Reply With Quote
None of which are examples of Republican class warfare. Nice straw man though...
Class Warfare - conflict between social or economic classes (especially between the capitalist and proletariat classes)
None of which are examples of Republican class warfare. Nice straw man though...
All of which are evidence of VRWC policies going back 30+ years.
The housing boom/crisis, the stagnation of real household income, the MBS/CDO , the TBTF financial corps were all avoidable, and were a direct result of VRWC policies.
Aren't you a fan of Trickle Down theory?
Don't you find it interesting that ~30 years of Trickle Down Economics has literally caused wealth to trickle *up*, away from the middle class?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts
Taxed enough already? Taxes are lower for the wealthy than they have ever been since the great depression.
Then again, who can blame people for not wanting to pay taxes when taxes aren't spent back on the populous?
USA is a country by the rich, for the rich. If you are unaware of any class warfare you are hopeless.
If you cannot understand how GOP support of corporations as individuals, dergegulation of the banking and energy industries, rhetoric about food stamps, etc is clearly them advocating the upper class then you are a ing idiot.
Its not hard to figure out even if it is difficult for you to look past your GOP via Fox News buzz phrases and group think.
There's no class warfare guys. Nothing is wrong with the economy, everything is just great.
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-...t-2011-10?op=1
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-...or-low-income/
Taxes are lower for the wealthy as a percentage of their own income, yes, but not as a percentage of all taxes paid.Aren't you a fan of Trickle Down theory?
Don't you find it interesting that ~30 years of Trickle Down Economics has literally caused wealth to trickle *up*, away from the middle class?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts
Taxed enough already? Taxes are lower for the wealthy than they have ever been since the great depression.
Then again, who can blame people for not wanting to pay taxes when taxes aren't spent back on the populous?
USA is a country by the rich, for the rich. If you are unaware of any class warfare you are hopeless.
Also, the discussion is about income, not after tax income? It appears to me that lower taxes do, in fact, encourage the wealthy to earn more money; the data seems to support that. As they earn more money, they pay a lower percentage of more income, right?* Might very well mean more net receipts for the govt. Also, as one person makes more money, and another makes the same, how is that the fault of tax policy? How does tax policy affect it? If you raise the taxes on the wealthy, and they continue to increase earnings; but pay more taxes - making the divide greater still, are you happy? You have more taxes, but the "disparity" is the same; at least on paper (where it is now, after all).
BTW: taxes (at least their returns) do illustrate a trend about those in the presidential field: Republicans are more generous than Democrats (at least with their OWN money) Biden = Greedy; before he was running for President, Obama wasn't far behind.
* (Caveat = Capital Gains; numerous posts for me regarding that - income ought to equal income)
BTW: I feel the real crisis is NOT in the tax code; it is in the unlimited supply of very low income, easy to access, reasonably skilled workers that are usurping middle-class American jobs. THAT is the root of the income disparity, IMO. I don't know the solution, and neither the President, nor the contenders are addressing it.
Nice info being posted via charts and graphs. The truth is that BOTH parties have been practicing class warfare for going on 30 years now. Make no mistake that both sides have generally sided with the rich. I'm a Democrat, and Bill Clinton was one of my favorite presidents, but the man did a lot to help the rich. Between free trade agreements and lowering the capital gains tax he did a lot to redistribute wealth to the rich.
Taxes are a large part of class warfare, but free trade is either just as big or even bigger. Manufacturing jobs have been opened up to cheaper foreign compe ion, while highly skilled jobs like doctors and lawyers have not. Make no mistake we could share our medical and legal standards with foreign universities and bring over people who would work for less in both fields. The same could be said for other "highly skilled" fields.
Protecting the jobs of the rich while giving away the jobs of the middle class is class warfare. Republicans and Democrats are guilty of this. We could have kept our manufacturing sector strong. It would have meant slightly higher priced goods, but we would have better paying jobs to pay for such goods. The real winners in the outsourcing of manufacturing has been stockholders and CEOs who have seen corporate profits sky rocket.
*Whoops, double post.
That's because the wealthy are the only people who have money in the first place.
Even Warren Buffett comments how he pays a lower percentage of taxes than his peon secretary.
So everyone says "Why not pay the same tax rate, Buffett? Cut the check to the government if you are so inclined."
Who can blame anyone for not wanting to pay taxes. As I've said before, taxes are supposed to be spent on infrastructure for the citizens, and for whatever reason no one seems to notice that the REAL problem is that our tax money is abusively squandered and stolen by the politicians in charge of them.
Very unlikely. The more wealthy a person is the less likely they will pay taxes due to offshore bank accounts/capital gains/stock options/etc etc. Everything is set up to benefit the wealthy and help them evade having to pay taxes, which does help bring ultra-ultra-rich people to our country (top 1%) for whom the country is designed to benefit.Also, the discussion is about income, not after tax income? It appears to me that lower taxes do, in fact, encourage the wealthy to earn more money; the data seems to support that. As they earn more money, they pay a lower percentage of more income, right?* Might very well mean more net receipts for the govt.
Read up a bit about the GINI Coefficient, which measures wealth disparity. USA rivals banana republics and third world countries.Also, as one person makes more money, and another makes the same, how is that the fault of tax policy? How does tax policy affect it? If you raise the taxes on the wealthy, and they continue to increase earnings; but pay more taxes - making the divide greater still, are you happy? You have more taxes, but the "disparity" is the same; at least on paper (where it is now, after all).
The benefits of having a high GINI Coefficient and large middle class are numerous; decrease in crime, decreased birth rates, higher education, higher quality of life, etc etc etc. Tax rates are obviously not the only ingredient to this, but they are a main one.
It's really pretty hilarious if you think about it...lets say hypothetically there's a completely flat tax rate.
The 1% would STILL troll all of the dumbasses by crying "WE PAY 43% OF ALL THE TAXES! THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS"
As I mentioned in my post; the capital gains tax rate bothers me a great deal. That low rate is attracting many of our best and brightest to investment careers - make money with money = 15%; earn money = 35%; easy math that. Income should equal income. All I see is Obama wanting to raise the top INCOME tax rate; should be talking about capital gains.
Obama is in bed with all of the finance industry so don't expect that.
BTW,
Money changers.
Bingo.It's really pretty hilarious if you think about it...lets say hypothetically there's a completely flat tax rate.
The 1% would STILL troll all of the dumbasses by crying "WE PAY 43% OF ALL THE TAXES! THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS"
I have always said that if an economic system benefits you, you owe society a moral obligation to pay into it.
Our goverment facilitates the creation of this wealth in a myriad of ways, and the people making the most money, who have benefitted the most, should pay more.
We have monkeyed with the capital gains rate enough to know that taxing that particular economic gain has no real correlation to economic growth, despite the hystrionics that conservatives pitch at it when you dare to equate labor income with capital income.
Anybody who claims that raising the capital gains tax will have any real effect on economic growth is just being a useful idiot, IMO.
If you don't like that charactorization, provide me with some solid data to support your thesis, or GTFO. I have seen the data, and can quite readily show the lack of correlation to debunk this myth.
This old saw is, to me, another way that class warfare is waged by the rich on everybody else. The wealthy find some useful idiot to parrot this on Fox "news" and then it gets accepted as right-wing gospel, not to be questioned under pain of being labeled "moderate". The horrors!
The Party People of Wall Street
but privately, a hedge manager said, “Most… view [it] as ragtag group looking for sex, drugs, and rock ’n’ roll.”
So sayeth the winners in our winner-take all economy. The very guys who were celebrating at the St. Regis because they were too big to fail. Even when they fell flat on their faces, the government was there to dust them off, bail them out and send them back to fight the class war with nary a harsh word or punishment. Talk about a nanny welfare state.
None of this was by accident. The last three decades have witnessed a carefully calculated heist worthy of Robert Redford and Paul Newman in “The Sting” — but on a massive scale. It was an inside job, politically engineered by Wall Street and Washington working hand-in-hand, sticky fingers with sticky fingers, to turn the legend of Robin Hood on its head – giving to the rich and taking from everybody else. Don’t take our word for it – it’s all on the record.
The biggest of the big boys was Citigroup, at one time the world’s largest financial ins ution. When the meltdown hit in 2008, the bank cut more than 50,000 jobs and you and other taxpayers s ed out more than $45 billion to save it. And how are Citigroup executives doing? Nicely, thank you. Last year, its CEO, Vikram Pandit, took home $1.75 million in base salary, and was awarded $3.7 million in deferred stock.
According to the Times, “Citigroup is expected to disclose the rest of his pay, cash, be it upfront or deferred, in March. In addition, while not necessarily for work performed in 2011, Mr. Pandit last year was awarded a $16.7 million retention bonus, plus stock options that could add $6.5 million to the package’s overall value.” Makes you want to cry out, “Retain me! Retain me!”
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/01/30-8
Yeah, things can get really messy, really fast when you politically start equating 'moral obligation' with 'income distribution', for instance, many Christian organization, even one huge one here in San Antonio and many on TV, equates social and economic success with 'doing the work of the lord' and wealth as 'the benefits of doing the lords work here on earth'.....in other words, those who can't pay their own way, aren't doing their part, in the eyes of the lord and aren't receiving their due 'penance' ....any form of govt help, welfare, unemployment compensation, health insurance, food stamps, all of it needs to be abolished....that is the goal.I have always said that if an economic system benefits you, you owe society a moral obligation to pay into it
And yet those 500 people could give 100% of their income to the government but if the level of spending didn't fall the economy would still be in the ter.
Tax debates are red herrings and those same rich people know it. Who do you think is growing the government?
a couple of really good stories on that site ..... just awful. Washington DC has really ed up this country.
You are equating the national debt with the economy, and that is inaccurate. As of now the debt has not had a serious negative effect on the economy. If it is not handled in the future it will become a problem. It would be foolish to cut spending in a time of weak economic recovery. Once the economy is moving along nicely the government will have to cut spending. Tax increases, at least returning to the levels of the 1990s, are also needed to help balance the books. Measures such as a financial transactions tax would not be a bad idea to help pay down the long term debt of the country.
exactly, the national debt was not the cause the Banksters' Great Depression.
The financial sector caused it.
In fact, increasing the national debt by about $2T is the best way to shorten the long-lingering Banksters' Great Depression.
They do pay into it -- in vast amounts.
And Bernie Sanders?
mmmmkay
Yeah Bernie Sanders is a complete loon, I mean, he's not even a member of one of the two major parties! And he's always ruffling feathers and stuff. If only he played by the rules like the rest of Congress, he might get something done.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
