How am i full of it when i provided specific data that shows he didn't use data?  I'm demonstratably correct... as shown by the link.  To say i'm full of it is to ignore actual numerical proof that his graphs were wrong.

Also, for you to have paid a 25% tax rate, you would have had to of claimed zero deductions of any kind.   Which there is almost no way that is true.

I really thought it would be more controversial.

The fact it got pulled or the subject matter?  All this is SO 2011, and Occupy related.  This is all about Occupy.  Pretty much everyone got the income inequality thing, and it is discussed off and on now, with it a being a key part.  Another discussion connecting to it is pretty much old hat.  In short, it is boring to bring it up.  As for TED, it is known, but not too many people care about  it.  They care about specific topics, but TED not releasing things?  Not too many care.  I do see TYT made a point of it in one of their broadcasts.   

Well, what you have now, on the whole, is Mitt Romney will be an incarnation of this income inequality debate, and what he did or failed to do at Bain Capital.  There will be focus on job creation, as was seen here, and what policies work or not.  It is a major piece of the upcoming presidential election period.  But, beyond this, not sure people would care much to go into it.  And this is videogame forum, so people are mainly waiting E3.

What's missed is the reason TED originally didn't want to post it was because well... it was full of a lot of cherrypicking statistics and poorly made arguements.

Worth noting the guy who didn't want to release it actually agrees with the guy who made the video.  He just thinks his arguements in argueing the point were full of hugeass holes.

http://tedchris.posterous.com/131417405

It's the kind of arguement/presentation that is so poor it actually hurts the point it's trying to facilitate bought only by those who have already "bought in" and couldn't be convinced otherwise no matter how poor it was.

Here is the real deal. Your arguments are always poorly constructed and most don't even take you seriously. So you points have been disproven so many time in the past, that really I think your the cherry picker and always use bad statistics. 1980 we started giving tax breaks to the  rich. This is factual data. your whole argument proven wrong. However talking to a right winger that can't see facts is like talking to a wall. Never going to happen.

When I present facts I present entire statistical databases more often then not.... like I just did.

Showing the entire databse is the exact opposite of cherrypicking.

We didn't start giving tax breaks to the rich in 1980.

We started giving Tax Breaks to the Rich in 1964.  1980 didn't have a tax cut... 1981 did... though it was very marginal.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

feel free to combine that database with the previously provided database to come to your own conclusions. (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html if your lazy)

They would point to a "cut taxes = more growth more often then not" conclusion if you want to base your arguements on a graph involving just those two.

Which, like I said, is a stupid arguement considering Participation rates.

and the unmentioned fact that taxes mostly only get messed with when there is trouble with the economy anyway.

PERSONALLY, I'm of the belief that tax cuts DON'T lead to job growth unless such tax cuts are guranteed to be long term. (not conditional like the Bush cuts) and even then such job growth is fairly minor and not worth it.   Tax cuts lead to a minor bump in jobs that normalizes over time.   Tax raises lead to a decent hurting in hiring, which normalzies back to base levels at time.

If you were to buy into his methods of what does or doesn't define a job creator though... he would statistically and demonstratably be wrong.

That said the rich create jobs, products and value.  They'd do it in just about any tax enviroment though.... Once they're used to it.

It is because of that adjustment time however that it's dumb to raise taxes during a recession.

Consumers DON'T do this... because generally companies that create jobs are usually NEW companies which require money from venture capitalists. (Like the recently maligned Bain Capital.)

Without said venture capitalists the products never get to the consumers in the first place.

Didn't both Reagan, and Bush Sr. (the "kings" of Reagonomics) increase taxes? And, I'm sure Reagan's initial tax "cuts" were just reductions in tax increases.

I... don't see the point of this graph. It shows that all income groups have seen an increase in wealth? If one group was getting poorer while others were getting richer... I'd see the controversy, but here, I don't.

You also need to take into account income mobility. Most people who were in Bottom-Second in 1980, will be in Fourth-Top in 2007. So, actually, the individual (or household income) for those people has increased dramatically.

The top marginal income tax rate was dropped under both, severely under Reagan. He was the master of trickle-down economics.

Yeah, but tax increases occured elsewhere in the economy. Bush Sr. basically lost the 92 election because tax increases (well, one of the reasons, you also had the Perot effect, and some other issues).