Another attempt to help the right understand the change in wealth distribution

[yllus]

Originally posted by: sandorski
How about we make Wages = degree of Ass Bustedness of a Job?

Do you think Bill Gates would still be Wealthy? Would the Drive Thru order taker still be Minimum Wage?

What a horrible idea. Let's remove the incentive to think and innovate and replace it with rewarding the ability to heft heavy objects. No thanks, we moved away from that for good reasons after centuries of societal rule by strongmen (literally).

For the thousandth time, greater government intervention is the exact opposite of a helpful action. Try simplification of your tax system instead and you'll be on the right path.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: sandorski
How about we make Wages = degree of Ass Bustedness of a Job?

Do you think Bill Gates would still be Wealthy? Would the Drive Thru order taker still be Minimum Wage?

What a horrible idea. Let's remove the incentive to think and innovate and replace it with rewarding the ability to heft heavy objects. No thanks, we moved away from that for good reasons after centuries of societal rule by strongmen (literally).

For the thousandth time, greater government intervention is the exact opposite of a helpful action. Try simplification of your tax system instead and you'll be on the right path.

QFT.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: sandorski
How about we make Wages = degree of Ass Bustedness of a Job?

Do you think Bill Gates would still be Wealthy? Would the Drive Thru order taker still be Minimum Wage?

What a horrible idea. Let's remove the incentive to think and innovate and replace it with rewarding the ability to heft heavy objects. No thanks, we moved away from that for good reasons after centuries of societal rule by strongmen (literally).

For the thousandth time, greater government intervention is the exact opposite of a helpful action. Try simplification of your tax system instead and you'll be on the right path.

Not my idea.

 

[imported_Infidel]

Wealth begets wealth, and therefore it concentrates.

A lazy SOB with an inheritance can invest 10 million at 3% and will do far better than the hardworking brilliant guy that gets a 20% return on the $10,000 he's managed to scrape together over the last few years.

Tell me again how the hard worker has earned his American Dream? While the lazy ****** live off the capital system?

Wealth is not a product of innovation or hard work except in a few cases. Wealth is a product of having an initial sum of money to use as capital to earn interest on (capitalism, not to be confused with free market economy). The rich will always get richer because they hold the greatest amount of capital, the poor will never posses the capital needed, no matter how hard they work.

Concentration of wealth at the top eliminates the middle class, creating a huge class of disenchanted citizens/non-citizens that will ****** this country up. It's not socialism or class warfare or whatever the rightwing snippet is this week, it's common sense.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: piasabird
So basically you want to be a communist?

Without competition there is no innovation!

We already have "Communism".

What competition, what innovation?

Every Industry has been handed to a select one or two giant Corporations.

That sounds like Corporate Communism to me.

I don't know what keeps happening to my Patent insanity threads.

Here is another example:

3-19-2007 Countless patents ? including the one used to start up Kotecha's company, Yokit ? sit unused when companies decide not to develop them into products.

Now, not-for-profit groups and state governments are asking companies to donate dormant patents so they can be passed to local entrepreneurs who try to build businesses out of them.

In fact, about 90 percent to 95 percent of all patents are idle, according to Ron Sampson, the secretary of the not-for-profit National Institute for Strategic Technology Acquisition and Commercialization in Manhattan, Kan.

"These technologies represent an important national asset but the vast majority remain unused and eventually will be permanently abandoned," Sampson said.

Companies used to receive tax benefits for donating patents but Congress ended the incentive in 2004 after too many companies tried to unload useless patents with little chance of being commercialized.

Now that federal tax breaks have been eliminated, there's less of an incentive for companies to offer unused patents.

Delaware officials created a Web site where entrepreneurs can review and apply for the 105 patents that the state has received from DuPont so far.

Why would a company spend money to research technology only to let the patent sit idle?

Procter & Gamble Co., which uses only some 7,000 patents of its approximately 36,000, patents any meaningful advance but only acts upon those that are aligned with P&G's long-term strategy, said company spokesman Jeff LeRoy.

"In some cases we have a technology that for whatever reason we decide we're not going to launch, or it needs more development beyond P&G's expertise," LeRoy said.

IBM Corp. has more than 40,000 patents, according to company spokesman Steven Malkiewicz. Rather than give away idle patents, the company keeps them but allows some groups to use the technology for free.

Delaware has found dormant patents to be an easily accessible and near-limitless source of economic development, said McKinney-Cherry. Even without the federal tax incentive, every state should mine its local resources, perhaps offer its own tax incentives or appeal to a company's desire to be community friendly, she said.

"You can't rely on the old methods of economic development anymore. You have to be innovative" she said. "Every state has these gold nuggets inside their borders ? it's just a question of figuring out how to unlock that potential."
======================================

Bottom line is innovation and competition is locked up in the U.S. unless a Corporation and/or a State and of course the Federal Government gets paid off.

 

[Moonbeam]

Can anybody confirm the Jews had a law thousands of years ago to the effect, and I am not sure of the exact details, that every 70 years or so everybody had to give up all they had accumulated and start over?

 

[tw1164]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Can anybody confirm the Jews had a law thousands of years ago to the effect, and I am not sure of the exact details, that every 70 years or so everybody had to give up all they had accumulated and start over?

Do you mean the year of Jubilee?

In the Hebrew Scriptures, a year of rest to be observed by the Israelites every 50th year, during which slaves were to be set free, alienated property restored to the former owners, and the lands left untilled.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Can anybody confirm the Jews had a law thousands of years ago to the effect, and I am not sure of the exact details, that every 70 years or so everybody had to give up all they had accumulated and start over?

Not sure about that, but every 50(IIRC) years all Debts would be forgiven, Slaves Freed and likely some other things I forget. The Ancient Jews had a very interesting and comprehensive system.

 

[Vic]

I love the false dilemma in the thread title. "You're either with us or against us" is the height of anti-intellectual egoism... :disgust:

My input:


There is unrest in the forest
There is trouble with the trees
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas

The trouble with the maples
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade

There is trouble in the forest
And the creatures all have fled
As the maples scream 'Oppression!'
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights
'The oaks are just too greedy
We will make them give us light'
Now there's no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe and saw

"The Trees" by Neal Peart

 

[Fern]

Wealth =! taxable income. Example, John Kerry's wealth and (comparably) low taxable income. In many cases there ia some correlation.

But those who are not financial professionals need to finanaly understand this. THere are far too many examples of the very wealthy having very low taxable income.

an analysis of tax records and other government data by The New York Times shows

Thread title s/b

Another attempt to help the right understand the change in income distribution

Even so, it is merely more correct, or less incorrect.

We do not have any way to deteremine "wealth" in this country. Other countries actually have a wealth tax, and thus records systems to ascertain that. Our governments
's record system is only built around the reporting of taxable income.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
blah blah blah please give more of your money to those who have not earned it blah blah blah.

:laugh:

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Infidel
Wealth begets wealth, and therefore it concentrates.

A lazy SOB with an inheritance can invest 10 million at 3% and will do far better than the hardworking brilliant guy that gets a 20% return on the $10,000 he's managed to scrape together over the last few years.

Tell me again how the hard worker has earned his American Dream? While the lazy ****** live off the capital system?

Wealth is not a product of innovation or hard work except in a few cases. Wealth is a product of having an initial sum of money to use as capital to earn interest on (capitalism, not to be confused with free market economy). The rich will always get richer because they hold the greatest amount of capital, the poor will never posses the capital needed, no matter how hard they work.

Concentration of wealth at the top eliminates the middle class, creating a huge class of disenchanted citizens/non-citizens that will ****** this country up. It's not socialism or class warfare or whatever the rightwing snippet is this week, it's common sense.

Stat for ya...

80% of all the people in america who have a net worth of $1 million or more weren't born rich. As a general rule, their kids will piss it away when they die and the grandkids will be lucky to be able to afford to go to college with whats left.

Also, the "idle" rich in this country (think Paris Hilton) is a very very tiny minority. But you're not going to lisen to anything like that...

And there will not be a peasant revolt in this country. That's just silly. Just because not everyone makes it big in this country doesn't mean that nobody can. Most people realize this.

 

[Vic]

Exactly. Wealth is ASSETS not income. I cannot stress this enough. The possession of assets is what defines an individual as wealthy. Income is the acquisition of assets, i.e. how a lower class individual can move up towards being wealthy. When you penalize income but not assets, as Craig proposes, you are penalizing the poor while helping the rich.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234
Article

From 1950 to 1970, for example, for every additional dollar earned by the bottom 90 percent, those in the top 0.01 percent earned an additional $162, according to the Times analysis. From 1990 to 2002, for every extra dollar earned by those in the bottom 90 percent, each taxpayer at the top brought in an extra $18,000.

Sorry Craig, but your article is full of typical talking point type stuff that tell the story without any perspective.
For example

President Bush said during the third election debate last October that most of the tax cuts went to low- and middle-income Americans. In fact, most - 53 percent - will go to people with incomes in the top 10 percent over the first 15 years of the cuts, which began in 2001 and would have to be reauthorized in 2010. And more than 15 percent will go just to the top 0.1 percent, those 145,000 taxpayers.

If you are looking at the dollar value of the tax cut then of course the rich are going to get the biggest pie. They make and pay the most.
But if you look at percentage of income paid in taxes you will find that the poor are getting the biggest benefit. I don?t have time to search for the figures, but if you find them for yourself you will see that since the Bush tax cuts went into effect the threshold at which people don?t pay ANY taxes has gone up quite a bit. So someone who was paying $500 a year in taxes in 2000 is not paying any taxes now.

Go find the figures and you will also see that the ?rich? are paying a larger share of all taxes than they did under Clinton. And yet this is passed off as being ?unfair? because they got a larger tax cut in monetary terms? (Maybe we should repeal all of Bush?s income tax changes and watch them complain when the ?poor? have to start paying taxes again.)

EDIT: Here are some rough figures for you from the IRS. In 1992 the bottom 50% of paid 5% of all income taxes, in 2004 the bottom 50% only paid 3.3%.
The average tax rate paid by the bottom 50%: 1992 4.3% 2004 only 2.9%. That is a 25% drop in their tax rate. Contrast that to the average rate paid by ALL tax payers: 1992 12.9% 2004 12.1%. So all tax payers got about a 7% cut in their tax rates, but the bottom 50% got a 25% drop in their rates.

Please check your propaganda. 12.9% minus 12.1% is not about a 7% tax cut, but a less then one (.7%) percent cut. Now can we trust any of your other numbers?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
blah blah blah please give more of your money to those who have not earned it blah blah blah.

"Return more of the money to those who earn it"would be more like it!

 

[Vic]

The self-proclaimed liberals in this thread should educate themselves by reading Lincoln's first State of the Union address. Labor and slavery are not the same thing. Labor is income, capital is assets. Labor creates capital, income creates assets.


In the meantime, I continue to find it hilarious that Craig keeps dropping false dilemma ideological characterizations like "right wingers" while pushing communist ideology while quoting Greenspan, the world's most powerful Randite. The disconnect is strong in that one.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: palehorse74
blah blah blah please give more of your money to those who have not earned it blah blah blah.

"Return more of the money to those who earn it"would be more like it!

So you're saying we should cut taxes...?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: piasabird
So basically you want to be a communist?

Without competition there is no innovation!

The dearest goal of those involved in Capitalism is to operate without fear of competition.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: palehorse74
blah blah blah please give more of your money to those who have not earned it blah blah blah.

"Return more of the money to those who earn it"would be more like it!

So you're saying we should cut taxes...?

pwned.

well done!

 

[ayabe]

Real wages haven't kept up with the increase in productivity, corporations are earning more money by cutting costs(outsourcing) and/or increasing productivity but these gains are being passed on to investors rather than the workers themselves.

Solutions:

1. Radical reassessment of current wages, which will lead to rampant inflation most likely.

or

2. Increase opportunities for middle income workers to purchase stock in their employers at a discount.

Assuming you don't work for Enron, solution #2 seems the only choice.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Can anybody confirm the Jews had a law thousands of years ago to the effect, and I am not sure of the exact details, that every 70 years or so everybody had to give up all they had accumulated and start over?

That was the Northwest indians who gave everything they owned away just to prove how wealthy they were.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: ayabe
Real wages haven't kept up with the increase in productivity, corporations are earning more money by cutting costs(outsourcing) and/or increasing productivity but these gains are being passed on to investors rather than the workers themselves.

Solutions:

1. Radical reassessment of current wages, which will lead to rampant inflation most likely.

or

2. Increase opportunities for middle income workers to purchase stock in their employers at a discount.

Assuming you don't work for Enron, solution #2 seems the only choice.

OK lets say our government "reassesses" current wages...then what? Raise min wage? Dictate what employers should pay their employees? I think we've covered that topic on a bazillion threads...

As for #2...what if its a private company? No stock to purchase...and...MOST public companies allow employees to purchase stocks at a discounted rate already. Unfortunately most employees dont. Thats not the employers fault.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: palehorse74
blah blah blah please give more of your money to those who have not earned it blah blah blah.

"Return more of the money to those who earn it"would be more like it!

So you're saying we should cut taxes...?

pwned.

well done!

When the wealthy write the rules, it becomes unclear that the person who 'earns' income ends up with it.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: palehorse74
blah blah blah please give more of your money to those who have not earned it blah blah blah.

"Return more of the money to those who earn it"would be more like it!

So you're saying we should cut taxes...?

pwned.

well done!

When the wealthy write the rules, it becomes unclear that the person who 'earns' income ends up with it.

solution: work harder to become wealthy yourself.

now, I know the whole "work" thing confuses some people... so GL!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Can anybody confirm the Jews had a law thousands of years ago to the effect, and I am not sure of the exact details, that every 70 years or so everybody had to give up all they had accumulated and start over?

That was the Northwest indians who gave everything they owned away just to prove how wealthy they were.

Yeah, but that was just to brag about how wealthy they were. It wasn't anything remotely resembling what we would consider charity today. The practice was called the potlatch BTW.

It was the Jews who had the system of canceling all debts and contracts and returning all properties sold every 49 years, called the Year of Jubilee (Leviticus 25).