*Snark Detection System* NO SNARK DETECTED
That's a fair question with a problematic answer. The question implies that there is an optimum wealth ratio out there somewhere. I'm not sure that even exists since there is probably not an agreed upon answer. The easy answer would be "Less than what we have now. " but that's fool's gold as it really doesn't answer anything.
What would your answer be, RG?
My ideal would be very similar to that of the people polled for the video I posted.
Talent, skill, drive, hard work and innovation should be rewarded, but people at the bottom should not be struggling.
The thing is that we don't have to have a perfect answer to generally work towards what we have a vague consensus on. The perfect should not be the enemy of the good, so to speak.
Does the current wealth concentration concern you?
Why wealth is concentrated is very concerning.
Welfare is a very cheap way to stop people from rioting.
And there is a whole lot of government spending that should be cut before welfare cuts are ever considered.
Sadly I fear talk radio is mostly to blame for making struggling middle class people resentful of poor people's welfare.
"Welfare is a very cheap way to stop people from rioting."
poor people aren't going to riot, but right-wing white paranoid asshole "marans" will continue shooting up police, judges, schools, court houses, etc.
"And there is a whole lot of government spending that should be cut before welfare cuts are ever considered."
House Repug just increased "tax expenditures" by $75B in cuts and subsidies to corps and wealthy, without any-pay/offset.
"Sadly I fear talk radio is mostly to blame for making struggling middle class people resentful of poor people's welfare"
that certainly contributes, but the slander of criminal/lazy poor and the LIE of the deserving hyper-wealthy go well beyond talk radio sources.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 06-24-2014 at 12:34 PM.
I agree as to perfection vs good. However, missing is "workable". Vague consensus isn't going to cut it when trying to hammer out policies to address this. Wealth concentration, per se, does not concern me. As the concentration currently stands, and it's progression since the go-go 80's yes, it does concern me. It's a symptom of imbalance. Might be the driver of imbalance as well.
Sorry for the late response...been on the road this week.
Define "welfare". Which federal or state programs specifically?
Who gets it? How much?
If one ever gets into an argument with asshats like vy65 or the like, that should be your go-to set of questions. I will guarantee you that the people who talk most about personal responsibility, have done the LEAST amount of research, like anyone who thought it was their personal responsibility to make informed decisions might actually do.
Getting into the moral dimension after that, such as was done a few pages back here, also really is revealing because one can clearly see how immoral that same group of people is.
"driver" indeed. It is a result of a feedback loop.I agree as to perfection vs good. However, missing is "workable". Vague consensus isn't going to cut it when trying to hammer out policies to address this. Wealth concentration, per se, does not concern me. As the concentration currently stands, and it's progression since the go-go 80's yes, it does concern me. It's a symptom of imbalance. Might be the driver of imbalance as well.
Sorry for the late response...been on the road this week.
The people who can save money, use the money to make more money, which means they can save more money, then use that money to make more money...
Expenses like health care and college have gone up far faster than inflation, eating into most people's ability to save.
Much is made of the stagnation of middle class incomes but I have yet to hear a logical solution. Government simply can't provide a solution and any attempt just creates more problems.
This is absolutely true but at the same time that is the middle classes best option to increase wealth. That is one of the many reasons capital gains are treated differently than ordinary income.
Capital gains aren't just for trust fund babies. It is for middle class families trying to save for retirement and invest in basic things like owning housing instead of renting.
So...
Does anyone have a solution?
FEDERAL minimum wage should be raised high enough so nobody working 40 hours/week is on public assistance. Which would reduce public assistance payouts at all levels, local, state, federal, kill taxapyers welfare to businesses.
Federal threshold for OT should be up to $75K, reversing the Repugs' War on Employees hit by lowering it back in the mid 2000s, disqualifying 100Ks employees from OT, a blatant give to employers, and screwing the low to middle class employees.
iow, start to reduce inequality by pushing up from the bottom.
It could be, had "middle class" or even poor people the chance to save.
They don't. Incomes have remained stagnant or worse for a generation, as the level of college debt per student rather aptly demonstrates.
What it ends up being, is a gimmie to the hyperwealthy.
"one of the many reasons capital gains are treated differently than ordinary income"
really? which specific govt policy(ies) says capital gains low taxes and all kinds of loopholes for the wealthy who can afford to buy accountants/lawyers to exploit the loopholes so the middle class can increase their wealth.
BigCorp/VRWC War on Employees, esp unions, has stagnated real household income since the late 1970s. Even high-paid jobs' real income has stagnated since the late 1990s.
Minimum wage increase would be a really good start.
Then fine, but set an annual limit to the amount you can exempt. Easy peasy.
Raise minimum wage is fine, but don't screw over the other employees who are making the same now as the new minimum wage... Adjust it accordingly. There will be many discrepancies obv. If no adjustments are Done.
"don't screw over the other employees"
raise them, too.
raise EVERYBODY
real household income, esp single males incomes, has BEEN STAGNANT for 35+ years.
Where do you think we'd all be, America would be, now if real household, single incomes had kep with with GDP increases since 1975?
you people eat pie gratefully and think that pie is all you ever deserve, pie has always been the norm, but it just ain't so.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 01-04-2016 at 04:49 PM.
Report: Taxpayers cover the costs of low wages
Four days a week, Marcie Barnett rises at 3 a.m. and then travels by bus and train about 90 minutes from her South Shore apartment to her job as a security officer atO'Hare International Airport.She's on her feet for eight-plus hours patrolling the airport corridors, guarding doors to make sure people don't improperly enter or exit and watching over the baggage claim area.
But with her $12.20 an hour wage, Barnett doesn't earn enough to pay rent on her three-bedroom apartment, cover utilities and buy groceries for her daughter and granddaughter, who live with her. So she relies on a Chicago housing choice voucher to subsidize more than half of the rent.
"I have expenses that are going up and some bills just don't get paid," said Barnett, who has learned not to panic over her state of constant financial crisis. "I've been living like this for so long, I don't even think about it. It's become second nature."
Take Mary Hood, 29, a Bronzeville mother who works for $10.50 an hour at McDonald's. When she started working at the fast-food chain, she was a cashier, but she worked hard and got a management position.
Still, her hourly pay remained the same.
"My paychecks vary because I work depending on business," she said. "So my pay is not consistent. I have one daughter and I have rent, lights, gas, life insurance and school fees. I just stretch it out paying what I can throughout the month."
As a result, Hood collects $360 a month in food stamp benefits and relies on Medicaid for health care. Without the public aid, she wouldn't be able to make it.
"I feel like, why should I have to depend on government assistance when I get up and go to work every day?" she said. "I'm not the type of woman or mother to depend on the state. These programs are supposed to assist you until you don't need it. I have a job and can't let go (of the benefits) because my job doesn't provide all I need."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...103-story.html
Repugs ALWAYS block raising Federal minimum wage, while cutting health and welfare programs.
Thanks, Repugs. ing America at every turn.
Were any of them able to support a family before having kids?
I suspect not.
Why should I coddle stupidity?
Logical solution would be to increase taxes on the wealthy, who can afford to pay the taxes, i.e. making our progressive income tax system a bit more progressive.
Since all the economic growth is going to that segment of the population, it is simply logical to get them to pay for the system that is benefitting them almost exclusively, at the expense of everybody else.
Paydown overall debt for a year or two, then plow funds into the kinds of infrastructure spending we all know we need to do, as well as increasing education funding. Personally, I would throw in a re-vamping of our space program as well. Our nation could do better.
So, you are for providing free abortions? I'm confused.
I don't necessarily disagree with this. But I have to wonder just how much we would actually gain by doing this. What are we going to do tax at 100%? Because if we did that, I'm still unsure that it would actually solve our problem.
If that is the case then you should sterilize yourself first.
No one is saying that would be necessary or even desirable.
I personally would oppose such a thing as being really dumb policy.
Thing is though, the people benefitting the most from the economy, are the wealthiest who have seen their incomes rise over the last 20 years, yet their tax burden has actually fallen as a percentage of their income.
They have the most capacity to bear the costs of what is benefitting them.
A modest tax increase to make needed investments is what is called for, IMO.
I haven't finalized my 2015 taxes yet but it looks like I will end up paying around $160,000 in federal taxes personally. This doesn't count corporate tax I will pay. I sure as don't consider myself rich. How much more do you want to increase it RG? How is it that you think I should "owe more" just because I finally benefit from working hard and making good life and business decisions?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote