American Wealth Inequality

[Jekka]

http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4

Pretty mind blowing.

-Manny

[SpuronyourFace]

There is always going to be rich and their is always going to be poor in our country. Get over it.

But Obama is just helping the poor stay poor, killing entrepreneurial spirt, preventing the rich from creating more jobs (through government strangulation) for the poor and creating a wealfare state that he thinks we need.

Common sense and an education is the only requirement to notice that.

[Wild Cobra]

There is always going to be rich and their is always going to be poor in our country. Get over it.

But Obama is just helping the poor stay poor, killing entrepreneurial spirt, preventing the rich from creating more jobs (through government strangulation) for the poor and creating a wealfare state that he thinks we need.

Common sense and an education is the only requirement to notice that.
Absolutely.

Anyone who relies on someone else, will remain poor.

[MannyIsGod]

Its a shame that the information linked above does not support that. Yes, there will always be rich and poor but will the rich always have such a disproportionate levels of relative wealth? They haven't in the past.

Look at the charts. The numbers aren't made up.

[MannyIsGod]

An honest question here - since the rich have acquired so much more wealth why have they not created more jobs that distribute wealth throughout the rest of society? Isn't this what should have happened?

The Rich have undoubtdly grown their wealth so why have the rest of us lagged behind.

[DarrinS]

When rich liberals start giving away their money, I'll start taking these kinds of threads seriously.

[Wild Cobra]

When rich liberals start giving away their money, I'll start taking these kinds of threads seriously.
I'm with you.

Aren't there more really rich democrats than republicans?

[boutons_deux]

"why have they not created more jobs"

Trickle down was always a Movement Conservative bullshit lie, like every other concept in Movement Conservative philosophy.

[baseline bum]

An honest question here - since the rich have acquired so much more wealth why have they not created more jobs that distribute wealth throughout the rest of society? Isn't this what should have happened?

The Rich have undoubtdly grown their wealth so why have the rest of us lagged behind.

Good luck ever getting an honest question answered on this forum.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm with you.

Aren't there more really rich democrats than republicans?

Can't answer a simple and direct question?

[Nbadan]

Good luck ever getting an honest question answered on this forum.

Oh questions get answered, it's just that this particular question goes against everything wing-nuts believe about income distribution and redistribution.... they think the poor minorities are trying to keep them from buying the next ego boost that makes them look good among their rich friends......income redistribution does not target the rich, it targets the wealthy, there's a difference.....Shaq is rich, the guy who writes Shaq's check is wealthy...

[DarrinS]

It's weird how countries with socialist governments don't produce the Microsofts, Googles, and Apples of the world. They also don't invent Youtube, Facebook, Amazon, eBay, etc.


Why is that?


Why do lefties begrudge these entrepreneurs? Instead of having green eyes of jealousy, why not be inspired that we live in a country were these things are possible? Heck, we live in a country were a person who no one even heard of four years ago can become POTUS.

[doobs]

News flash: some people are more productive than others!

[baseline bum]

It's weird how countries with socialist governments don't produce the Microsofts, Googles, and Apples of the world. They also don't invent Youtube, Facebook, Amazon, eBay, etc.


Why is that?


Why do lefties begrudge these entrepreneurs? Instead of having green eyes of jealousy, why not be inspired that we live in a country were these things are possible? Heck, we live in a country were a person who no one even heard of four years ago can become POTUS.

You should stick to posting youtubes instead of writing strawmen.

[Winehole23]

Redistribution to the bottom of the income scale = socialism

Redistribution geared to the top of scale = "pro-business, pro-individual" government policy.

[baseline bum]

It's weird how countries with socialist governments don't produce the Microsofts, Googles, and Apples of the world. They also don't invent Youtube, Facebook, Amazon, eBay, etc.


I mean seriously, do you just enjoy kicking your own ass for fun or something? Are you one of boutons' trolls or something, put here to make the right look bad? Every single one of those companies piggybacked themselves on government research. The home computer comes as a result of massive government spending in WWII and the cold war. Every company you listed other than Apple owes their success to research by DARPA.

[boutons_deux]

It's weird how countries with reasonably regulated financial sectors don't fuck up the planet's economy and destroy $Ts in wealth.

[Stringer_Bell]

An honest question here - since the rich have acquired so much more wealth why have they not created more jobs that distribute wealth throughout the rest of society? Isn't this what should have happened?

It DOES happen, but you liberals just take all the money anyway to pay for your pre-emptive wars, unregulated wall street bail outs, and failed education initiatives. I can't really give you any examples of when shit was good for everyone other than the Clinton years, but that's cuz Reagan/Bush defeated the USSR. Now we're turning into those socialist, we gotta stop it and take up arms (to vote, that is!) against this war on the middle class that Obama is waging. We don't want hand outs, we just don't want to be taxed to death like Obama's been doing since he got into office!

[boutons_deux]

"Reagan/Bush defeated the USSR"

You Lie

[Winehole23]

Quantify *taxed to death*, please.

How bad is it already?

[ChumpDumper]

I thought he was being sarcastic.

[Winehole23]

Makes more sense that way.

[Winehole23]

(anda crudo)

[angrydude]

It's weird how countries with reasonably regulated financial sectors don't fuck up the planet's economy and destroy $Ts in wealth.

the US would qualify as reasonably regulated. go look up the Basel Accords and see if the US qualifies. There is a reason the entire world is feeling the hurt right now and it has nothing to do with rules or regulations. ITs much more basic than that. fiat currency is a joke.

[Stringer_Bell]

"Reagan/Bush defeated the USSR"

You Lie

Lie? Okay, then YOU tell me who told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down that wall.

Hint: the same dudes whose ideas we need right now to get our country out of this mess.

[EmptyMan]

Why is it mind blowing? People are part of a spectrum. At one end you have superior hard working people, at the other end you have people who didn't quite win at life. That's just how reality is.


When you have money, it is easy to make money with that money.





The Asians and Indians have figured out how to play the game by the 2nd or 3rd generation. I know why. You do too.

[MannyIsGod]

You guys really fail at reading comprehension sometimes. Its not news that there are poor people and that there are rich people. Thats not what this was about. This is about the amount of wealth a very small percentage of this country controls while the vast majority is left with minuscule table scraps.

For the longest time one of the foremost conservative talking points is that the more the rich get the more trickles down to everyone else but that isn't the case and there isn't any data to back that up.

The bottom part of this country is losing wealth to the top portion of this country which is contrary to everything conservatives have preached since Regan.

Explain how that works to me.

[MannyIsGod]

News flash: some people are more productive than others!

So the majority of Americans are unproductive?

[MannyIsGod]

I mean are you guys even looking at those graphs?

[MannyIsGod]

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4bbf3f0b7f8b9ac202070000-590-450/the-gap-between-the-top-1-and-everyone-else-hasnt-been-this-bad-since-the-roaring-twenties.jpg

Look at that. the gap was steady for a very long and productive part of our nations history. We weren't socialists in the 40s 50s 60s and 70s, were we?

[MannyIsGod]

The bottom 50% of our country in economic terms controls a whopping 2.5% of the wealth here.

Do you not see any problems with this?

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4bbcb3f17f8b9a562fb70000-590-450/half-of-america-has-25-of-the-wealth.jpg

And what abouts stocks? Even worse.

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4bbcb4527f8b9a4e2f9e0100-590-450/half-of-america-has-05-of-the-stocks-and-bonds.jpg

Is the bottom 50% doing only 2.5 of the production in this country?

[MannyIsGod]

LOOK at this!

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4bbcb17c7f8b9a6218b70000-590-450/look-at-the-gap-grow.jpg

[MannyIsGod]

Production workers are anything but, right Doobs?

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4bbcaeb47f8b9a812b5a0100-590-450/the-last-two-decades-were-great-except-for-american-workers.jpg

[MannyIsGod]

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4bbcb53d7f8b9a2e1beb0c00-590-450/real-average-earnings-have-not-increased-in-50-years.jpg

We're making less money today than we were 40 years ago.

This one should get your attention even if somehow the rest of them have failed to.

[MannyIsGod]

The American Dream is about as good as the Lotto.

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4bbcbdbb7f8b9acb194a0300-590-450/poor-americans-have-a-slim-chance-of-rising-to-the-upper-middle-class.jpg

[MannyIsGod]

But hey, someone out there is doing better.

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4bbca8ea7f8b9a7b16790400-590-450/republican-tax-cuts-have-significantly-increased-the-gap.jpg

They've obviously gained productivity while the rest of us have not.

[MannyIsGod]

I know I know. Cut taxes for the rich and the rest of us will rise up because of their investment.

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4bbcac9f7f8b9ad2290f0000-590-450/income-tax-is-getting-lower-and-lower-for-the-rich.jpg



Oh...

Wait...

[MannyIsGod]

This just means we're more free than those damn socialist nations.

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4bbcaace7f8b9ad31a6f0300-590-450/america-spreads-the-wealth-far-less-than-other-developed-countries.jpg

[MannyIsGod]

This is more proof of how horrible some of those Euro nations have it.

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4bbcb8787f8b9ab21b580c00-590-450/the-gap-is-not-growing-in-other-countries-like-france.jpg

Freedom ain't free...for the poor anyway.

[MannyIsGod]

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4bbcabdd7f8b9a0b26b30600-400-300/if-you-arent-in-the-top-1-then-youre-getting-a-bum-deal.jpg

Nothing to see here.

[mookie2001]

http://www.gylesblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/p-kurz1.jpg

[doobs]

So the majority of Americans are unproductive?

So you fail at reading comprehension?

Some are more productive than others. More productive. (Not necessarily harder working.) Where did I say that the majority of Americans are unproductve?

Or do you just enjoy twisting the words of others?

[mookie2001]

http://cache-05.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2010/04/500x_0409_ipadd.jpg (http://gawker.com/5513675/america-does-not-care-about-your-ipad)

[MannyIsGod]

So you fail at reading comprehension?

Some are more productive than others. More productive. (Not necessarily harder working.) Where did I say that the majority of Americans are unproductve?

Or do you just enjoy twisting the words of others?

I ask for a reason why the inequality has grown and you bring up productivity and you accuse me of twisting words?

:lol

[MannyIsGod]

So you fail at reading comprehension?

Some are more productive than others. More productive. (Not necessarily harder working.) Where did I say that the majority of Americans are unproductve?

Or do you just enjoy twisting the words of others?

And further more do you enjoy going through the day pointing out inane obvious things? Can I expect your next post in the Spurs forum to be that some players are taller than others?

When I'm asking for reasons to a situation and you replay with a stupid tidbit of information how am I supposed to know you are just typing for the hell of it? I can only assume that you are replying.

In any event, lets say I do fail at reading comprehension and I love twisting your words. Why don't you lay out your explanation clearly as to make it untwistable.

[MiamiHeat]

When rich liberals start giving away their money, I'll start taking these kinds of threads seriously.

Warren Buffet, democrat, gives away $37 BILLION to philanthropy

Bill Gates, democrat, gives away half of his billions to the same thing


Hi.

[boutons_deux]

Charitable giving (tax deductible) in USA is subsidized by taxpayers, not driven by human kindness.

[MiamiHeat]

If that's the cynical view in which you want to view their donations,

then DarrinS just owned himself. It's not possible to find what he said would take to convince him.

Oops!

[exstatic]

Charitable giving (tax deductible) in USA is subsidized by taxpayers, not driven by human kindness.

Fail


If you give more than 20% of your adjusted gross income (AGI) in any given year, you may start to be subject to deduction limits. How much? Let's say your AGI is $100,000, you spend practically nothing. and you have lots of cash that you want to give away to a fully accredited charity. Under that scenario, your deduction for the year would be limited to 50% of your AGI or $50,000.

Somehow, I think those yearly billions WB is giving away exceed his personal annual income, and therefore, ARE out of the goodness of his heart.

[MiamiHeat]

Fail



Somehow, I think those yearly billions WB is giving away exceed his personal annual income, and therefore, ARE out of the goodness of his heart.

http://sarabeth3283.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/hug.jpg

[Spursmania]

People who don't have much are funny. They just don't get the concept of entrepreneurship. Therefore the idea of someone having more than them is mind boggling. Just astounding. So strange. Wow.

It's as if they can't fathom the idea of hard work-education-money makes money-intelligence-sophistication- All new concepts to the brain dead kool-aid drinking whiners of the world. Wah... whah...wah...life is unfair.
You will always have smarter people who know how to make money.

All new concepts to the entitlement generation. This generation hates successful people.

[Sec24Row7]

So the majority of Americans are unproductive?

Well no... but 47% of you people don't pay any net taxes... so you are 3% off.

[ChumpDumper]

People who don't have much are funny. They just don't get the concept of entrepreneurship. Therefore the idea of someone having more than them is mind boggling. Just astounding. So strange. Wow.

It's as if they can't fathom the idea of hard work-education-money makes money-intelligence-sophistication- All new concepts to the brain dead kool-aid drinking whiners of the world. Wah... whah...wah...life is unfair.
You will always have smarter people who know how to make money.

All new concepts to the entitlement generation. This generation hates successful people.What a sophisticated rant. You did everything but tell people to get off your lawn.

[baseline bum]

People who don't have much are funny. They just don't get the concept of entrepreneurship. Therefore the idea of someone having more than them is mind boggling. Just astounding. So strange. Wow.

It's as if they can't fathom the idea of hard work-education-money makes money-intelligence-sophistication- All new concepts to the brain dead kool-aid drinking whiners of the world. Wah... whah...wah...life is unfair.
You will always have smarter people who know how to make money.

All new concepts to the entitlement generation. This generation hates successful people.

Another strawman from an ignorant right-winger.

[mookie2001]

I'm sure spursmania is from a different generation than obama

[Wild Cobra]

Another strawman from an ignorant right-winger.
This whole thread is stupid. It only shows liberals don't understand wealth. The more you guys push on more socialism, protecting a class of non-productive people, the trend will get worse.

[mookie2001]

i just want to let it be known, on record, state facts

i'm not poor

i work hard

i have my own money

i'm educated

i didnt vote for obama

i'm not a socialist

just so yall can all know

[baseline bum]

This whole thread is stupid. It only shows liberals don't understand wealth. The more you guys push on more socialism, protecting a class of non-productive people, the trend will get worse.

And yet another strawman from another ignorant right winger.

[boutons_deux]

"47% of you people don't pay any net taxes"

47% of what? 300M? 18+ year old adults?

[Wild Cobra]

And yet another strawman from another ignorant right winger.
Why explain something that's over other people's head, and would take several thousand words to make it complete?

Maybe if you can get past the class envy and class warfare, there could be grounds for beneficial discussions. Until then, I will not waste my time on such a complex topic.

[Wild Cobra]

"47% of you people don't pay any net taxes"

47% of what? 300M? 18+ year old adults?
47% of personal income tax filers.

[baseline bum]

Why explain something that's over other people's head, and would take several thousand words to make it complete?


Very arrogant response there. The only thing that flew over anyone's head was Manny's simple question that you keep dodging.



Maybe if you can get past the class envy and class warfare, there could be grounds for beneficial discussions. Until then, I will not waste my time on such a complex topic.

Class warfare is Reagan and every president/congress since him raping the middle class's postwar wealth and shifting it up, with predictably disastrous results. Nice how you and every other Republican here shift the class warfare to being the poor vs the rich so you have easy targets like welfare moms to attack though.

[boutons_deux]

Because society has decided these "working poor" don't have to pay income tax is not these peoples' fault.

Would any of you let's-beat-up-on-the-non-taxpayers assholes like to swap your taxed income for their non-taxed income? didn't think so.

These working poor also provide a disproportionate %age of cannon fodder to get killed and maimed in bullshit wars, where the income tax paying (middle/upper) families contribute much less fodder. Where's your gratitude for the lower class keeping your tax-paying asses out of the wars?

The income-tax non-payers still pay sales tax, FICA, property tax, etc, etc.

What is the income level, for family of 4, or single, at which no income tax is paid?

[Wild Cobra]

Very arrogant response there. The only thing that flew over anyone's head was Manny's simple question that you keep dodging.

I didn't notice one directed at me, but I ignored most this thread because of it's stupidity. Especially Manny's numerous posts over, and over, and over...

What is the simple question you refer to?


Class warfare is Reagan and every president/congress since him raping the middle class's postwar wealth and shifting it up, with predictably disastrous results.

I don't see that. I see the wealth being increased in those who strive for improvement. The larger the 'nanny state class" gets, the bigger the disparaging numbers will be.


Nice how you and every other Republican here shift the class warfare to being the poor vs the rich so you have easy targets like welfare moms to attack though.
No, it's you guys who do that. Why complain about the rich then? What can't you treat rich people with the respect you give someone who isn't rich?

[baseline bum]

I didn't notice one directed at me, but I ignored most this thread because of it's stupidity. Especially Manny's numerous posts over, and over, and over...

What is the simple question you refer to?



An honest question here - since the rich have acquired so much more wealth why have they not created more jobs that distribute wealth throughout the rest of society? Isn't this what should have happened?

The Rich have undoubtdly grown their wealth so why have the rest of us lagged behind.

There it is. Manny's been trying to get you Republicans to address it the entire thread, but no one has yet.



I don't see that. I see the wealth being increased in those who strive for improvement. The larger the 'nanny state class" gets, the bigger the disparaging numbers will be.


You don't see that the middle class's wealth has been shifted up and that the country is once again in a horrible shape with the majority of the country worse off than previous generations? I know, I know, everyone born after 1970 is a lazy fuck.



No, it's you guys who do that. Why complain about the rich then? What can't you treat rich people with the respect you give someone who isn't rich?

Right. This thread is clearly about how much ground the middle class has lost. But continue strawmanning away; it's all anyone expects of you anymore.

[Wild Cobra]

An honest question here - since the rich have acquired so much more wealth why have they not created more jobs that distribute wealth throughout the rest of society? Isn't this what should have happened?There it is. Manny's been trying to get you Republicans to address it the entire thread, but no one has yet.

That's not such a simple question. For one thing, they shelter their money as much as possible to avoid taxes of it. When they do that, the money isn't being very productive. If they didn't pay punitive taxes, they might be inclined to shelter less, take more as taxable income, and spend it in the economy.


You don't see that the middle class's wealth has been shifted up and that the country is once again in a horrible shape with the majority of the country worse off than previous generations? I know, I know, everyone born after 1970 is a lazy fuck.

You are right about this trend. There are several reasons for it. We are even worse off than it appears because our costs are down because of cheap imports. At the same time, we have less manufacturing jobs, and more people relying on subsidies.

However, it is not the rich people's fault. Blame the regulations and laws.




Right. This thread is clearly about how much ground the middle class has lost. But continue strawmanning away; it's all anyone expects of you anymore.

Everyone is losing. Not just the middle class. The wealthy seem like they aren't losing ground, but they are too if you compare it to real inflation, and not the phony government numbers.

Think supply and demand for wages, like anything else in life, it applies. We have less manufacturing jobs than before and more low skilled workers. wages are severely depressed. My lifestyle I had in 1978 was far better than today. My expenses are about five times greater, but my income is less than four times what it was then. I think many of us are in the same boat.

Look at what you complain about. What the media tells you to. Oil prices... What a joke. Why not complain in the ever rising food prices?

Maybe because food stamps comer so many people but we don't get gas stamps?

Stop focusing on these fake issues. Look at the real ones. Anyone who is poor and does want to better themselves can, but it is increasingly difficult. The democrats have these people right where they want them. Needing more help from democrats. This is political power. Holding the lively hood of voters. Nobody ho is beholden to the government will break free of this self imposed poverty.

[exstatic]

It's REAL simple: all you have to do is look southward at the failed state of Mexico to see what happens when the rich/poor divide gets too large. Or, alternately, at late eighteenth century France. Mexico is us in like 25 years.

[MannyIsGod]

I know I know. Cut taxes for the rich and the rest of us will rise up because of their investment.

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4bbcac9f7f8b9ad2290f0000-590-450/income-tax-is-getting-lower-and-lower-for-the-rich.jpg



Oh...

Wait...


That's not such a simple question. For one thing, they shelter their money as much as possible to avoid taxes of it. When they do that, the money isn't being very productive. If they didn't pay punitive taxes, they might be inclined to shelter less, take more as taxable income, and spend it in the economy.


:lol

Really? Then explain the above information please.




Everyone is losing. Not just the middle class. The wealthy seem like they aren't losing ground, but they are too if you compare it to real inflation, and not the phony government numbers.


You may want to look at the numbers again. They aren't losing it. We are. Thats the entire point.

[Phenomanul]

I'm not a liberal by any means... nor have any socialist tendencies...

But a widenning of wealth inequality during hard economic times is a recipe for disaster...

[Spursmania]

Another strawman from an ignorant right-winger.


I voted for Obama. Your insinuation of defining people as right wingers for having a particular opinion is laughable and tenuous at best.

[z0sa]

Well no... but 47% of you people don't pay any net taxes... so you are 3% off.

This is easily a bigger deal than the OP, which (unsurprisingly) is actually an attack on the Republicans.

Avoiding taxes through various "legal and fair" methods and voting in ideologies that support more of the same will only break the back of those who actually do the paying.

[exstatic]

What some of you folks don't understand is that wealth ALWAYS re-distributes at some point. The only question is will violence be involved? Keeping so much away from so many just isn't viable, long term. It's like continually turning up the heat on a pressure cooker. It's going to explode eventually. The pressure valve that has been effective is taxation, and more specifically, inheritance taxes on the rich. Those don't penalize hard workers, just fucking lazy-ass kids like Paris Hilton. I can't believe how trailer-town was snookered into supporting the inheritance tax rollback that only affects like 2% of people, and then only after they're DEAD. :lol

[baseline bum]

I voted for Obama. Your insinuation of defining people as right wingers for having a particular opinion is laughable and tenuous at best.

Fine, then I'll just call you ignorant (and leave off the right-winger part) for your ridiculous strawman argument. The fact that you voted for Obama when he made it clear in his campaign that he was going to try to deliver a public health plan that you railed against on this forum is quite laughable, and reinforces the point. Unless by voting for Obama you meant you did it in the primary because Rush told you to.

[Spursmania]

Fine, then I'll just call you ignorant (and leave off the right-winger part) for your ridiculous strawman argument. The fact that you voted for Obama when he made it clear in his campaign that he was going to try to deliver a public health plan that you railed against on this forum is quite laughable, and reinforces the point. Unless by voting for Obama you meant you did it in the primary because Rush told you to.

I will not debase you with insults for having an opinion. Yet, another generalization on your part, "because Rush told you" speaks volumes about your political make-up.

[baseline bum]

I will not debase you with insults for having an opinion. Yet, another generalization on your part, "because Rush told you" speaks volumes about your political make-up.

I know lots of people who pull out the "I voted for Obama" card and come to find out they did it in the primaries as part of Operation Chaos or whatever that was called. So you voted for Obama in the November 4th election even though all he did on the campaign trail was bitch about the nation's disparity in wealth and how he was going to push a public health plan?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

An honest question here - since the rich have acquired so much more wealth why have they not created more jobs that distribute wealth throughout the rest of society? Isn't this what should have happened?

The Rich have undoubtdly grown their wealth so why have the rest of us lagged behind.

Because they don't know what costs they will have to bare for Obamacare, Crap & trade, etc.

A good businessman doesn't overextend himself financially with such hate the rich unknowns on the horizon.

[DarrinS]

There is a book called The Millionaire Next Door that was written about 15 years ago. I would highly recommend this book to people that are obsessed with this so-called wealth "inequality".


If we were all blessed with the same intelligence, creativity, skill, etc., then I might have more of an issue with there being a large wealth discrepancy.


Kobe Bryant makes about $280K per game. That doesn't even include money from endorsements, etc. Is that fair? Well, I guess it's not fair that I wasn't born with his athletic ability. Life isn't fair. Get over it.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

So there is or isnt a "trickle down" effect?

So we should or shouldn't support tax cuts on the richers?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

There is a book called The Millionaire Next Door that was written about 15 years ago. I would highly recommend this book to people that are obsessed with this so-called wealth "inequality".


If we were all blessed with the same intelligence, creativity, skill, etc., then I might have more of an issue with there being a large wealth discrepancy.


Kobe Bryant makes about $280K per game. That doesn't even include money from endorsements, etc. Is that fair? Well, I guess it's not fair that I wasn't born with his athletic ability. Life isn't fair. Get over it.

Yep. I love how libtards like to villify bankers, traders, doctors, etc. Any of you resident libtards ever checked out the financial statements for your Democratic "leaders" in Congress? Pelosi's yearly financial statements would make all of the above, as well as quite a few athletes, blush.

[Spurminator]

Yep. I love how libtards like to villify bankers, traders, doctors, etc.


Why do you see these charts as a vilification of the rich?

[balli]

Some people are idiot wanna-be serfs, who read books about how awesome rich people are before willingly lubing up their own asses and bending over.

Some people aren't.

[baseline bum]

Why do you see these charts as a vilification of the rich?

Because it makes his argument easier if he assumes that unsound premise. Same reason spursmania and DarrinS said the same stupid shit.

[mookie2001]

work=tahoes

[Jekka]

Because they don't know what costs they will have to bare for Obamacare, Crap & trade, etc.

A good businessman doesn't overextend himself financially with such hate the rich unknowns on the horizon.

I guess they've been pricing in Obamacare since 1980.

Your answer is flat out wrong according to the information put forth in this thread.

-Manny

[Jekka]

[QUOTE=Aggie Hoopsfan;4230099]Yep. I love how libtards like to villify bankers, traders, doctors, etc. Any of you resident libtards ever checked out the financial statements for your Democratic "leaders" in Congress? Pelosi's yearly financial statements would make all of the above, as well as quite a few athletes, blush.[/QUOTE


Can you just do me a favor and point out when the trickle down is going to start? These figures all point to a trickle up, not tricke down, effect.

Can you explain that please?

[oklahomasuckstexas]

[quote=Aggie Hoopsfan;4230099]Yep. I love how libtards like to villify bankers, traders, doctors, etc. Any of you resident libtards ever checked out the financial statements for your Democratic "leaders" in Congress? Pelosi's yearly financial statements would make all of the above, as well as quite a few athletes, blush.[/QUOTE


Can you just do me a favor and point out when the trickle down is going to start? These figures all point to a trickle up, not tricke down, effect.

Can you explain that please?
Is this still Manny posting or is it Janelle?

[Ignignokt]

LOL TRICKLE DOWN. HER HER Wealth Inequality! Yes WE CAN!!

What's your point?

Because these are mine:

1.With this wealth inequality we have, it means bullshit. If we have such a huge wealth gap but a high standard of living, then fuck it. Beats having wealth parity and a shit standard of living (ex Cuba).

2. Wealth does not equal income. Wealth is assets, and if the middle class can't acquire assets then it can never accrue wealth. Instead the poor and middle class are buying liabilities like expensive houses, cars, gadgets, instead of bonds, real estate, or starting a buisiness.

3. Your solutions for this problem are going to be shit. First you bitch about wealth inequality, but then want to pass more buisiness regulation like the provision in the Obamacare that makes small up and coming buisiness who have over a certain amount of chains to pay lab fees to have a nutrition menu. So That's going to hinder small buisinesses from acquiring and creating new wealth.

4. If the problem is that the poor and middle class has no access to creating wealth, your solution is not wealth distrubution but income distrubution while still maintaining the regulation that benefit big corporations and hinder small buisiness and or enterprise. So at most Cheryl and Don will get 4000 dollars in tax refunds at the end of the year from the rich, only to pay off debt to acquire more debt because 4000 dollars isn't gonna do much shit to start a buisiness to comply with govt reg.

5. You're the problem, progressives are. Corporations are running circles around you and they are willing to pay taxes to uncle sam so long as your party ensures through tough reg that it keeps competitors out of the job market.

[Ignignokt]

So there is or isnt a "trickle down" effect?

So we should or shouldn't support tax cuts on the richers?

There is a trickle down effect in that job oppurtunities open up to the poor. But you can't distribute wealth, only income. Money isn't going to make one spend it on assets. More than likely the middle class will spend it on Plasmas. That's not the rich's fault.

Govt reg doesn't help out either.

[LnGrrrR]

Wow, lots of strawmen, moving goalposts and the like here.

Manny's point is rather obvious. Income gaps are important. Why? Because, as exstatic mentioned, the larger the gap, the more the people at the bottom are wondering why they put up with it. That's how most revolutions get started, after all.

Hell, look at OUR revolution. America wasn't even that poor... we were just pissed that we couldn't sell our goods the way we wanted, and we didn't have a say in our taxation. That was enough for us to go against what was then the mightiest country in the world.

And people think that income inequalities aren't anything to worry about?

As far as the whole "trickle-down" effect, where's the evidence? Manny's posted a ton of data that show as the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. That goes in direct evidence against the "trickle-down" theory.

Those who bitch about the middle-class having "bad spending habits" are missing the point: even including bad spending habits, the gap is bigger.

[LnGrrrR]

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4bbcaeb47f8b9a812b5a0100-590-450/the-last-two-decades-were-great-except-for-american-workers.jpg

This chart is the one that really goes against the trickle-down effect, in my mind. How can CEO pay jump so dramatically, while worker pay stays flat?

Is it a form of collusion, where every company keeps wages low, knowing that people will have to work for essentials? Is it simple greed? Is it regulations? I'd like to see an honest THEORY about how one class can jump so much while another stays grounded.

[LnGrrrR]

America is becoming more socialist! Like Europe! SEE!?!

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4bbcaace7f8b9ad31a6f0300-590-450/america-spreads-the-wealth-far-less-than-other-developed-countries.jpg

Oh... well... the rich are getting taxed WAY MORE than ever! Taxes are increasing to the point where the rich can barely afford to make a profit!

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4bbcac9f7f8b9ad2290f0000-590-450/income-tax-is-getting-lower-and-lower-for-the-rich.jpg

.... obviously, the charts are wrong because they were created by a liberal...

[DarrinS]

http://bytesizebio.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/OneGraph.jpg

[DarrinS]

So there is or isnt a "trickle down" effect?

So we should or shouldn't support tax cuts on the richers?


Does Kobe have an agent? An accountant? Maids? Landscapers? Pool maintenance? Interior designers?

[coyotes_geek]

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4bbcaeb47f8b9a812b5a0100-590-450/the-last-two-decades-were-great-except-for-american-workers.jpg

This chart is the one that really goes against the trickle-down effect, in my mind. How can CEO pay jump so dramatically, while worker pay stays flat?

Is it a form of collusion, where every company keeps wages low, knowing that people will have to work for essentials? Is it simple greed? Is it regulations? I'd like to see an honest THEORY about how one class can jump so much while another stays grounded.

CEO's get a big chunk of their compensation in the form of stock options. The workers don't. Therefore CEO pay will follow the market, up or down, while worker pay stays constant. If you'd like worker pay to track CEO pay more closely, then all you need to do is take a big chunk of the workers pay and give it to them in the form of stock options instead of cash. How many workers do you think would be in favor of that?

[101A]

There is always going to be rich and their is always going to be poor in our country. Get over it.

But Obama is just helping the poor stay poor, killing entrepreneurial spirt, preventing the rich from creating more jobs (through government strangulation) for the poor and creating a wealfare state that he thinks we need.

Common sense and an education is the only requirement to notice that.


I agree with your basic sentiment; and am (really) conservative as they come; but this current accumulation of wealth has not been a healthy one. It is not, in large part, based on ingenuity and hard work - it is based on manipulation of markets, power centers, etc...."Corporatism" is the catch all for it.

In 1995 I finished a one year stint as a network administrator at A&M - at the end of which I had $1,800 in a retirement account funded through that job. I never rolled that into my other accounts; I moved it aside by itself into an investment account - a moderate growth mutual fund.

Today, FIFTEEN years later - that account has a value of $1,500 - but the marketing material for that same account claims 10 - 15% growth over most of that period; meaning I ought to have 5 grand. Somebody got my $300 - and the proceeds for the interest on that account; but it ain't me.

That is happening in much larger numbers on retirement accounts all over th place - AND, as we all know, funny crap with mortgages, petroleum; you name it; the "Wall Street Bankers" are robbing us blind; they design the schemes, run the schemes and are the ONLY ones who understand the schemes; the rest of us are too busy working to pay attention to it. They also make sure and keep Congress and the WH in their pocket to make damn sure nothing ever gets curtailed.

These are not the Fords and Edisons - or even the Carnegies and Rockefellers! These cats are useless - not doing any good for anyone - but, IMO are a GREAT number of the ultra rich included in that chart.

I own a small business with 30 employees; and I'm doing fine - trying to do it the old fashioned way; those guys piss me off as much, or more, than the "free loaders" of our society; but do FAR more damage.

[LnGrrrR]

CEO's get a big chunk of their compensation in the form of stock options. The workers don't. Therefore CEO pay will follow the market, up or down, while worker pay stays constant. If you'd like worker pay to track CEO pay more closely, then all you need to do is take a big chunk of the workers pay and give it to them in the form of stock options instead of cash. How many workers do you think would be in favor of that?

So has CEO compensation changed that greatly since 1994? 1994 seems to be a clear delineation marker as far as CEO pay ramping upward greatly.

And per Manny's chart earlier, the wealth of the middle-class CAN raise upwards, and did seem higher in the 50's, 60's and 70's, which somewhat defeats your thesis.

Honestly, I'm not being a prick, just looking for answers.

[LnGrrrR]

Does Kobe have an agent? An accountant? Maids? Landscapers? Pool maintenance? Interior designers?

There's a problem with that theory; the people who perform the above could theoretically get new jobs.

I don't think job creation=trickle down.

After all, isn't it a tenet that the majority of the poor will benefit from the rich having more money? If so, how does that work in the face of evidence that income inequality is greater than the past, and the poor have less wealth?

Are we going by the "young people don't know the value of a dime!" reasoning?

[LnGrrrR]

I own a small business with 30 employees; and I'm doing fine - trying to do it the old fashioned way; those guys piss me off as much, or more, than the "free loaders" of our society; but do FAR more damage.

I hesitate to think that the Fords and the Edisons wouldn't, or didn't, try to use any schemes available to make money.

Hate to say it, but when people profess the idea that "Greed is good"... well, it's pretty obvious that people are going to try to game the system.

In today's world, where you can generate billions of transactions and cross-scan those for correlations, and any other number of technological wonders... it just gives more ways for people to game the system, especially if said system is byzantine.

[coyotes_geek]

So has CEO compensation changed that greatly since 1994? 1994 seems to be a clear delineation marker as far as CEO pay ramping upward greatly.

1994 was the year the tech boom started, and that pulled the entire stock market higher. Executives who have compensation that depends in large part on what happens in the stock market will benefit disproportionately during such times. If you look at 2000-2002 though, executive compensation fell drastically when worker compensation did not. Again, it's all about one group's income being incredibly volatile, for better or worse, because it's tied to the stock market, and one group's income not being volatile, for better or worse, because it's based strictly on wages.


And per Manny's chart earlier, the wealth of the middle-class CAN raise upwards, and did seem higher in the 50's, 60's and 70's, which somewhat defeats your thesis.

Look at what the high end tax rates were back then. As late as 1963 there was a 91% income tax bracket. Now that tax rate is 35%. It's become a lot easier for the rich to make money. Personally, I'm okay with it, a 91% tax bracket is 100% absurd IMHO. But everyone's free to make up their own mind as to whether or not that's been a good thing.


Honestly, I'm not being a prick, just looking for answers.

No worries.

[TeyshaBlue]

So has CEO compensation changed that greatly since 1994? 1994 seems to be a clear delineation marker as far as CEO pay ramping upward greatly.

And per Manny's chart earlier, the wealth of the middle-class CAN raise upwards, and did seem higher in the 50's, 60's and 70's, which somewhat defeats your thesis.

Honestly, I'm not being a prick, just looking for answers.

.dot com distortion.

[TeyshaBlue]

1994 was the year the tech boom started, and that pulled the entire stock market higher. Executives who have compensation that depends in large part on what happens in the stock market will benefit disproportionately during such times. If you look at 2000-2002 though, executive compensation fell drastically when worker compensation did not. Again, it's all about one group's income being incredibly volatile, for better or worse, because it's tied to the stock market, and one group's income not being volatile, for better or worse, because it's based strictly on wages.



Look at what the high end tax rates were back then. As late as 1963 there was a 91% income tax bracket. Now that tax rate is 35%. It's become a lot easier for the rich to make money. Personally, I'm okay with it, a 91% tax bracket is 100% absurd IMHO. But everyone's free to make up their own mind as to whether or not that's been a good thing.



No worries.

Well said, CG.

The model for "trickle down" has changed drastically in the last 30 years. With the exodus of manufacturing from this country, any uptick in job creation happens overseas. The continuing incongruity of the stock market:UI figures amply demonstrate this.

As for the charts and other metrics....they mean jack shit if I can't see the underlying data. Honestly, just because something is represented in a graph don't make it so. Manny, if you want to make a point, then make it. Posting a chart of compensation, (compensation being the key word) and passing it off as a comparison of payroll is disingenuous as all hell...not that I think you did this deliberately. It's just an easy pit to fall into.

[coyotes_geek]

Well said, CG.

The model for "trickle down" has changed drastically in the last 30 years. With the exodus of manufacturing from this country, any uptick in job creation happens overseas. The continuing incongruity of the stock market:UI figures amply demonstrate this.

Excellent point. Whether we want to call it "trickle down" or not, the fact is that we're a consumer driven economy and that depends on people having disposable income and buying stuff they don't really need. This should be especially apparent to residents of a city like San Antonio where so much of the local economy is dependent on tourism.

[boutons_deux]

"residents of a city like San Antonio where so much of the local economy is dependent on ..."

... huge federal civil service and military construction and payrolls.

[Ignignokt]

Wow, lots of strawmen, moving goalposts and the like here.

Manny's point is rather obvious. Income gaps are important. Why? Because, as exstatic mentioned, the larger the gap, the more the people at the bottom are wondering why they put up with it. That's how most revolutions get started, after all.

Hell, look at OUR revolution. America wasn't even that poor... we were just pissed that we couldn't sell our goods the way we wanted, and we didn't have a say in our taxation. That was enough for us to go against what was then the mightiest country in the world.

And people think that income inequalities aren't anything to worry about?

As far as the whole "trickle-down" effect, where's the evidence? Manny's posted a ton of data that show as the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. That goes in direct evidence against the "trickle-down" theory.

Those who bitch about the middle-class having "bad spending habits" are missing the point: even including bad spending habits, the gap is bigger.

Nice strawman.

Thanks for proving my point that many people don't have a clue on how to acquire wealth.

Income means shit, and is not the sole indicator of wealth. You could have 2 guys who make 300,000 a yr in income, one of them is an entertainer who buys up a nice house and the newest toys, the other is an apt property owner who makes his money out of his own assets. Both have the same income, but one of them has more wealth. The one with the most wealth is the one that ones assets, which is the property owner.

The rich get rich by acquiring more assets, not income.

Monopolies, big corporations are the bigger culprit of wealth disparity than the villified CEO who makes 300 mill a year. The only way to take away the power of monopolies and huge corporations is to allow new buisinesses the chance to compete. Govt regulation is the biggest culprit here since many regulations help the big guys stay in power since they have the power to overcome them unlike the small buisinesses who don't.

What the middle class buy is very important to this wealth distribution. If the rich are buying more assets and the poor are buying more liabilities, you're going to get that uneveness.

[MannyIsGod]

Well said, CG.

The model for "trickle down" has changed drastically in the last 30 years. With the exodus of manufacturing from this country, any uptick in job creation happens overseas. The continuing incongruity of the stock market:UI figures amply demonstrate this.


Overseas trickle down is not what is being sold to the American public. What is being sold is that if we make things easier for the top 1% then the rest of us will see benefits. I'm asking where these benefits are.

If they are overseas then there's a problem.



As for the charts and other metrics....they mean jack shit if I can't see the underlying data. Honestly, just because something is represented in a graph don't make it so.

The underlying data is there for those willing to make the huge effort of clicking a few links. If you have proof something in those charts is wrong via that data by all means post it.


Maybe you should follow Manny, if you want to make a point, then make it. Posting a chart of compensation, (compensation being the key word) and passing it off as a comparison of payroll is disingenuous as all hell...not that I think you did this deliberately. It's just an easy pit to fall into.

Why is it disingenuous? What is payroll if not compensation?

[MannyIsGod]

Nice strawman.

Thanks for proving my point that many people don't have a clue on how to acquire wealth.

Income means shit, and is not the sole indicator of wealth. You could have 2 guys who make 300,000 a yr in income, one of them is an entertainer who buys up a nice house and the newest toys, the other is an apt property owner who makes his money out of his own assets. Both have the same income, but one of them has more wealth. The one with the most wealth is the one that ones assets, which is the property owner.

The rich get rich by acquiring more assets, not income.

Monopolies, big corporations are the bigger culprit of wealth disparity than the villified CEO who makes 300 mill a year. The only way to take away the power of monopolies and huge corporations is to allow new buisinesses the chance to compete. Govt regulation is the biggest culprit here since many regulations help the big guys stay in power since they have the power to overcome them unlike the small buisinesses who don't.

What the middle class buy is very important to this wealth distribution. If the rich are buying more assets and the poor are buying more liabilities, you're going to get that uneveness.

Edit: My post wasn't fair. I'll reply in a bit but actually upon further thought I don't disagree as much with Gtown as I initially thought.

[Ignignokt]

Its the poor peoples fault. Got it.

WHy do you suck at summarization?


The blame for wealth disparity was not solely pinned on the poor, you didn't read anything i had to say.

I've just demonstrated why the ideas of your camp mean shit.

You could raise the minimum wage, enforce income caps on CEO's and you would still have the same ol' shit every friday after next. Corps acquiring more wealth, the poor getting poorer, because income is always a slave to inflation while wealth isn't. You are trying to stomp the wrong mole.

Out of wealth and income, one of them is affected by inflation way more, i'll let you guess.

None of the shit you will propose will solve the problem. People moving up into class categories were helped because of the creation of new job markets and reductions in capital gains tax, this was evident in the 90's. There was your example of trickle down, even thought it was a superficial bubble, we all saw what "new markets" brought to society.

[Ignignokt]

Oh my.. i read your edit..

i await your oppinion shortly but i have to run.. be back later.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol

Really? Then explain the above information please.

There are so many factors to consider. Correlation does not equal causation, especially when several factors are involved.

I told you. I'm not writing a book.

If you insist on keeping things that simple, then remember that our recession didn't start until after the democrats controlled congress.

Accept that, or be more considerate of all forces involved.

[Wild Cobra]

Can you just do me a favor and point out when the trickle down is going to start? These figures all point to a trickle up, not tricke down, effect.

Can you explain that please?
Yes, please explain when this trickle down bailout is going to start working.

[Wild Cobra]

What's your point?

Because these are mine:

1.With this wealth inequality we have, it means bullshit. If we have such a huge wealth gap but a high standard of living, then fuck it. Beats having wealth parity and a shit standard of living (ex Cuba).

2. Wealth does not equal income. Wealth is assets, and if the middle class can't acquire assets then it can never accrue wealth. Instead the poor and middle class are buying liabilities like expensive houses, cars, gadgets, instead of bonds, real estate, or starting a buisiness.

3. Your solutions for this problem are going to be shit. First you bitch about wealth inequality, but then want to pass more buisiness regulation like the provision in the Obamacare that makes small up and coming buisiness who have over a certain amount of chains to pay lab fees to have a nutrition menu. So That's going to hinder small buisinesses from acquiring and creating new wealth.

4. If the problem is that the poor and middle class has no access to creating wealth, your solution is not wealth distrubution but income distrubution while still maintaining the regulation that benefit big corporations and hinder small buisiness and or enterprise. So at most Cheryl and Don will get 4000 dollars in tax refunds at the end of the year from the rich, only to pay off debt to acquire more debt because 4000 dollars isn't gonna do much shit to start a buisiness to comply with govt reg.

5. You're the problem, progressives are. Corporations are running circles around you and they are willing to pay taxes to uncle sam so long as your party ensures through tough reg that it keeps competitors out of the job market.
You nailed it.

Spot on, 110%!

[Wild Cobra]

Manny's point is rather obvious. Income gaps are important.
No they aren't. Wealth isn't static. Productivity is the key, and we have too many unproductive lazy people.

Why? Because, as exstatic mentioned, the larger the gap, the more the people at the bottom are wondering why they put up with it. That's how most revolutions get started, after all.

Their problem is they expect someone else to pull them up. They have to pull themselves up.


Hell, look at OUR revolution. America wasn't even that poor... we were just pissed that we couldn't sell our goods the way we wanted, and we didn't have a say in our taxation. That was enough for us to go against what was then the mightiest country in the world.

That was just one of many problems.


And people think that income inequalities aren't anything to worry about?

I don't see a problem. All I see is jealousy from petty people.


As far as the whole "trickle-down" effect, where's the evidence? Manny's posted a ton of data that show as the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
That's not because of the rich getting richer. It's because the poor don't have the motivation and desire to do what it takes to get richer.

That goes in direct evidence against the "trickle-down" theory.

I would agree that the trickle down as assumed is controversial. However, did you ever get a job from someone poor? The more money rich people get to keep without it being seized, they less they shelter it. They enjoy living off the fruits of their labor, and spend money. As they do this, the economy grows, creating more jobs.


Those who bitch about the middle-class having "bad spending habits" are missing the point: even including bad spending habits, the gap is bigger.
Then assign the blame in the right place. Our government.

[MannyIsGod]

Nice strawman.

Thanks for proving my point that many people don't have a clue on how to acquire wealth.

Income means shit, and is not the sole indicator of wealth. You could have 2 guys who make 300,000 a yr in income, one of them is an entertainer who buys up a nice house and the newest toys, the other is an apt property owner who makes his money out of his own assets. Both have the same income, but one of them has more wealth. The one with the most wealth is the one that ones assets, which is the property owner.



Income means shit? Yeah, you could have 2 people make the same amount and have 2 completely different outcomes as far as assest acquisition BUT the fact is that if you have 100,000 people who make twice as much as a seperate group of 100,000 people there will be a far larger percentage of the first group who end up acquiring more wealth.

Income mean a lot. Its not everything but it is probably the greatest single factor in how much wealth a person acquires.




Monopolies, big corporations are the bigger culprit of wealth disparity than the villified CEO who makes 300 mill a year. The only way to take away the power of monopolies and huge corporations is to allow new buisinesses the chance to compete. Govt regulation is the biggest culprit here since many regulations help the big guys stay in power since they have the power to overcome them unlike the small buisinesses who don't.
I agree with the opposite of this. Its a lack of government regulation that has allowed corporations to run wild. I agree that corporations know how to play the system better than anyone else and that they design the system to work best for them but having ineffective government regulation doesn't mean that we don't need more appropriate regulation.



What the middle class buy is very important to this wealth distribution. If the rich are buying more assets and the poor are buying more liabilities, you're going to get that uneveness.

We just finished a recession driven by a bubble where the rich took advantage of the poor trying to acquire assets. Meanwhile those poor who tried to acquire assets are now left with nothing in a huge amount of cases.

I hear what you're saying and I honestly agree to a certain degree. I don't think its something you can solve by just saying "here poor people have an acre of land that we took off bill gates". However, I do think there are steps we need to take a society and the only entity able to enact change on that scale is government.

[TeyshaBlue]

Overseas trickle down is not what is being sold to the American public. What is being sold is that if we make things easier for the top 1% then the rest of us will see benefits. I'm asking where these benefits are.

If they are overseas then there's a problem.
Agreed. I think that's a huge problem. What is being said is just a rehash of Reganomics, when it was at least feasible, that trickle down could work. Not so today.



The underlying data is there for those willing to make the huge effort of clicking a few links. If you have proof something in those charts is wrong via that data by all means post it.


The data sourcing is somewhat lacking but I'll probably take a look at it because the subject interests me somewhat. I have a natural suspicion of statistical rendering of data...it's what I do for a living. If I found that the data was being manipulated and played, it wouldn't be the first time. When I see signs of, at least, misdirection, I get a little wary. Comparing execs pay in one chart, whilst examining the top 1%, without revealing the population of that 1% leads one to believe that the top 1% must be CEO's. But we don't know that do we? We suspect it. It might even make sense. But we don't know what we don't know. As we examine the top 1% of earners, why is the trending of the top hundreth of one percent, and the top tenth of a percent relevant? It's not, really.



Why is it disingenuous? What is payroll if not compensation?
Because, payroll is a just a component of compensation. Not all stock options are realized as they are measured at any point in time. When a company files it's SEC form 10K they declare the value of options or stock held. That's the value pinned to that stock at that moment and if you want to look at it as payroll, then that's the payroll for that exec at that moment in time. Since the stock market is far from static, it's not an accurate representation of that exec's pay.

I'm not disagreeing with the point that there is a huge disconnect between the top earners and the rest of us. There's no denying that. The effects of that are somewhat debateable. There's an almost contra-indicative disconnect between the comsumption inequality between the rich and the rest of us. Almost.

[TeyshaBlue]

I agree with the opposite of this. Its a lack of government regulation that has allowed corporations to run wild. I agree that corporations know how to play the system better than anyone else and that they design the system to work best for them but having ineffective government regulation doesn't mean that we don't need more appropriate regulation.


What the middle class buy is very important to this wealth distribution. If the rich are buying more assets and the poor are buying more liabilities, you're going to get that uneveness.[/QUOTE]

^^^^ This ^^^^^

[Wild Cobra]

Bullshit.

You guys are advocating making things even harder for the rich, because they have so much, and the jealousy card is being played.

Nobody should pay a 39.6% marginal rate.

[TeyshaBlue]

Bullshit.

You guys are advocating making things even harder for the rich, because they have so much, and the jealousy card is being played.

Nobody should pay a 39.6% marginal rate.

Dude, jealousy aint in my deck cards. Try again.

Why shouldn't anyone pay 39.6%?

[Wild Cobra]

Why shouldn't anyone pay 39.6%?
Wow... Just wow...

I assume you believe they are lucky the government lets them keep that much.

[admiralsnackbar]

I don't dispute the notion that personal responsibility is key as far as wealth-building goes, but when minimum wage doesn't provide enough income to allow for saving money, you have a problem. Raising minimum wage does little besides create inflation, welfare programs don't incentivize self-betterment, and regulation of goods and services can only control costs to a certain point before it becomes oppressive to providers or cumbersome for tax payers. The only solutions I see are trust-busting and, most of all, education. The whole public school system needs to be reformed drastically if we're going to get the most of our polity, become competitive in the world market, and start chipping away at income disparities.

[TeyshaBlue]

Wow... Just wow...

I assume you believe they are lucky the government lets them keep that much.

Stop assuming things about me. You're not very good at it.

I asked a question. Can you answer it?

[Wild Cobra]

I asked a question. Can you answer it?
It's an absolutely dumb question to ask. Nobody should pay confiscatory rates. Add user fees, state tax, etc.

I'm sorry, but I place anyone who believe the rich should pay such a high percentage as either unethical, or morons.

[admiralsnackbar]

I agree with the opposite of this. Its a lack of government regulation that has allowed corporations to run wild.

Agreed. I think expecting people to be decent, or believing that the market will reward decency and bring down graft is naive Ayn Rand bullshit of the highest order. You can definitely over-do it with regulation, but we're in this largely thanks to a climate of pronounced under-regulation.

[admiralsnackbar]

It's an absolutely dumb question to ask. Nobody should pay confiscatory rates. Add user fees, state tax, etc.

I'm sorry, but I place anyone who believe the rich should pay such a high percentage as either unethical, or morons.

So you think if we had a flat tax of 25% for all people, it would hurt the poor as much as it hurts the rich? That's a bit moronic and unethical, too, isn't it?

[George Gervin's Afro]

It's an absolutely dumb question to ask. Nobody should pay confiscatory rates. Add user fees, state tax, etc.

I'm sorry, but I place anyone who believe the rich should pay such a high percentage as either unethical, or morons.

or they could be just paying thier fair share.

[coyotes_geek]

Just something to keep in mind when debating the "fairness" of our current tax system. 47% of U.S. households are not going to owe any income tax this year.

[admiralsnackbar]

Just something to keep in mind when debating the "fairness" of our current tax system. 47% of U.S. households are not going to owe any income tax this year.

Considering I made dick last year and still had to pay, I can only say I pity those who got a pass... they must be share-cropper poor.

[DarrinS]

Considering I made dick last year and still had to pay, I can only say I pity those who got a pass... they must be share-cropper poor.


You either

a) Don't have any dependents
b) Don't have a mortgage
c) Don't know how to do taxes
d) All of the above

[TeyshaBlue]

It's an absolutely dumb question to ask. Nobody should pay confiscatory rates. Add user fees, state tax, etc.


So, 39.6% = confiscatory. Check. At what point does a tax rate become confiscatory? An argument could be made that any rate does. But, what is your line in the sand?


I'm sorry, but I place anyone who believe the rich should pay such a high percentage as either unethical, or morons.
Cute non sequitur.

[coyotes_geek]

Considering I made dick last year and still had to pay, I can only say I pity those who got a pass... they must be share-cropper poor.

I have a real hard time believing that 47% of our nation is share-cropper poor.

[admiralsnackbar]

You either

a) Don't have any dependents
b) Don't have a mortgage
c) Don't know how to do taxes
d) All of the above

d

[TeyshaBlue]

I have a real hard time believing that 47% of our nation is share-cropper poor.

It's not. But the nature of the current tax laws and credits encourage gaming the system wherein, as I illustrated in an earlier thread, it's quite possible for a taxpayer to get more back than they contributed....hence the net credit 47%.

[coyotes_geek]

It's not. But the nature of the current tax laws and credits encourage gaming the system wherein, as I illustrated in an earlier thread, it's quite possible for a taxpayer to get more back than they contributed....hence the net credit 47%.

I remember that thread. I agree. It's bogus. It's also something that I think a flat tax (applied on income above the poverty level) would correct. No doubt there is some percentage of American households that shouldn't owe taxes, but it's a hell of a lot lower than 47%.

[Wild Cobra]

So you think if we had a flat tax of 25% for all people, it would hurt the poor as much as it hurts the rich? That's a bit moronic and unethical, too, isn't it?
25% is too high. A flat tax would work somewhere between 17% to 20%.

or they could be just paying thier fair share.
Fair share by who's standards?

Considering I made dick last year and still had to pay, I can only say I pity those who got a pass... they must be share-cropper poor.
Not my fault you did your W4 wrong.

Those who got a pass in essence had children, or some other deduction(s). With the 2009 tax structure, nobody making less than $15,800 had any federal tax liability as a single person.

So, 39.6% = confiscatory. Check. At what point does a tax rate become confiscatory? An argument could be made that any rate does. But, what is your line in the sand?

Who in hell are you to say 39.6% plus state taxes is a proper cut for the government?

If you think it's fair, I hope you are paying those rates as well.

[admiralsnackbar]

I have a real hard time believing that 47% of our nation is share-cropper poor.

I don't doubt you're right, CG -- there is a whole spectrum of poverty that fits into that %47. That said, I have trouble believing all the employees at fast-food restaurants, supermarkets, retail shops, etc don't make up a fair amount of your figure. It's my own damn fault I am where I am, but they're stuck there because they can't afford to spend time developing another skill and they didn't capitalize on their free education (or their free education didn't provide them with anything they can use). There's probably very little we can do for them, but maybe we could help their kids.

[admiralsnackbar]

25% is too high. A flat tax would work somewhere between 17% to 20%.


You dodged the question.



Not my fault you did your W4 wrong.


1099. I didn't really do it wrong... it's just expensive being self-employed.

[Wild Cobra]

It's called buying votes.

We now have 47% if income tax filers not having any federal tax liability. Add that to the college students and others who vote but file no returns and the progressives have a 50%+ captive voter audience.

[admiralsnackbar]

Yeah, let's penalize those college kids and keep them in their dead-end jobs!

[TeyshaBlue]

Who in hell are you to say 39.6% plus state taxes is a proper cut for the government?

If you think it's fair, I hope you are paying those rates as well.

I said nothing of the sort. Stop making shit up. I simply asked a question, which you kinda dodged whereupon I then asked for clarification, which you dodged again. Enough with the non sequitur nonsense. At what point to you believe taxes become confiscatory? Furthermore, what delineates that point from other tax rates?

[MiamiHeat]

Be more compassionate towards those who are worse off than you.... it could have been you.

Yes, there are lazy, undeserving people... and there are also people who have had very hard lives, through little fault of their own. They are stuck where they are, and you label them as lazy or stupid. That is far from true.

And even if they were less intelligent than you, does that mean it is OK to have them live a life of suffering, where they can never save a penny? Just because you were born with better genes, or better parents, or were born into a better financial situation, or were born white, or ....?

Are you really so arrogant and clueless as to believe you are where you are... solely because of YOU?

Things have to change. The middle and lower classes cannot support themselves on even a single job anymore. You have to work 2 jobs, or live a very stressful life. This is not OK.

The cost of living continues to skyrocket, yet wages haven't budged much at all for the past 50 years.

Modern technology such as computers and automation have replaced many factory jobs, many jobs in all fields.

Outsourcing is making the problem even worse. Citizens have jobs by providing their communities a service. When you provide the service, but outsource the job, you are essentially sucking the community dry.

A lot has to change. I believe government has to step in.

[TeyshaBlue]

Fair share by who's standards?



Or to paraphrase: Confiscatory by who's standards?

[Wild Cobra]

Or to paraphrase: Confiscatory by who's standards?
There should not be a dramatic difference in tax rates. If it's not confiscatory for the rich to pay that rate, then you and I should too.

[MiamiHeat]

Who in hell are you to say 39.6% plus state taxes is a proper cut for the government?

If you think it's fair, I hope you are paying those rates as well.

That is just perspective. You are being greedy.

Someone who makes $30,000 a year, to remove near 40% is robbery. They are barely taking anything for themselves. They are not living a life of luxury, and they have not benefited greatly.

Someone who makes $5 million a year, they should have a lot to be thankful for. You have taken a great deal out of the American dream, and it has been good to you. You have reached the apex of stability. You never again have to worry about working, about your family's health, food on the table, a roof on your head, or clothes on your back.

That 40% to he who makes $5million is not a problem in comparison to he who makes only $30k. Yes, it's a lot of money to be taxed, but you are letting your greed and selfishness run you.

You have received a lot from the United States of America, give back for the greater good. You already have everything a human could want.

[TeyshaBlue]

There should not be a dramatic difference in tax rates. If it's not confiscatory for the rich to pay that rate, then you and I should too.


Ok, I'll try one more time. At what point to you believe taxes become confiscatory? Furthermore, what delineates that point from other tax rates?

[Wild Cobra]

That is just perspective. You are being greedy.

No, the greedy ones are those wanting to take other people's money.

[MiamiHeat]

No, the greedy ones are those wanting to take other people's money.

Rich people have a lot to be thankful for. They already have everything they could ever need.

Stop hoarding and give back, so that the government can improve the quality of life for ALL.

[Wild Cobra]

Rich people have a lot to be thankful for. They already have everything they could ever need.
What right do you have to say when someone has enough?

Stop hoarding and give back, so that the government can improve the quality of life for ALL.
I see you like sucking Uncle Sam's dick.

It most certainly isn't Lady Liberty you suck up to.

[coyotes_geek]

Rich people have a lot to be thankful for. They already have everything they could ever need.

Stop hoarding and give back, so that the government can improve the quality of life for ALL.

Government has only proven that they can improve the quality of life for those who work for the government. If you want to give back, do it through charity. Your dollars will go a hell of a lot further towards bettering someone's life than they will after being filtered through Washington DC.

[MiamiHeat]

What right do you have to say when someone has enough?

When it's hurting the rest of the people. You have an incorrect assumption. You believe, if you could, in a fantasy hypothetical world, you could amass all the country's wealth in your bank account, and everyone else would be left at your mercy on what you do with your assets and how you spend it.

And this would be OK to you because "I can do whatever I want"

Greed can be helpful , as a motivator - but it certainly cannot be left untamed. Never forget that Greed is evil at it's core




I see you like sucking Uncle Sam's dick.

It most certainly isn't Lady Liberty you suck up to.
I am not sure what you mean by this?

For the record, never in my life, have I taken a single cent from the government in any way shape or form.

[Wild Cobra]

Stop hoarding and give back, so that the government can improve the quality of life for ALL.
This is the root of all our problems.

People like you, believing it's the government's responsibility to make our lives better. It's not. It's the entitlement mentality that is destroying this great nation.

[MiamiHeat]

Government has only proven that they can improve the quality of life for those who work for the government.

Cynical viewpoint... what does the past have to do with the future? We are talking about reform. Things can be fixed and changed.

For example, Humanity has only proven that it is not possible to live in free society, free of persecution, etc.

Oh wait... America proved that it is possible.

I don't subscribe to your view of the world. We can fix this country.

[MiamiHeat]

This is the root of all our problems.

People like you, believing it's the government's responsibility to make our lives better. It's not. It's the entitlement mentality that is destroying this great nation.

The government is here to work for the people of the country.

By the people, and FOR the people.

Our government is entrusted to run our nation and improve our lives.

I am ENTITLED to freedom of speech, freedom of persecution of my religious beliefs, among many other things.

These are things we are ENTITLED to as citizens of the United States of America.

It doesn't end there. There are things the government has neglected to do for at least 50 years now. It has to be done.

The government is here to serve the PEOPLE, not by giving us free money, but by providing us with the opportunity's to a better life - don't forget that.

[coyotes_geek]

Cynical viewpoint... what does the past have to do with the future? We are talking about reform. Things can be fixed and changed.

For example, Humanity has only proven that it is not possible to live in free society, free of persecution, etc.

Oh wait... America proved that it is possible.

I don't subscribe to your view of the world. We can fix this country.

IMHO being cynical of the government is the only way to fix things. Your faith in government's ability to fix things is dependent on the concept that the politicians who run it share your view, are immune to greed, and are genuinely interested in putting the well being of others ahead of their own interests. I see no reason why anyone should believe that. Politicians are nothing more than people who have chosen to get rich by spending other people's money to win popularity contests. Why should I have faith that they're capable of making things better when their track record of making things worse is clearly established?

[admiralsnackbar]

Government has only proven that they can improve the quality of life for those who work for the government. If you want to give back, do it through charity. Your dollars will go a hell of a lot further towards bettering someone's life than they will after being filtered through Washington DC.

I dunno... the government gave me a military to protect me from the bad folk, police and fire departments to protect me and rescue my cats from trees, a good school to learn in, a good library to study in, a mail system and internet to mail my college applications out through, and smoof roads and airways to get to school and work on.

I'm not saying there isn't a ton of waste in the government, but to take the stand that government hardly gives you anything in return for what you give it seems more ideological than reasonable... and I don't say that to break ya balls.

[Wild Cobra]

Major fail Miami...



The government is here to work for the people of the country.

Only in limited ways.


By the people, and FOR the people.

So?


Our government is entrusted to run our nation and improve our lives.

Where is the "improve our lives" clause please.


I am ENTITLED to freedom of speech, freedom of persecution of my religious beliefs, among many other things.

And I am entitled to "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"

Stop taking my money in unreasonable amounts.


These are things we are ENTITLED to as citizens of the United States of America.

Not to the point as you say. Where is the "redistribution of wealth" clause?


It doesn't end there. There are things the government has neglected to do for at least 50 years now. It has to be done.

Bullshit.

Social engineering and redistribution of wealth needs to stop.


The government is here to serve the PEOPLE, not by giving us free money, but by providing us with the opportunity's to a better life - don't forget that.
The only thing the government is suppose to provide is safety. Today, we need protection from the government.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The general welfare of this nation is to be promoted. Why does my government discourage so many of us?

[MiamiHeat]

IMHO being cynical of the government is the only way to fix things. Your faith in government's ability to fix things is dependent on the concept that the politicians who run it share your view, are immune to greed, and are genuinely interested in putting the well being of others ahead of their own interests. I see no reason why anyone should believe that. Politicians are nothing more than people who have chosen to get rich by spending other people's money to win popularity contests. Why should I have faith that they're capable of making things better when their track record of making things worse is clearly established?

Because campaign reform will change the way politics work.

Once we take the pressure of raising money AWAY, and remove this power from the wealthy and corporations, politicians can go back to caring about the right things.

[Wild Cobra]

Because campaign reform will change the way politics work.

Once we take the pressure of raising money AWAY, and remove this power from the wealthy and corporations, politicians can go back to caring about the right things.
Why should they when they have people like you where they want?

[coyotes_geek]

I dunno... the government gave me a military to protect me from the bad folk, police and fire departments to protect me and rescue my cats from trees, a good school to learn in, a good library to study in, a mail system and internet to mail my college applications out through, and smoof roads and airways to get to school and work on.

I'm not saying there isn't a ton of waste in the government, but to take the stand that government hardly gives you anything in return for what you give it seems more ideological than reasonable... and I don't say that to break ya balls.

Don't you think there's a very noticeable and important distinction to be made between government providing defined services like infrastructure and police/fire protection and government getting into the business of "making life fair"?

[MannyIsGod]

Ok, I'll try one more time. At what point to you believe taxes become confiscatory? Furthermore, what delineates that point from other tax rates?

Save your breath (typing?) with WC. He and darrin dodge until the cows come home. While I don't always agree with some of the other conservatives on the board, they at least usually address your point and give a reason why they disagree. WC, Darrin and a few others aren't interested in debate.

[MiamiHeat]

Where is the "improve our lives" clause please.

Promote the general welfare?



And I am entitled to "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"

Stop taking my money in unreasonable amounts.

Here is where we get to the real issue.

What is "unreasonable" ?

Can you still afford a luxury home, clothes, food, vacations for your family, everything you could ever want?

For the rich, the answer is yes. You can still afford all of those things. Be very grateful for what you have. This country has given you much. You have everything you could ever need.That is NOT unreasonable




Not to the point as you say. Where is the "redistribution of wealth" clause?


The money is not being given to someone else, so it's not a redistribution of wealth.

The money is used to fund programs and such to improve the opportunities for all citizens of the country. Should you ever become bankrupt, this means you too.



The only thing the government is suppose to provide is safety.

incorrect. The government provides a lot more than that.

However, if you disagree with that philosophy, then here is the US Constitution

Taken from the Constitution -

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

[coyotes_geek]

Because campaign reform will change the way politics work.

Once we take the pressure of raising money AWAY, and remove this power from the wealthy and corporations, politicians can go back to caring about the right things.

What have you seen from either of our two political parties that makes you believe our politicians are interested in reforming the way campaigns work?

[admiralsnackbar]

Why should they when they have people like you where they want?

You do realize your cynicism deflates your own political ideas as much as it does MH's, right? If nothing can change to make his big, benevolent government come to be, why should anything change to make your small, benevolent model work? If we've already lost, the back-and-forth is only entertainment, not dialog, and certainly not action.

[MiamiHeat]

What have you seen from either of our two political parties that makes you believe our politicians are interested in reforming the way campaigns work?

I don't agree with the premise of this question

It's irrelevant if they support it or not.

It's what must be done.

When being a politician does not make you rich,

When having to run for office means you don't have to worry about raising funds to win a campaign,

when these things happen, the greedy and corrupt will have no use for the system and stop using it.

[Wild Cobra]

Promote the general welfare?

Yes. Promote. Not provide.


Here is where we get to the real issue.

What is "unreasonable" ?

Can you still afford a luxury home, clothes, food, vacations for your family, everything you could ever want?

It doesn't matter how much someone has. Taking more from someone because you think someone else can use it better is absolutely immoral.


For the rich, the answer is yes. You can still afford all of those things. Be very grateful for what you have. This country has given you much. You have everything you could ever need.That is NOT unreasonable

Why in hell are you waging war against the rich? They already pay more at the same percentage because they make more. It's just not right to increase the percentage too.


The money is not being given to someone else, so it's not a redistribution of wealth.

A large share is, in one way or another.


The money is used to fund programs and such to improve the opportunities for all citizens of the country. Should you ever become bankrupt, this means you too.


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


However, if you disagree with that philosophy, then here is the US Constitution

Taken from the Constitution -

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,

Promote. Not provide!


To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

Yes, I agree with this one.


To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Yes, commerce.

Ever look up the 18th century definition of commerce? This is the most abused clause of the constitution. Now they even want to claim Health Care under the commerce clause.

[coyotes_geek]

I don't agree with the premise of this question

It's irrelevant if they support it or not.

It's what must be done.

When being a politician does not make you rich,

When having to run for office means you don't have to worry about raising funds to win a campaign,

when these things happen, the greedy and corrupt will have no use for the system and stop using it.

So how do we go about creating this scenario where politicians don't get rich? And do you think our politicians are going to help us in this endeavor?

[MiamiHeat]

So how do we go about creating this scenario where politicians don't get rich? And do you think our politicians are going to help us in this endeavor?

Think deep down inside, some of these politicians hate the way the game works.

Most of them just go along with it. You play the game, or you lose.

If you want to do any good in this country, you have to play along. Do 5 corporations a favor, just so you can get that 1 passion project done for your community.

I would put a bet that they don't like it either.

So yeah, if there was a rise of support from the people, they could go to their masters and force this through.

[coyotes_geek]

Think deep down inside, some of these politicians hate the way the game works.

Most of them just go along with it. You play the game, or you lose.

If you want to do any good in this country, you have to play along. Do 5 corporations a favor, just so you can get that 1 passion project done for your community.

I would put a bet that they don't like it either.

So yeah, if there was a rise of support from the people, they could go to their masters and force this through.

I would absolutely love for you to be right. I have my doubts that you are.

[MiamiHeat]

It doesn't matter how much someone has. Taking more from someone because you think someone else can use it better is absolutely immoral.

I understand your line of thought, but again, it's immoral.

The rich have an obligation. Just as many other people do in their fields.

If I had the power to help cure cancer, a power that nobody else has, I have an obligation to do it. Nobody else can do it but me. If I neglect this obligation and squander my power, the cancer never gets cured and the world continues to suffer.

The rich have all the power. They fund businesses, fund new industries, research, etc...

I would like to give more of this power to the government in the form of funding programs, regulations, etc... and not private individuals to secretly run this country.




Why in hell are you waging war against the rich? They already pay more at the same percentage because they make more. It's just not right to increase the percentage too.

I'm not waging war against the rich.

If you have a better plan, I'm sure a lot of people will listen.

Do you have one?






Promote. Not provide!

Semantics. That's really petty. Are you trying to justify your ideological existence through any means? Because this is weak.

Are you sure you aren't just angry at something you haven't realized?

To promote something is to

2 a : to contribute to the growth or prosperity of : further <promote international understanding>

b : to help bring (as an enterprise) into being :




Yes, I agree with this one.

Ok, so you agree. The role of government does not stop there. Times have changed in 200 years.

The spirit of providing roads, post offices, and such is the same as providing other things. The framers of this nation, they hold true to the philosophy that the government is there to create a more perfect union, so that it's citizens will not suffer in any way.




Ever look up the 18th century definition of commerce? This is the most abused clause of the constitution. Now they even want to claim Health Care under the commerce clause.

Times change.

To let rich corporations and executives to roam free without regulations?

There is only ONE logical conclusion that will result from this = they will be greedy, selfish. their own interests.

Who is to save the people from this?

The government. Nobody else has the power.

Unless you promote the citizens of this nation to exercise the only power they have left? Violence?

[MiamiHeat]

I would absolutely love for you to be right. I have my doubts that you are.

Politicians have been stiff-armed and bullied.

If they do not do what X corporations of very powerful businessmen want, then what comes next is easy.

These powerful wealthy beings pull all political funding, immediately find someone else who WILL do their bidding, and put all of their funding behind that guy.

Then politically assassinate the good politician.

Rinse and repeat over a few generations, and this is what we are left with in America.

It has to stop. I believe, deep down, some politicians don't like it either. Not everyone is evil and corrupt.

What we have now has been forced upon us, by corrupt, greedy wealthy FOR PROFIT individuals and corporations, who found ways to exploit this nation to further their agendas and pockets.

[TeyshaBlue]

Save your breath (typing?) with WC. He and darrin dodge until the cows come home. While I don't always agree with some of the other conservatives on the board, they at least usually address your point and give a reason why they disagree. WC, Darrin and a few others aren't interested in debate.

Apparently.:depressed

[z0sa]

The rich have all the power. They fund businesses, fund new industries, research, etc...

I would like to give more of this power to the government, and not private individuals to secretly run this country.

Jesus... let's just be straight socialists already.


Always more power to the government, let's take x power from the individual. Why don't some understand that the more influence in our daily lives the government exerts, the less freedom one enjoys?

[MiamiHeat]

Jesus... let's just be straight socialists already.


Always more power to the government, let's take x power from the individual. Why don't some understand that the more influence in our daily lives the government exerts, the less freedom one enjoys?

I agree with you in principle

but I was referring to economic policies, not wide-sweeping changes to our way of life.

[admiralsnackbar]

Don't you think there's a very noticeable and important distinction to be made between government providing defined services like infrastructure and police/fire protection and government getting into the business of "making life fair"?

I agree there is an important distinction, sure, but the line between necessity and fairness is a blurry one for me, most clearly explicit in the example of the police. There is no clear right and wrong, so we create laws to make life more fair in order to make people more willing to do business with each other, to live together, to vote together. The police and fire departments only purpose then becomes to make life fair -- if you suffer at the hands of another, you have recourse to justice. The necessity of it and the fairness of it are indistinguishable because they serve the same purpose: to help the individual as well as the state.

On to public education, which was proposed by Jefferson to serve as an equalizing force in society so that all citizens could be; a) taught to see their duties as citizens; b) given an intellectual and social common ground regardless of social station, and; c) taught the skills necessary to be a productive member of society. That was a means of addressing a necessity (creating critical, patriotic citizens) as well as an effort to make life fair (give all people a foundation to prosper with). Again, as fares the individual, so fares the state.

When it gets to questions of bigger abstractions like taxation, I think it all has to do with the time-line you're looking at things on. Take stereotypical example of affirmative action. You can look at the issue entirely from a present perspective (ie, "the now") and say "fuck these people who can skate into college while I have to bust my ass... we should have a meritocracy." And that's all well and good -- but from a historical perspective you're forced to admit that the reason you're in the position to be meritorious is as much where you came from as how hard you've worked. Would you have been as good a student if you had grown up with illiterate or immigrant parents? Would you have had time to study so hard if you had to work because you were so poor? Would you be exposed to the education you had if your skin color were different? Etc. Likewise, looking towards the future, you have to ask yourself whether it's good for the country (politically and economically) to continue perpetuating illiteracy, poverty, racism, etc. And then the question becomes whether or not you feel responsible to change historical cycles to fit more in line with the egalitarian principles you grow up learning. Current taxation models aren't much different than affirmative action, philosophically, so, like I said, you can look at it in the present-tense, or you can look at it more broadly, and I think that will ultimately determine where you fall on the issue.

Is it wasteful? Yes. You can look at people under the poverty line and feel jealous that they get a free ride on your tab whilst you bust your ass and get taxed for the trouble, but the fact is that they're fucked, they will have children who are fucked, and they will fuck up the country by being this way -- they make uncritical voters, unskilled workers, and desperate, angry neighbors (see the disenfranchised gangsta and evangelical white trash cultures). The odds that a person will break out from their, err... "historical bondage" are low, and get lower for every year they are deprived from a seat in the mainstream (economically, educationally, racially, etc), so very often tax-breaks, public education, affirmative action, and welfare amount to money thrown down the toilet... but they work sometimes (they're cheaper than prisons, at any rate), and they are consistent with the ideal of equality some of us strive for.

You can say a church or charity does more good than a government agency, and in many cases you may be right, but no such entity can save you thousands of dollars a year and give you cash incentives to pursue a trade so that you can then join the rest of the taxpayers getting fucked for the next wave of underprivileged people. Good for the state, good for the polity, good for the individual.

Fuck... did I just write all that? Sorry.

[admiralsnackbar]

Why don't some understand that the more influence in our daily lives the government exerts, the less freedom one enjoys?

It's a two-way street, though. The more freedom individuals have, the more they can endanger others. Moderation is a good thing.

[z0sa]

It's a two-way street, though. The more freedom individuals have, the more they can endanger others. Moderation is a good thing.

This is essentially "the" talking point of the War on Drugs, and I'd have to agree in principle but little more.

For example, how many deaths are caused by those high on cocaine or weed compared with alcohol? It's not comparable, of course, but alcohol is legal despite being far more dangerous. Why hasn't the government simply made all dangerous intoxicants illegal?

These strange (not really) double standards go on unquestioned while the War on Drugs continues failing and costing billions and billions. What else could we do with that money?

What we need is a detox, not a "fix". The system works, contrary to many's belief. We just need to wipe some of these slates clean and start working together towards achievable goals. Sadly, it could be too late.

[admiralsnackbar]

This is essentially "the" talking point of the War on Drugs, and I'd have to agree in principle but little more.

For example, how many deaths are caused by those high on cocaine or weed compared with alcohol? It's not comparable, of course, but alcohol is legal despite being far more dangerous. Why hasn't the government simply made all dangerous intoxicants illegal?

These strange (not really) double standards go on unquestioned while the War on Drugs continues failing and costing billions and billions. What else could we do with that money?

What we need is a detox, not a "fix". The system works, contrary to many's belief. We just need to wipe some of these slates clean and start working together towards achievable goals. Sadly, it could be too late.

The trouble with your example is that some people WANT to take drugs. Nobody wants to be poor, nobody wants to be unsuccessful, nobody wants to be ostracized. I stand firm that the only things that will ameliorate the income gap are education, tiered taxation, and the dismantling of corporations that endanger the economic well-being of the country.

[z0sa]

The trouble with your example is that some people WANT to take drugs. Nobody wants to be poor, nobody wants to be unsuccessful, nobody wants to be ostracized. I stand firm that the only things that will ameliorate the income gap are education, tiered taxation, and the dismantling of corporations that endanger the economic well-being of the country.

Why blame the government for these problems? Or if you're not (I assume you aren't, actually), why expect the government to regulate them? Because they're so widespread? Why invite the government into our problems if they aren't the cause?

These questions aren't simply answered, I understand, but it's time to forget party lines and attacking each other. The system works. We just need to cleanse it of the impurities - get some of the unnecessary spending stopped, first thing.

[MannyIsGod]

Jesus... let's just be straight socialists already.


Always more power to the government, let's take x power from the individual. Why don't some understand that the more influence in our daily lives the government exerts, the less freedom one enjoys?

Why don't some of you understand that government isn't the only one who can remove power from the individual? Corporations are not individuals.

[z0sa]

Why don't some of you understand that government isn't the only one who can remove power from the individual?

Corporations cannot strip us of our rights. Corporations don't have the mass voting power of the people - they make their money in our game, not in theirs. It just seems like theirs since there's no "trickle down effect" and our congresspeople don't give a shit about their locals anymore, only parroting a party line and lining their own pockets.

[MannyIsGod]

Corporations cannot strip us of our rights. Corporations don't have the mass voting power of the people - they make their money in our game, not in theirs. It just seems like theirs since there's no "trickle down effect" and our congresspeople don't give a shit about their locals anymore, only parroting a party line and lining their own pockets.



They have far more voting power than any one person does and the new campaign finance ruling has only swung things further in their direction.

They most certainly can strip us of our rights and they do so every single day. You want an example? Big pharma and the prison lobby both have stripped us of many rights having to do with the consumption of marijuana and other drugs.

It just seems like their game because it is their game. You want proof? They got bailed out a year and a half ago while individual homeowners got a "better luck next time" pat on the back. You want more proof? Look at who the legislation in our country is tailored to. You want more proof? Look at the financial reform legislation that has been passed in the wake of the last financial crisis. Oh wait that doesn't exist.

We're just individual squires living in a corporations world and none of us are getting any nuts.

[z0sa]

They have far more voting power than any one person does

But not the mass populace, which is what I said.


and the new campaign finance ruling has only swung things further in their direction.

Fair observation. Both sides (democrats and republicans) benefit equally on paper, however.



They most certainly can strip us of our rights and they do so every single day. You want an example? Big pharma and the prison lobby both have stripped us of many rights having to do with the consumption of marijuana and other drugs.

It just seems like their game because it is their game. You want proof? They got bailed out a year and a half ago while individual homeowners got a "better luck next time" pat on the back. You want more proof? Look at who the legislation in our country is tailored to. You want more proof? Look at the financial reform legislation that has been passed in the wake of the last financial crisis. Oh wait that doesn't exist.

We're just individual squires living in a corporations world and none of us are getting any nuts.


Right.....

I actually don't feel the same at all.. you don't give the individual enough of his/her due.. We are still the ones in charge, and it will always be that way while the private sector (corps) are the ones benefiting. Without us, there is no game, which is why it cannot be "their" game.

It's also kind of sad that corporation funded campaigns is a such a big deal, especially for the left side .. do you just accept the fact that most people are stupid and won't research who they vote for? If that's true, then this country will eventually hit rock bottom from bad decision making and they'll be forced to wise up anyway, which you'd want.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Corporations cannot strip us of our rights. Corporations don't have the mass voting power of the people -.

...

[Wild Cobra]

The rich have an obligation. Just as many other people do in their fields.

Where is that spelled out in the constitution? What laws can break their constitutional rights of keeping their property?


If I had the power to help cure cancer, a power that nobody else has, I have an obligation to do it.

Bullshit. It would be the moral thing to do, but not be obligated by law. Are you saying we should increase morality laws? If so, I have some important things I think others won't like.


Nobody else can do it but me. If I neglect this obligation and squander my power, the cancer never gets cured and the world continues to suffer.

That's on your conscience then. Your assets should not be taken to do such a thing. If you chose to give, then fine.


The rich have all the power. They fund businesses, fund new industries, research, etc...

Yes, and the more assets taken away from them, the less they have to create new jobs.


I would like to give more of this power to the government in the form of funding programs, regulations, etc... and not private individuals to secretly run this country.

So you're a fascist, believing in Corporatism...


I'm not waging war against the rich.

You most certainly are.


If you have a better plan, I'm sure a lot of people will listen.

Do you have one?

The Fair Tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_tax), or similar consumption tax. Do away with direct taxation of productivity, and tax consumption instead of all items except necessities.

If not that, a flat tax and a social tax. We set a flat tax with a single exemption around $20k that all tax payers get, at a rate of about 15% fixed and never change it without a supermajority. We change the Social Security and Medicare insurance payments and call them a social tax. If government needs more or less money, they raise or lower this tax that everyone pays an equal percentage of. Equal sufferance so the politicians can be stopped from buying votes to raise other people's taxes.


Semantics. That's really petty. Are you trying to justify your ideological existence through any means? Because this is weak.

There is nothing petty about word distinction in the constitution. To twist the words meaning is flat out wrong.


Are you sure you aren't just angry at something you haven't realized?

No, I am angry at liberals destroying our freedoms and national wealth.


To promote something is to

2 a : to contribute to the growth or prosperity of : further <promote international understanding>

b : to help bring (as an enterprise) into being :

Word meanings change over the decades. That does not mean the constitutional meaning changes with them.

Do you read Shakespere, or the Bible with the meaning of words today? You cannot properly understand a historical document without understanding the language of the period.

Promote never meant to do it by taking from others. They would have said provide if that's what they wanted, requiring taxes to be raised. To promote is to encourage, or advance. Not to give.


Ok, so you agree. The role of government does not stop there. Times have changed in 200 years.

I disagree with most things the government does today.


The spirit of providing roads, post offices, and such is the same as providing other things.

Bullshit. It was recognized that some things are too big for communities to organize on. Roads and mail service are one of the few things made responsible because of the size and scope for national needs. Most things the government does can be done at state or local levels.


The framers of this nation, they hold true to the philosophy that the government is there to create a more perfect union, so that it's citizens will not suffer in any way.

Not suffer?

Where is that clause? Life's a bitch. Where do they offer utopia?


Times change.

To let rich corporations and executives to roam free without regulations?

Who is saying no regulation? Asses like you piss me off when they take "too much" to thinking "nothing" is preferred. Please don't tell me you are that ignorant.


There is only ONE logical conclusion that will result from this = they will be greedy, selfish. their own interests.

Everyone is. Politicians play on that, make legislation to keep the poor man down, and truick them into voting for them.


Who is to save the people from this?

Nobody since too m any people have not wised up to the facts. The key is to return to a small federal government, limiting it's role to what it was designed to do.


The government. Nobody else has the power.

We could vote them out, but not the government controls the schools too, and students are indoctrinated to an entitlement mentality, furthering the reliance on government.


Unless you promote the citizens of this nation to exercise the only power they have left? Violence?

If the government stays on it path of authoritarianism, I think there will be another revolution.

[LnGrrrR]

That's not because of the rich getting richer. It's because the poor don't have the motivation and desire to do what it takes to get richer.


What makes this generation so much lazier than the generation in the 50's, 60's, 70's, etc etc?

And since we're mirroring the income inequality of the 1920's/1930's, would you also assume that the same amount of people were lazy then?

[LnGrrrR]

Here is where we get to the real issue.

What is "unreasonable" ?

Can you still afford a luxury home, clothes, food, vacations for your family, everything you could ever want?

For the rich, the answer is yes. You can still afford all of those things. Be very grateful for what you have. This country has given you much. You have everything you could ever need.That is NOT unreasonable

Actually, that's an interesting argument Miami.

WC, you said it wasn't unreasonable for the government to perform things such as deep packet inspection and warrantless wiretapping, correct?

I find it interesting that you think high tax rates on the rich are unreasonable, but warrantless wiretapping is eminently reasonable. Is that because wiretapping is, theoretically, protecting the security of the nation?

[LnGrrrR]

Also, thanks to CG for the info on the dotcom boom/tech options in 94. And WC, you still haven't answered at what level tax rates become "confiscatory". Is there a definite limit? Or is it relative to other factors?

What makes a flat tax of 17-20% any less confiscatory in theory, rather than practice?

[Wild Cobra]

What makes this generation so much lazier than the generation in the 50's, 60's, 70's, etc etc?

And since we're mirroring the income inequality of the 1920's/1930's, would you also assume that the same amount of people were lazy then?
Do you always compare apples and oranges?

Different cause, and people wanted to work as there were not government programs then.

[LnGrrrR]

Do you always compare apples and oranges?

Different cause, and people wanted to work as there were not government programs then.

So it's just a coincidence that the income gap of today mirrors that of the Great Depression? I'm not sure if I agree, but if that's your take, ok.

I agree with CG and others that 47% not paying taxes does seem extreme, and I like a flat tax above the poverty line, in theory. (I am not sure if such a flat tax could actually continue to pay for the programs we have.)

[Wild Cobra]

So it's just a coincidence that the income gap of today mirrors that of the Great Depression? I'm not sure if I agree, but if that's your take, ok.

I think it is coincidence, or natural, especially when you do averaging. The higher the unemployment rate, the larger the gap, because you are averaging in more people who make no money with those who do.

[LnGrrrR]

I think it is coincidence, or natural, especially when you do averaging. The higher the unemployment rate, the larger the gap, because you are averaging in more people who make no money with those who do.

More people without income doesn't seem to explain why the scale would raise higher in those times. Does greater unemployment mean higher wages for the top percentiles?

A question: If we could achieve a better economy, and more "fair" distribution among the classes, but at a higher tax rate for those in the top percentile, would you go with that plan or not?

This is a theoretical construct, of course, but mainly, if you had to choose between a nation that made X amt of dollars but kept a low tax rate for higher earners, or a nation that made $2X at a high tax rate for higher earner, which would you find preferable?

[coyotes_geek]

I agree there is an important distinction, sure, but the line between necessity and fairness is a blurry one for me, most clearly explicit in the example of the police. There is no clear right and wrong, so we create laws to make life more fair in order to make people more willing to do business with each other, to live together, to vote together. The police and fire departments only purpose then becomes to make life fair -- if you suffer at the hands of another, you have recourse to justice. The necessity of it and the fairness of it are indistinguishable because they serve the same purpose: to help the individual as well as the state.

On to public education, which was proposed by Jefferson to serve as an equalizing force in society so that all citizens could be; a) taught to see their duties as citizens; b) given an intellectual and social common ground regardless of social station, and; c) taught the skills necessary to be a productive member of society. That was a means of addressing a necessity (creating critical, patriotic citizens) as well as an effort to make life fair (give all people a foundation to prosper with). Again, as fares the individual, so fares the state.

When it gets to questions of bigger abstractions like taxation, I think it all has to do with the time-line you're looking at things on. Take stereotypical example of affirmative action. You can look at the issue entirely from a present perspective (ie, "the now") and say "fuck these people who can skate into college while I have to bust my ass... we should have a meritocracy." And that's all well and good -- but from a historical perspective you're forced to admit that the reason you're in the position to be meritorious is as much where you came from as how hard you've worked. Would you have been as good a student if you had grown up with illiterate or immigrant parents? Would you have had time to study so hard if you had to work because you were so poor? Would you be exposed to the education you had if your skin color were different? Etc. Likewise, looking towards the future, you have to ask yourself whether it's good for the country (politically and economically) to continue perpetuating illiteracy, poverty, racism, etc. And then the question becomes whether or not you feel responsible to change historical cycles to fit more in line with the egalitarian principles you grow up learning. Current taxation models aren't much different than affirmative action, philosophically, so, like I said, you can look at it in the present-tense, or you can look at it more broadly, and I think that will ultimately determine where you fall on the issue.

Is it wasteful? Yes. You can look at people under the poverty line and feel jealous that they get a free ride on your tab whilst you bust your ass and get taxed for the trouble, but the fact is that they're fucked, they will have children who are fucked, and they will fuck up the country by being this way -- they make uncritical voters, unskilled workers, and desperate, angry neighbors (see the disenfranchised gangsta and evangelical white trash cultures). The odds that a person will break out from their, err... "historical bondage" are low, and get lower for every year they are deprived from a seat in the mainstream (economically, educationally, racially, etc), so very often tax-breaks, public education, affirmative action, and welfare amount to money thrown down the toilet... but they work sometimes (they're cheaper than prisons, at any rate), and they are consistent with the ideal of equality some of us strive for.

You can say a church or charity does more good than a government agency, and in many cases you may be right, but no such entity can save you thousands of dollars a year and give you cash incentives to pursue a trade so that you can then join the rest of the taxpayers getting fucked for the next wave of underprivileged people. Good for the state, good for the polity, good for the individual.

Fuck... did I just write all that? Sorry.

As long as government is sticking to things like infrastructure, protection and education I don't have a problem with it. Nor do I have a problem with the responsibility to fund those endeavors falling more heavily on those who can afford to pay more. I also get your point about interpreting those services as "making life fair" and I agree. But that's not really where I was headed. I'm fine with the government providing certain services, but when I see threads like this one where the general theme is one of "look how much more money this group has than this one" and it's followed up with a consensus that the government needs to do something about that, I cringe. Flat out redistribution of wealth is not something that the government should be involved in.

[Wild Cobra]

A question: If we could achieve a better economy, and more "fair" distribution among the classes, but at a higher tax rate for those in the top percentile, would you go with that plan or not?
Hell no. Tax rates should be equal for all.

This is a theoretical construct, of course, but mainly, if you had to choose between a nation that made X amt of dollars but kept a low tax rate for higher earners, or a nation that made $2X at a high tax rate for higher earner, which would you find preferable?
I would choose the lower tax rate, forcing government to make cuts.

[Wild Cobra]

As long as government is sticking to things like infrastructure, protection and education I don't have a problem with it. Nor do I have a problem with the responsibility to fund those endeavors falling more heavily on those who can afford to pay more. I also get your point about interpreting those services as "making life fair" and I agree. But that's not really where I was headed. I'm fine with the government providing certain services, but when I see threads like this one where the general theme is one of "look how much more money this group has than this one" and it's followed up with a consensus that the government needs to do something about that, I cringe. Flat out redistribution of wealth is not something that the government should be involved in.
I'm with you there.

[DarrinS]

As long as government is sticking to things like infrastructure, protection and education I don't have a problem with it. Nor do I have a problem with the responsibility to fund those endeavors falling more heavily on those who can afford to pay more. I also get your point about interpreting those services as "making life fair" and I agree. But that's not really where I was headed. I'm fine with the government providing certain services, but when I see threads like this one where the general theme is one of "look how much more money this group has than this one" and it's followed up with a consensus that the government needs to do something about that, I cringe. Flat out redistribution of wealth is not something that the government should be involved in.

:toast

[admiralsnackbar]

As long as government is sticking to things like infrastructure, protection and education I don't have a problem with it. Nor do I have a problem with the responsibility to fund those endeavors falling more heavily on those who can afford to pay more. I also get your point about interpreting those services as "making life fair" and I agree. But that's not really where I was headed. I'm fine with the government providing certain services, but when I see threads like this one where the general theme is one of "look how much more money this group has than this one" and it's followed up with a consensus that the government needs to do something about that, I cringe. Flat out redistribution of wealth is not something that the government should be involved in.

Then we agree, I guess. I'm not advocating any sort of taxation scheme as passive-aggressive class warfare, but I do believe in social responsibility as it serves the commonwealth.

[TeyshaBlue]

So it's just a coincidence that the income gap of today mirrors that of the Great Depression? I'm not sure if I agree, but if that's your take, ok.

I agree with CG and others that 47% not paying taxes does seem extreme, and I like a flat tax above the poverty line, in theory. (I am not sure if such a flat tax could actually continue to pay for the programs we have.)

The 47% figure is not entirely accurate in the way it's represented. It's put out there as if they do not pay taxes at all. Most are paying taxes, but they are getting large refunds that either offset their payments entirely or even put them in the position to recieve more than they paid in. From the 47% pool of taxpayers, there is a significant number of those earning between $50 and $75k. The Economic Recovery Act pumped alot of additional tax breaks/credits into the picture. Indeed the percentage of tax payers with a net zero or negative tax liablity increased almost 10% from last year.
This pool is still paying taxes and the payroll tax component is still funding SS, and Medicare.

If you were to cap refunds at the amount paid in, that 47% figure would be cut in half in my estimation.

[DarkReign]

Where I fall on this spectrum is of no consequence.

But, all signs point toward a continually growing gap in wealth distribution. This will not end well for the "haves".

You can argue whether its right or wrong, good or bad, fair or not, it doesnt matter.

At some point, the poor, broken masses will take what they need/want. Unless of course, Mexico is some great country that we're trying to emulate, because thats where we are headed.

[DarrinS]

Where I fall on this spectrum is of no consequence.

But, all signs point toward a continually growing gap in wealth distribution. This will not end well for the "haves".

You can argue whether its right or wrong, good or bad, fair or not, it doesnt matter.

At some point, the poor, broken masses will take what they need/want. Unless of course, Mexico is some great country that we're trying to emulate, because thats where we are headed.



There are a couple of things in this thread that are hinted at that I think are disturbing.

1) That the wealthiest 1% get wealthy at the EXPENSE of the "have nots".
If you think of the weath distribution as a bell curve (I know it's not, but bear with me), then, yes, the "tails" of the US distribution are far apart. But, isn't the mean of our curve much further to the right (wealthier) than many other countries? The poorest in the US are far better off than the poorest in Mexico.


2) This will not end well for the "haves". What is meant by this? It seems to hint at there being some kind of violent revolt.

[LnGrrrR]

There are a couple of things in this thread that are hinted at that I think are disturbing.

1) That the wealthiest 1% get wealthy at the EXPENSE of the "have nots".
If you think of the weath distribution as a bell curve (I know it's not, but bear with me), then, yes, the "tails" of the US distribution are far apart. But, isn't the mean of our curve much further to the right (wealthier) than many other countries? The poorest in the US are far better off than the poorest in Mexico.

I would argue that it's all relative. For isntance, if all your neighbors are driving a crapbox of a car, there's nothing for you to pine over if you have a crapbox too. If everyone on your street has a Porsche, and you have a crapbox... well, then you just might covet that Porsche. Which leads to....


2) This will not end well for the "haves". What is meant by this? It seems to hint at there being some kind of violent revolt.

Violent revolution is exactly what he's talking about, I think.

Let's say that our nation increases it's wealth by 10% a year, but 9% of that wealth goes to people already in the top 1 percent, with the other 1% being split among the bottom 99.

Even though our nation might be wealthier than other nations, and actually GAINING WEALTH as a whole, the disparity between the haves and the havenots would grow. And I would agree with DR, that usually in history when you see a large amount of have-nots and a small amount of haves, you usually get....

1) The haves successfully controlling the have-nots somehow, usually through tyrannical methods, until...

2) The have-nots get tired of it, and find a way to dethrone the haves... usually with the small group successful just taking their place and perpetuating the scheme

I think most revolutions can be traced to either have/havenot issues, or fundamental differences such as religion.

[DarrinS]

Violent revolution is exactly what he's talking about, I think.

Let's say that our nation increases it's wealth by 10% a year, but 9% of that wealth goes to people already in the top 1 percent, with the other 1% being split among the bottom 99.

Even though our nation might be wealthier than other nations, and actually GAINING WEALTH as a whole, the disparity between the haves and the havenots would grow. And I would agree with DR, that usually in history when you see a large amount of have-nots and a small amount of haves, you usually get....

1) The haves successfully controlling the have-nots somehow, usually through tyrannical methods, until...

2) The have-nots get tired of it, and find a way to dethrone the haves... usually with the small group successful just taking their place and perpetuating the scheme

I think most revolutions can be traced to either have/havenot issues, or fundamental differences such as religion.



Take Bill Gates or Steve Jobs as an example. Did the poor get even poorer because these two guys became mega wealthy?

[RandomGuy]

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4bbcb3f17f8b9a562fb70000-590-450/half-of-america-has-25-of-the-wealth.jpg

I heard some talking heads on the business news seeming to complain that the "bottom 50% weren't paying any taxes", and suggesting that raising THEIR taxes was the solution to our deficit, as opposed to raising the highest marginal tax rates.

I was flabbergasted.

The other slides in the presentation do make for a picture that kind of belies a lot of dogma about people's ability to break out of the cycle of poverty in this country.

[LnGrrrR]

Take Bill Gates or Steve Jobs as an example. Did the poor get even poorer because these two guys became mega wealthy?

Depends on your definition of "poor", really.

Poor in America is much different than poor in, say... Rwanda, agreed?

Did their worth suddenly drop? No, of course not. But if everyone else's wealth in the area seems to go up, then they could certainly be seen to be more "poor".

[DarrinS]

Depends on your definition of "poor", really.

Poor in America is much different than poor in, say... Rwanda, agreed?

Did their worth suddenly drop? No, of course not. But if everyone else's wealth in the area seems to go up, then they could certainly be seen to be more "poor".



Then I don't see what all the fuss is about. Guys like Bill Gates can't spend their money in their own lifetimes (barring some crazy ass bad investments). By comparison to Gates, most of us live in abject poverty. That doesn't make me want to grab a torch and pitchfork and head over to the Gates compound.

[MiamiHeat]

This isn't Rwanda or Mexico, I don't care if our poor are better off than theirs.

The poor of this country deserve to share in the pie. Period.

It is the children of these families that spill blood for this country in the military. The rich have a lot to be thankful for.

[MiamiHeat]

Then I don't see what all the fuss is about. Guys like Bill Gates can't spend their money in their own lifetimes (barring some crazy ass bad investments). By comparison to Gates, most of us live in abject poverty. That doesn't make me want to grab a torch and pitchfork and head over to the Gates compound.

Bill Gates gave away half of this fortune, tens of billions, and spends all of his time giving it away to help humanity.

You need a better example.

[coyotes_geek]

Take Bill Gates or Steve Jobs as an example. Did the poor get even poorer because these two guys became mega wealthy?

Nope. In fact in the case of Gates, you could take a look at his charitable foundation which is giving away a billion dollars a year and make a pretty good case that Gates becoming mega wealthy has made life better for the poor.

[RandomGuy]

Take Bill Gates or Steve Jobs as an example. Did the poor get even poorer because these two guys became mega wealthy?

That is a question I would like to have data to answer.

Given that:

1) Our economy has grown steadily
2) the only segment of the population that has benefitted with real income growth is the upper quintile of income earners

This would seem to me to suggest that the answer is, yes.

BUT

I will be the first to admit that I can no more support that answer, than someone could support a "no" answer.

[DarrinS]

Bill Gates gave away half of this fortune, tens of billions, and spends all of his time giving it away to help humanity.

You need a better example.



Is there some uber rich dudes that don't give away a ton to charity? I don't have an example.

[MiamiHeat]

Some of you lack compassion and understanding in this matter.

Continue to blame the poor as being "lazy" and there because they want to be.

Those type of statements give me a signal, they tell me that you have not really suffered in life. You have not been exposed to the reality of the world.

[DarrinS]

That is a question I would like to have data to answer.

Given that:

1) Our economy has grown steadily
2) the only segment of the population that has benefitted with real income growth is the upper quintile of income earners

This would seem to me to suggest that the answer is, yes.

BUT

I will be the first to admit that I can no more support that answer, than someone could support a "no" answer.



Didn't Microsoft create a whole slew of millionaires? Even secretaries? Wouldn't you think that these people are hiring housekeepers, landscapers, etc?

[RandomGuy]

Yes, and the more assets taken away from them, the less they have to create new jobs.

Ah yes, the supply-side argument.

Tell me, how would you go about supporting this thesis with actual data or economics principles?

Let's start with a fairly simple concept from macro/micro economics. I will post it and check back later today on my afternoon break.

R. Guy is given $100,000. He decides he wants to save/invest that, and goes to his broker, and tells his broker that he wants to purchase $100,000 of Ford stock. The broker goes out and purchases $100,000 worth of Ford stock from Mutual Fund A.

How much has this transaction changed GDP?

[boutons_deux]

"not ending well" for the haves could as bloodless as letting all dubya's tax cuts expire, including the estate tax cuts which cost $800B.

raising capital gains tax to 25%.

Another "not end well" is to force hedge funds managers to pay income tax on their fee income, rather than capital gains tax on their fee income (their fees are not capital gains).

forcing hedge to publish their public accounts.

repealing the financial reform law of 2000.

make credit default swaps, derivatives, MBS, illegal or at least completely regulated and published.

re-installing full Glass-Steagal

forcing corps to list all the political contributions.

a medicare-for-all public option (guts the for-profit insurance companies and their shareholders)

[RandomGuy]

Didn't Microsoft create a whole slew of millionaires? Even secretaries? Wouldn't you think that these people are hiring housekeepers, landscapers, etc?

If, instead, the money that is now concentrated in the hands of those two individuals, or even all of the millionaires in question, were put into the salaries of the average workers at their respective companies, how many jobs would those workers have created with THEIR additional spending/saving/investing?

[RandomGuy]

I am reminded of something Buffett once remarked on concerning investment returns.

He said it was easier to earn great returns on $10,000,000 than it was to earn the same kinds of returns on $100,000,000 or a $1Bn.

My instinct says that our economy would benefit from higher growth if our concentration of wealth no so... concentrated.

[RandomGuy]

Didn't Microsoft create a whole slew of millionaires? Even secretaries? Wouldn't you think that these people are hiring housekeepers, landscapers, etc?

Same point as WC, so I will ask the same question.

R. Guy is given $100,000. He decides he wants to save/invest that, and goes to his broker, and tells his broker that he wants to purchase $100,000 of Ford stock. The broker goes out and purchases $100,000 worth of Ford stock from Mutual Fund A.

How much has this transaction changed GDP?

[MiamiHeat]

Basically, the rich are controlling the economy. I didn't vote for them. I didn't help elect them to that position of power.

So why do they have control over me? Wealth = power

In fact, the wealthy control a lot more than just the economy. They have the money, so they decide who to fund for scientific progress.

Let's take Nikola Tesla for example.

JP Morgan funded Tesla. However, he pulled all funding when he figured out that he couldn't make money off of Tesla's research.

This kind of power in a stranger, non-elected citizen is ridiculous.

The rich and corporations mostly only fund projects that bring $$.

Many top scientists in many fields go into private R&D to develop a better tasting tomato instead of solving the world's energy problem.

It's sad.

[RandomGuy]

Basically, the rich are controlling the economy. I didn't vote for them. I didn't help elect them to that position of power.

So why do they have control over me? Wealth = power

In fact, the wealthy control a lot more than just the economy. They have the money, so they decide who to fund for scientific progress.

Let's take Nikola Tesla for example.

JP Morgan funded Tesla. However, he pulled all funding when he figured out that he couldn't make money off of Tesla's research.

This kind of power in a stranger, non-elected citizen is ridiculous.

The rich and corporations mostly only fund projects that bring $$.

Many top scientists in many fields go into private R&D to develop a better tasting tomato instead of solving the world's energy problem.

It's sad.

There is now a good bit of money pouring into R & D for the energy problem.

You have your finger on a rather important aspect of modern science though.

That is the disparity between basic research and private research directed to producing specific products.

Our species' basic knowledge of the universe wasn't discovered by people specifically looking to invent/patent the next mousetrap. It was done purely for the sake of advancing knowledge.

We are today doing precious little basic research (IMO), because the ultimate outcome of such research does not always produce readily attainable/measurable results.

[LnGrrrR]

Then I don't see what all the fuss is about. Guys like Bill Gates can't spend their money in their own lifetimes (barring some crazy ass bad investments). By comparison to Gates, most of us live in abject poverty. That doesn't make me want to grab a torch and pitchfork and head over to the Gates compound.

Hence why I used the analogy of neighbors.

Bill Gates and other "elites" usually live far off, so people don't really think about it. But if they were confronted with it every day, or if their level of wealth dropped below a certain level (ie. unable to buy creature comforts and similar items), then you'd see more unrest.

I don't think it's likely to occur in the near future, but it's a hypothetical possibility.

[DarrinS]

Some of you lack compassion and understanding in this matter.

Continue to blame the poor as being "lazy" and there because they want to be.

Those type of statements give me a signal, they tell me that you have not really suffered in life. You have not been exposed to the reality of the world.


Actually, I have been below the poverty line twice in my life.

[Winehole23]

DarrinS does have a point. Nobody bitches about the income disparity between the middle class and the upper middle class. To do so would be an evident absurdity, and it highlights why the emphasis on inequality might be a wrong turn in the conversation.

The problem isn't inequality of income per se. To me it makes more sense to say the problem is that there are too many people who don't have enough (scarcity), with no real prospects of changing that situation themselves (lack of social mobility).

[DarrinS]

If, instead, the money that is now concentrated in the hands of those two individuals, or even all of the millionaires in question, were put into the salaries of the average workers at their respective companies, how many jobs would those workers have created with THEIR additional spending/saving/investing?



I don't know, but hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions?) of IT professionals wouldn't have work.

[DarrinS]

DarrinS does have a point. Nobody bitches about the income disparity between the middle class and the upper middle class. To do so would be an evident absurdity, and it highlights why the emphasis on inequality might be a wrong turn in the conversation.

The problem isn't inequality of income per se. To me it makes more sense to say the problem is that there are too many people who don't have enough (scarcity), with no real prospects of changing that situation themselves (lack of social mobility).


Although, as I said earlier, we do live in a country where a kid from a so-called broken home, who was not born into super wealth has become the most powerful man on Earth. The same country that he feels the need to repeatedly apologize for.

[Winehole23]

Although, as I said earlier, we do live in a country where a kid from a so-called broken home, who was not born into super wealth has become the most powerful man on Earth. Anecdotal, and "broken" is not synonymous with impoverished. The most reliable predictor of financial success in the USA is having wealthy parents.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Although, as I said earlier, we do live in a country where a kid from a so-called broken home, who was not born into super wealth has become the most powerful man on Earth. The same country that he feels the need to repeatedly apologize for.

you're still making this stuff up..

[DarrinS]

Anecdotal, and "broken" is not synonymous with impoverished. The most reliable predictor of financial success in the USA is having wealthy parents.


Well, that probably goes without saying.

[MiamiHeat]

I don't know, but hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions?) of IT professionals wouldn't have work.

Bill Gates and Microsoft are not special.

The computer industry was coming, no matter what.

Microsoft was just the first huge software company.

If it wasn't Microsoft, it would have been someone else.

Don't make the mistake of thinking these people are special or different.


What I do see, is a "spot", a "slot" being taken up. Whenever you have an industry, someone or some corporation is going to dominate and become the wealthiest.

All of that wealth is now in their hands.

Now what will they do with it?

In the case of Bill Gates and Microsoft, they are good human beings. I am happy with them and will continue to support this company because of what Gates has done with his philanthropy.


But what about the other fields?

in telecommunications? and many other fields?

What are the "top dogs" doing with the wealth?

[MiamiHeat]

Although, as I said earlier, we do live in a country where a kid from a so-called broken home, who was not born into super wealth has become the most powerful man on Earth. The same country that he feels the need to repeatedly apologize for.

He was raised by his grandparents, who were well off.

To quote Obama : “For example, I was going to a fancy prep school, and my mother was on food stamps while she was getting her Ph.D.”

Good grandparents and a mother who works hard.

You don't really know what a broken home, in poverty, with simpleton/harmful parents look like, do you?

[RandomGuy]

Well, that probably goes without saying.

You did not answer my question. If you don't really know, just say so, and I will msg you the answer, so as not to hamper WC's ability to learn/answer the question in good faith.

R. Guy is given $100,000. He decides he wants to save/invest that, and goes to his broker, and tells his broker that he wants to purchase $100,000 of Ford stock. The broker goes out and purchases $100,000 worth of Ford stock from Mutual Fund A.

How much has this transaction changed GDP?

[DarrinS]

You did not answer my question. If you don't really know, just say so, and I will msg you the answer, so as not to hamper WC's ability to learn/answer the question in good faith.

R. Guy is given $100,000. He decides he wants to save/invest that, and goes to his broker, and tells his broker that he wants to purchase $100,000 of Ford stock. The broker goes out and purchases $100,000 worth of Ford stock from Mutual Fund A.

How much has this transaction changed GDP?


I don't know and neither do you.

[DarrinS]

He was raised by his grandparents, who were well off.

To quote Obama : “For example, I was going to a fancy prep school, and my mother was on food stamps while she was getting her Ph.D.”

Good grandparents and a mother who works hard.



Then I am mistaken.



You don't really know what a broken home, in poverty, with simpleton/harmful parents look like, do you?


You don't know me.

[DarkReign]

2) This will not end well for the "haves". What is meant by this? It seems to hint at there being some kind of violent revolt.

Ask yourself, if the trend continues at its current pace (no guarantee of that), there will come a time when 50% of the population will be in poverty while 10% live in luxury. 40% will be somewhere in between getting fucked by both sides.

What in human history can be used as a guide to estimate the resloution to such a situation?

Morlocks and Eloi, my man.

[DarrinS]

Ask yourself, if the trend continues at its current pace (no guarantee of that), there will come a time when 50% of the population will be in poverty while 10% live in luxury. 40% will be somewhere in between getting fucked by both sides.



I don't think that will happen.





What in human history can be used as a guide to estimate the resloution to such a situation?

Morlocks and Eloi, my man.

Great movie.

[RandomGuy]

R. Guy is given $100,000. He decides he wants to save/invest that, and goes to his broker, and tells his broker that he wants to purchase $100,000 of Ford stock. The broker goes out and purchases $100,000 worth of Ford stock from Mutual Fund A.

How much has this transaction changed GDP?
I don't know and neither do you.

Actually, I can answer this question.

You should know by now, that I do not ask these kinds of questions if I do not already have the answer.

Thanks for answering with an honest "I don't know" though.

Hint:
The answer lies in the equation that economists use to describe GDP.

Look that up, and the implications therein, and you can find/calculate the answer.

[DarrinS]

Actually, I can answer this question.

You should know by now, that I do not ask these kinds of questions if I do not already have the answer.

Thanks for answering with an honest "I don't know" though.

Hint:
The answer lies in the equation that economists use to describe GDP.

Look that up, and the implications therein, and you can find/calculate the answer.



Oh, so you have an equation? Well, that changes everything.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh you thought the GDP was a number someone just made up?

[MannyIsGod]

DarrinS does have a point. Nobody bitches about the income disparity between the middle class and the upper middle class. To do so would be an evident absurdity, and it highlights why the emphasis on inequality might be a wrong turn in the conversation.


I don't think this is about income disparity as it is about how much of our countries wealth is concentrated in the hands of a relative few. That inequality is a huge problem especially if you believe that the amount of wealth you have relates directly to how well you are able to influence the American political system.



The problem isn't inequality of income per se. To me it makes more sense to say the problem is that there are too many people who don't have enough (scarcity), with no real prospects of changing that situation themselves (lack of social mobility).

Your right that the problem isn't directly income. Its more about the power that comes with wealth and how what is happening flies completely in the face of trickle down economics and the conservative (even though there are liberals and democrats out there who subscribe to these tenets as well I give ownership of them to conservatives) economic beliefs.

What goes is it for all of us to increase our countries wealth when only a minuscule percentage actually rises?

[MannyIsGod]

I think one problem people have with trying to view this objectively is that the quality of life almost certainly goes up as time goes on for any given people simple due to technological advances.

Because of technology and advancement, many of our poor have better healthcare, eat better, and enjoy a relative higher quality of life than those 50,40, and 30 years ago. This does not mean that today they have less than what they did then.

[MannyIsGod]

It is also important to recognize that anecdotal evidence has no place in a discussion about society. Well, no place may be too strong but only marginally so. We can always find exceptions to almost any given scenario but that does not mean they are not exceptions.

[Winehole23]

That inequality is a huge problem especially if you believe that the amount of wealth you have relates directly to how well you are able to influence the American political system.Good point. But the problem here isn't inequality, it's the rules that have allowed moneyed interests to hijack the electoral process.


What goes is it for all of us to increase our countries wealth when only a minuscule percentage actually rises?This relates more to inequity, than inequality per se..

The millenials are the first generation in American history that will be worse off than the one preceding it. If the middle class -- the dynamo of the US economy -- increasingly sees that all its hard work only makes its bosses rich, while it treads water or falls behind, it bodes ill for social cohesion.

The problem here is that an increasingly broad swath of people (not at the bottom but) in the middle are alienated from the benefits of social productivity. As DR pointed out upstream, this is a recipe for social mischief.

[DarrinS]

Because of technology and advancement, many of our poor have better healthcare, eat better, and enjoy a relative higher quality of life than those 50,40, and 30 years ago. This does not mean that today they have less than what they did then.



I agree with you 100%.

[RandomGuy]

Oh, so you have an equation? Well, that changes everything.

It does indeed "change things" when the topic of conversation is the economy in general.

I can say, for example, that for any given $100,000, it is better for the economy to put that money in the hands of someone lower down on the economic scale than it would be to have it in the hands of the average upper-income wage earner.

This economic basis would then be the logical foundation of a progressive tax system, that would effectively be one of those scary wealth re-distributions that some seem to find so apocolyptic.

Further, I could go on to describe how, if we today trimmed the federal deficit to 3% of the overall budget, it would cause GDP to shrink for the year by an alarming margin.

If you were to argue against either of these points, you would then have to resort to emotional stammering, as many "conservatives" who think they know what is best for "the economy" seem to do, because their arguments essentially stem from ignorance of how the economy is measured.

[DarrinS]

It does indeed "change things" when the topic of conversation is the economy in general.

I can say, for example, that for any given $100,000, it is better for the economy to put that money in the hands of someone lower down on the economic scale than it would be to have it in the hands of the average upper-income wage earner.

This economic basis would then be the logical foundation of a progressive tax system, that would effectively be one of those scary wealth re-distributions that some seem to find so apocolyptic.





Which OECD country has the most progressive tax code?

Well, according to teh OECD, it is the US.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23856.html




Barack Obama's admission that his policies would "spread the wealth around" has ignited a nationwide discussion of how progressive the tax system should be and how it should be used to redistribute income among Americans. Obama has been very successful in bolstering the conventional wisdom that the U.S. tax system does not place a significant enough burden on wealthier households and places too much of a burden on the "middle class."

But a new study on inequality by researchers at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris reveals that when it comes to household taxes (income taxes and employee social security contributions) the U.S. "has the most progressive tax system and collects the largest share of taxes from the richest 10% of the population." As Column 1 in the table below shows, the U.S. tax system is far more progressive—meaning pro-poor—than similar systems in countries most Americans identify with high taxes, such as France and Sweden.

Even after accounting for the fact that the top 10 percent of households in the U.S. have one of the highest shares of market income among OECD nations, our tax system is second only to Ireland in terms of its progressivity for households.

The table also shows that the U.S. collects more household tax revenue from the top 10 percent of households than any other country and extracts the most from that income group relative to their share of the nation's income.

Of course, these measures do not include the litany of other taxes households pay in each country, such as Value Added Taxes, corporate income taxes and excise taxes, but they do give a good indication that our system places a heavier tax burden on high-income households than other industrialized countries.

The study also shows that while most countries rely more on cash transfers than taxes to redistribute income, the U.S. stands out as "achieving greater redistribution through the tax system than through cash transfers."[1]

Overall, the study finds that income transfer systems (social insurance, welfare) are "significantly more efficient than tax systems at reducing inequality, as well as more effective..."

Obama has started an important debate for America, but it is too bad he did so with less than one week before the presidential election.

[RandomGuy]

Overall, the study finds that income transfer systems (social insurance, welfare) are "significantly more efficient than tax systems at reducing inequality, as well as more effective..."

Excellent point.

We don't do enough income-transfers in this country to reduce inequality.

Why thank you Darrin, now we have something we both can agree on.

By the by, you did noticed that the top decile of the US (top 10%) earn 33% of all "market income"? yes?

The study actually reinforces the OP's main point about overall concentration of wealth.

[EVAY]

Excellent point.

We don't do enough income-transfers in this country to reduce inequality.

Why thank you Darrin, now we have something we both can agree on.

By the by, you did noticed that the top decile of the US (top 10%) earn 33% of all "market income"? yes?

The study actually reinforces the OP's main point about overall concentration of wealth.

Thanks for making the point about the top 10% in this country, RG. I read that from Darrin and had the same reaction that you did. It always depends on what someone wants to take out of the writing, doesn't it?

[DarrinS]

Excellent point.

We don't do enough income-transfers in this country to reduce inequality.

Why thank you Darrin, now we have something we both can agree on.

By the by, you did noticed that the top decile of the US (top 10%) earn 33% of all "market income"? yes?

The study actually reinforces the OP's main point about overall concentration of wealth.



Actually, I never contended that there wasn't wealth concentration.

[Winehole23]

You're satisfied that we're number one re: progressiveness of the tax code. But that doesn't really touch the arguments about equitability or optimizing economic efficiency.

[Wild Cobra]

I heard some talking heads on the business news seeming to complain that the "bottom 50% weren't paying any taxes", and suggesting that raising THEIR taxes was the solution to our deficit, as opposed to raising the highest marginal tax rates.

I have a hard time believing they said that quite as you portray it. Thing is, as long as we have a majority of people who pay little or no taxes, the elect politicians that raise taxes from others, to give that bottom 50% goodies. I think the point they would be making is the same as I do. As long as poor people have no taxes to be raised, they don't about government spending. If they paid taxes, and had taxes raised like the rest of us, they would stop electing politicians that keep running these deficits.

The statement you quote I see as a true statement. Just easily misunderstood in my opinion. There is no way the extra revenue from their taxes would help the deficit but by an insignificant amount, until they say NO to politicians who are now raising their taxes too.

[MannyIsGod]

Good point. But the problem here isn't inequality, it's the rules that have allowed moneyed interests to hijack the electoral process.


Sure but those rules according to the Supreme Court are the US constitution. Those are the rules we're going to have to work with because as long as using your money in political campaigns is protected under the first amendment then we have no chance of changing those rules.

Even if someone were to try to amend the constitution to change those rules the would have to do so under the current rules which are for the reasons stated above. For me this isn't like an uphill fight. Its like an uphill fight while trying to walk on a ceiling.



This relates more to inequity, than inequality per se..

The millenials are the first generation in American history that will be worse off than the one preceding it. If the middle class -- the dynamo of the US economy -- increasingly sees that all its hard work only makes its bosses rich, while it treads water or falls behind, it bodes ill for social cohesion.

The problem here is that an increasingly broad swath of people (not at the bottom but) in the middle are alienated from the benefits of social productivity. As DR pointed out upstream, this is a recipe for social mischief.

I completely agree. I don't see how anyone can look at anything presented here in this thread and think that the situation is acceptable much less something to strive for.

I tend to believe that we're not in danger of revolutions in a violent sort of way because as others have pointed out the standard of living is so high here that while people may grumble about the situation who is really going to get violent while they live in relative comfort.

More over I do think that smart conservatives would be very apprehensive about this type of situation because as much as they complain about socialism it is this type of atmosphere that will bring about long term drift in this country towards socialism, imo. As the number of people who have less and less grow in this country they will look to the government to redistribute the wealth. A smart conservative would want to see a country where there is a much more equal distribution of wealth in order to have everyone share an equal burden.

For instance when people look at who pays taxes in this country there are a couple of different ways to view it. You can view it as 47% (and I'm just going off the figures given in this thread - I do not attest to their accuracy or lack there of) who are not paying taxes you can either (a lower the threshold where one pays taxes and eliminate tax credits/cuts those who do not pay are taking advantage of or you can try to raise those who do not pay to a level of wealth where they begin to pay into the system as well. I would hope the latter is the trend we are looking for in order to make our country a more healthy one.

[Wild Cobra]

You did not answer my question. If you don't really know, just say so, and I will msg you the answer, so as not to hamper WC's ability to learn/answer the question in good faith.

R. Guy is given $100,000. He decides he wants to save/invest that, and goes to his broker, and tells his broker that he wants to purchase $100,000 of Ford stock. The broker goes out and purchases $100,000 worth of Ford stock from Mutual Fund A.

How much has this transaction changed GDP?
Maybe because its an absurd question, and has nothing to do with what at least i have argued. You are speaking of a way of sheltering money, which people do more when taxed at high levels. My point is that people shelter their money less with lower tax rates.

As fpr change in GDP? I forget what it is completely, and not going to look it up. However, I think it is a net zero change... off the top of my head.

Still, if anything, you are proving my argument with the example.

[Höfner]

Maz9ddxEQnM

:cuss

[DarkReign]

I tend to believe that we're not in danger of revolutions in a violent sort of way because as others have pointed out the standard of living is so high here that while people may grumble about the situation who is really going to get violent while they live in relative comfort.

While I think youre already aware, let me point at not every part of the country is oil-rich Texas.

Nor Ann Arbor.

If the concentration of social rot becomes dense enough in any one area, youre not far from radical change.

Moreover, I dont believe the complete opposition of the current administration by conservatives, libertarians or the Tea Party folks is the source of such a possible discontented mass.

The disassociation of the average, tax-paying American from the politcal and wealth process in this country, IMO, is the underlying method of upheaval. It will be generalized and concentrated if it were to ever happen at all.

I imagine over-priced food, fuel, low-labor area of middle class nobodies.