Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

[boutons_deux]

Class warfare is real and the lower 4 quintiles have been beaten badly with no chance of coming back.

[Winehole23]

(double posted)

[Winehole23]

There goes Boutons again...

Showing his glorious jealousy and wanting to create a class warfare thread again.

Um, check the headline?

[LnGrrrR]

I don't like people being career politicians at all.

Exactly my point. We need fresh ideas occasionally, and I dontthink that's well served by patriarchal/matriarchal succession in Congress.

[boutons_deux]

ideas are cheap, even great ones, but voting for those ideas is aborted by the total control the capitalist/corporate oligarcy exerts on the govt.

[Marcus Bryant]

Yeah, I hear no one tried to get rich when the tax rate was higher. Why make an extra 100k if that means I have to pay an extra 20k in taxes? I mean, that extra button pushing by my accountant is certainly not worth the tends of thousands more in dollars I would have.

I mean we're racing to the bottom!

I was referring to RG's question of how much was enough, not to specific policy.

Further, considering my statement immediately prior to the one you highlighted it is clear you misunderstood my point.

[DMC]

I thought this was about motorcycle clubs when I read the le.

[greyforest]

Wait...

You don't think that the annual income tax rate on the highest income bracket has any effect on the annual income of those people?

I'm not sure what effect it has. I don't think you know either.

Hmm.....

I'm gonna take just a blind guess here, but I'm gonna say that just maybe it's a causal relationship that when the tax on ultra rich people goes down those same people start amassing re ed amounts of money.



Alas, since the graph ends in 2006 we don't know what happens after that! I think the economy has been pretty good since, right guys?

Trickle down economics is fact. After all, it's something that can easily be measured. Wealth surely trickles down from the richest Americans to the bottom 99% when their taxes are decreased.

[Winehole23]

Reasonable enough, maybe so. Thanks for speaking for yourself this time. Claiming the disparity caused a depression is something else again entirely.

[boutons_deux]

One of the main causes of the Banksters' Great Depression was the $100Bs freed up by the dubya tax cuts, cuts forced through with reconciliation.

Those $Bs went looking for high returns, like with non-bank lenders making predatory loans, which fueled the housing bubble, whose bust in 2007 started the flowing.

The historic and growing inequality is not due to the stagnation of household income but explosion of revenue to the decile and the huge tax breaks for that decile. That much cash doesn't sit around, but goes looking for much more return than T-bonds.

[boutons_deux]

Repug tax cuts in 2001 did not prevent:

1) continued stagnation of household income (no trickle down)

2) stagnation of job creation (lowest job creation in an 8-year period since WWII)

[Wild Cobra]

Repug tax cuts in 2001 did not prevent:

1) continued stagnation of household income (no trickle down)

2) stagnation of job creation (lowest job creation in an 8-year period since WWII)

But can you say with certainty it wouldn't have been worse without the cuts?

I know... That's a resounding NO!

[boutons_deux]

The huge size of the rammed-through dubya 2001 tax cuts, esp for the top brackets, should have had some positive effect, and they didn't.

There is no proof that tax cuts create jobs or produce trickle down, just like there is no proof that cutting govt spending at all levels in a depression stimulates job growth and the economy. All Repug fantasies, with no basis in fact, or in history.

[Wild Cobra]

The huge size of the rammed-through dubya 2001 tax cuts, esp for the top brackets, should have had some positive effect, and they didn't.

There is no proof that tax cuts create jobs or produce trickle down, just like there is no proof that cutting govt spending at all levels in a depression stimulates job growth and the economy. All Repug fantasies, with no basis in fact, or in history.

Well, I have to admit. You are the master of fantasy.

[boutons_deux]

Why didn't the 2001 tax cuts increase jobs and household income?

[Wild Cobra]

Why didn't the 2001 tax cuts increase jobs and household income?

How the do I know?

How do you know they didn't?

We were already on a decline. I'll bet it made the decline less. Problem is, there is no way to know for certain.

I ask you again...

Can you say with certainty it wouldn't have been worse without the cuts?

[RandomGuy]

RG...

Why to you covet other people's wealth?

Jealousy isn't good you know. Do you live like that with everything and apply it to everyone?

Do you believe in the Ten Commandments?

A man's wealth in not measured in the abundance of his possessions.

-J

[RandomGuy]

But the government does not produce any wealth. It only takes it away from others and redistributes it.

... or so the dogma goes.

No, I am not a communist, nor a liberarian.

I do not believe in ideologies that only work on paper.

[RandomGuy]

It has, a lot.

Stop looking at only our borders. (had an epiphany on this one)

Because so few of us are in position to direct to where things trickle. Many people on the planet now make $25 a month instead of $2, for instance.

Again, there is social mobility, and it is a direct result of wealthy people from this country and other countries hiring people with capital they have gained through tax cuts; much of it, unfortunately, is not on our shores. Again, I get offers monthly to ship 25 - 30 jobs overseas (India); the offers are economically compelling.

That said, if my taxes go up significantly, I can't promise I wouldn't have to figure out how to trim the fat out of my company's budget.

Fair points for the most part.

[RandomGuy]

Do you believe in the Ten Commandments?

Tell you what, I will believe them, if you can name all 10 without looking them up.

[RandomGuy]

The paradigm in thinking of what capitalism is needs to change in our society. This is not an argument against capitalism, but merely a need for a fuller understanding of exactly everything it means. The wealth someone attains is not simply money. It is fundamental power. We all recognize that the more money you have the more opportunities open up and the more efficiently you are able to use almost any system in our country. This includes the political system.

It is completely in interests of our society to keep that power spread out as much as possible. We recognize this quite well in many other ways. We do not consolidate power in one branch of government or in one person. Our an rust legislation attempts to avoid monopolies in order to facilitate better business. Well, in order to facilitate better government, I think you have to take that same mindset to wealth.

I agree.

Quite frankly, I don't think *anyone* on either side would disagree with this:

Wealth = power

This would strongly imply that increasing concentrations of wealth are about as corrosive to actual democracy as giving too much power to any one branch or sector of government.

[RandomGuy]

Don't you mean 'how little'?

Everyone has desires for themselves, their families, communities, etc, most of which are wholly admirable.

I'm not going to argue with the sentiment that an annual income of $1 mil, or net worth of $20 mil isn't a load and should be sufficient for someone to do whatever it is in life they want to do.

And, sure, I'm not going to lose any sleep if they have to pay more in taxes.

Yet this ultimately sets up a race to the bottom. For from a material standpoint one can need very little to survive. Not to mention that what you might deem as an acceptable level of income would seem to many elsewhere on this globe to be a quite comfortable, if not obscene standard of living.

Which is why the rest of the world views most Americans as spoiled, shallow materialists.

A criticism that is not entirely unwarranted.

Honestly, having been in the military, and learning to live out in the field gave me a very solid appreciation for how little a human being really *needs*.

Cable TV is nice and all, but my life is not threatened by its absence.

[baseline bum]

Tell you what, I will believe them, if you can name all 10 without looking them up.

1. Thou shall not confuse the terms subsidy and tax loophole.
2. Thou shall not redistribute that gained on the backs of others.
3. Thou shall collect tax mainly on the meek.
4. Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's political connections.
5. Thou shall socialize all costs.
6. Thou shall not take Milton Friedman's name in vain.
7. Thou shall bomb all those who are brown, as outlined in the cons ution.

I forgot the last 3.

[greyforest]

But the government does not produce any wealth. It only takes it away from others and redistributes it.

Right, but the way it is redistributed can be a good investment or a bad investment.

Would you argue that the government should not provide schools?

[Wild Cobra]

Tell you what, I will believe them, if you can name all 10 without looking them up.

LOL...

I don't know if I can...

Thou shalt not kill.

Thou shalt have no other God before me.

Thou shalt not covet they neighbors....

Thou shalt keep the sabbath holy

Thou shalt not bear false witness

Thou shalt not worship graven images/idols

Well, I'm past half, and starting to have trouble. Probably get all ten if I think about it for a while.

You didn't mean verbatim did you?