality was able to increase the retirement earnings to the extent that lifetime employees retire as MILLIONAIRES. That's right. And after retirement, the interest income alone is GREATER than their salaries at the time of retirement.

So if you were able to provide as little as 25% total tax relief, EVERYONE could enjoy these sorts of accounts AND the monies accrued may be passed along to their heirs rather than kept by the government.

THAT, my friend, would be a meaningful change for the benefit of the average American wage-earner.

Originally Posted by Judy

Search with Ask George™
Contents
Economy
Per Capita Personal Income Average Wage Wage and Salary Employment Manufacturing Employment Unemployment Rate Washington Export Activity Social-Economic
Population in Poverty Total Births and Births to Unmarried Mothers Families by Family Type and Presence of Children One-Parent and Two-Parent Families Families in Poverty by Household Type Juvenile Arrests for Violent Crimes Language Spoken at Home Educational Attainment Population
Population Change and Net Migration Population Components of Change Age Characteristics of the Population: 1980 Age Characteristics of the Population: 1980-2000 Population by Race Population by Hispanic/Latino Origin Budget Drivers
State Government FTEs Compared to Population K-12 Enrollment Public Higher Education Enrollment Income Assistance (AFDC/TANF) Caseload State-Supported Child Care State-Supported Nursing Home Caseload Medical Assistance Caseload Prison Inmate Population Juvenile Rehabilitation Institutional Population Projected Change in Budget Driver Populations Change in Medical Costs Revenue & Expenditures
Revenues Per Capita Revenues per $1,000 Personal Income State & Local Government Revenue Sources State & Local Taxes per Capita State & Local Taxes per $1,000 Personal Income State & Local Government Expenditures by Function Expenditures per Capita Expenditures per $1,000 Personal Income K-12 Education Expenditures per Capita K-12 Education Expenditures per $1,000 Personal Income Higher Education Expenditures per Capita Higher Education Expenditures per $1,000 Personal Income Corrections Expenditures per Capita Corrections Expenditures per $1,000 Personal Income OFM Home

Per Capita Personal Income
Inflation-Adjusted
to 2005 Dollars

Year Washington U.S.
2005 $35,234 $34,495
2004 $35,691 $34,036
2003 $34,711 $33,221
2002 $35,065 $33,191
2001 $35,264 $33,389
2000 $35,434 $33,277
1999 $34,315 $31,918
1998 $32,967 $31,223
1997 $31,016 $29,703
1996 $29,900 $28,829
1995 $28,837 $28,089
1994 $28,544 $27,591
1993 $28,210 $27,108
1992 $28,212 $27,100
1991 $27,660 $26,594
1990 $27,515 $26,977

Related Maps

Data
next

Washington and U.S. Per Capita Personal Income
1980-2005
Inflation-Adjusted to 2005 Dollars

Personal income includes all income earned by Washington households, including wages, self-employment income, interest, dividends, rent, social security, and other transfer payments.
Washington per capita personal income has been higher than that of the United States overall in almost every year since 1980.
Income from stock options and software industry wages helped boost Washington's per capita income in the late 1990s.
In the fourth quarter of 2004 Microsoft paid a dividend of $3 per share, which increased the growth rate of Washington's personal income in 2004 by three percentage points above what it would have been without the dividend.
Data Sources:

Personal income: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Inflation adjustment: Washington State Economic and Revenue Forecast Council
Last modified: November 22, 2006
E-mail: OFM.Forecasting@ofm.wa.gov
valid xhtml valid css

Office of Financial Management Home | Contact | Privacy Notice | Intended Use

© 2006 Washington State Office of Financial Management

http://www.ofm.wa.gov/trends/tables/fig101.asp

CrocketsGhost ... this is the statement from your link that you posted. It includes working and non-working people. It even includes social security payments and "transfer payments", interest, stock dividends, and rent.

Of COURSE it includes all income. What other meaningful number would you use when determining what people can and cannot afford, which was the point of your original rant?