Guess what? The rich are getting richer!!!!

[Nebor]

Now you would think that this would make people strive to better themselves, so they could be in those upper echelons. That's what Americans USED to do. How they USED to think. But socialism and laziness has crept into society, and it's so much easier to just blame those who are better off and take from them.

 

[rpanic]

Some people are dealt better cards in life but it still comes down to how well you play the game. I don?t see any way to change the distribution of wealth, nether party can do anything about greed.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

What I'd like to see is a breakdown of which percentiles cover the country's bills. Is that top 1% paying 21.2% of the total tax bill in this country? They make 21.2% of the income it would only stand to reason that they should cover 21.2% of the bills no? Maybe rather than throwing the rich under the bus and saying how we need to take it back from them, lets just get them to pay their fair share of the bills. If that's happening, which I'm quite sure it's not, then I don't really see what right we have to bitch about it. Just because we'll all eventually be slaves to the top 5% of the population shouldn't really interest or concern us right now.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Nebor
Now you would think that this would make people strive to better themselves, so they could be in those upper echelons. That's what Americans USED to do. How they USED to think. But socialism and laziness has crept into society, and it's so much easier to just blame those who are better off and take from them.

Or maybe, just maybe, the leaders of this country could make it harder for corporations to continually gooble up every competitor under the sun so that they are able to monopolize markets/sectors.

It is kinda hard for most pee-wee football teams to compete against their NFL counterparts after all.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
What I'd like to see is a breakdown of which percentiles cover the country's bills. Is that top 1% paying 21.2% of the total tax bill in this country? They make 21.2% of the income it would only stand to reason that they should cover 21.2% of the bills no? Maybe rather than throwing the rich under the bus and saying how we need to take it back from them, lets just get them to pay their fair share of the bills. If that's happening, which I'm quite sure it's not, then I don't really see what right we have to bitch about it. Just because we'll all eventually be slaves to the top 5% of the population shouldn't really interest or concern us right now.

Top 1% pays about 31% of our taxes, top 5% pays about 54%, and top 20% pays about 80% of our taxes. Anybody in the bottom half of the income bracket pays about 2% of our taxes.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: techs
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071012/bs_nm/irs_income_dc

The richest one percent of Americans earned a postwar record of 21.2 percent of all income in 2005, up from 19 percent a year earlier, reflecting a widening income disparity among different classes in the nation, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing new Internal Revenue Service data.

The data showed that the fortunes of the bottom 50 percent of Americans are worsening, with that group earning 12.8 percent of all income in 2005, down from 13.4 percent the year before, the paper said.

It said that while the IRS data goes back only to 1986, academic research suggests that the last time wealthy Americans had such a high percentage of the national income pie was in the 1920s.

The article cited an interview with President Bush, who attributed income inequality to "skills gaps" among various classes. It said the IRS didn't identify the source of rising income for the affluent, but said a boom on Wall Street has likely played a part.




But, But,,,,,I can show you a few hundred posts in this forum that say the opposite. And they can quote right wing wacko websites..........
Interesting how the Bushies have taken us back to the 1920's

And tell me, pray tell, what the Dems are doing about it now that they control the House and Senate? I've heard them bellyache for years about tax breaks for the top 1%, but what have they done? (Side note: I imagine that their "fix"...when they get around to it...will go well beyond the top 1% and deep into the middle class where the real money is...mark my words).

After that, please tell what they've done to fix Bush's pharmacy drug program? It's way too complicated and needs work...hey Dems...where's the beef? (Another side note: But it's light years ahead of what Bill and Hilliary put in place, i.e. nada.)

To me, the Dems are long on lofty political rhetoric to lead the sheep...but short on meaningful action. No wonder their approval rating is lower than Bush's.

IMO...both parties are disasters...so sad.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Nebor
Now you would think that this would make people strive to better themselves, so they could be in those upper echelons. That's what Americans USED to do. How they USED to think. But socialism and laziness has crept into society, and it's so much easier to just blame those who are better off and take from them.

Blah Blah Blah, don't you guys have any new talking points from your masters?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Nebor
Now you would think that this would make people strive to better themselves, so they could be in those upper echelons. That's what Americans USED to do. How they USED to think. But socialism and laziness has crept into society, and it's so much easier to just blame those who are better off and take from them.

Blah Blah Blah, don't you guys have any new talking points from your masters?

According to you, the Repubs state that everyone can climb higher.

Actually according to many of your like, the Dems state, that it is better to tear the other guy down so you do not have to keep up with him.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Top 1% pays about 31% of our taxes, top 5% pays about 54%, and top 20% pays about 80% of our taxes. Anybody in the bottom half of the income bracket pays about 2% of our taxes.

Seeing as Social Security accounted for 37.6% of total income for the US Treasury last year and it is capped at $90,000 income, I find your figures impossible to believe.

The point I'm driving at is whatever portion of the prosperity of this country you control should in turn be your percentage of the bills. If someone shows me that that is the case I'll shut up but we all know that's not the case. Basically, the budget last year was a little over 2% of GDP. So, why am I not paying about 2% of my income to support the federal budget? Instead, I'm paying nearly a third. I don't support penalizing the rich as is evident in many of my posts, but he who controls the wealth should also control it's debts don't you think? we all have a portion to pay, but there is a disparity between income and taxes and no matter what you say, the numbers show the responsibility is not tilted towards those making the money but rather those laboring to make the money for them. I call shenanigans.

On a side note, can anyone please point me to the total pay for the US population for 2006?

 

[GrGr]

"An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics." - Plutarch

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Nebor
Now you would think that this would make people strive to better themselves, so they could be in those upper echelons. That's what Americans USED to do. How they USED to think. But socialism and laziness has crept into society, and it's so much easier to just blame those who are better off and take from them.

Blah Blah Blah, don't you guys have any new talking points from your masters?

According to you, the Repubs state that everyone can climb higher.

Actually according to many of your like, the Dems state, that it is better to tear the other guy down so you do not have to keep up with him.

Ok, we can just go with your plan. Let's ignore this completely, the lazy just need to try harder.

You do realize that it is these precise disparities in wealth that caused the rise of organized labor which has been on the decline for a while now.

I know the thought of strong labor unions sends a shiver down your robotic spine, but that is exactly what will happen if this trend continues.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: GrGr
"An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics." - Plutarch

"Communism has been proven a failure." - Spidey.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: GrGr
"An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics." - Plutarch

"Communism has been proven a failure." - Spidey.

"Spidey looks prone to false dichotomies" - GrGr

 

[maluckey]

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Communism has never existed except on paper, socialism stifles growth, and North and South Americans threw of Monarchy with a vengeance. Why the sudden need to espouse Socialism and Communisn coming from the left?

Let's assume that they are on to something.....Rich are richer and poor are poorer. OK. How will you educate the poor on best lending practices and on retirement plans. How will you ensure that they are not stuck in a cycle of overpsending and a slave to interest payments?

Boost the ill educated through education. Boost the poor through encouragement and finacial training and punish predatory lenders. Don't punish anyone above a certain income level or level of success to make up for lack of caring for the less fortunate. Continually taking from one to give to another teaches nothing positive and only encourages and expands bad behavior within both groups.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Originally posted by: Genx87

Top 1% pays about 31% of our taxes, top 5% pays about 54%, and top 20% pays about 80% of our taxes. Anybody in the bottom half of the income bracket pays about 2% of our taxes.

Seeing as Social Security accounted for 37.6% of total income for the US Treasury last year and it is capped at $90,000 income, I find your figures impossible to believe.

The point I'm driving at is whatever portion of the prosperity of this country you control should in turn be your percentage of the bills. If someone shows me that that is the case I'll shut up but we all know that's not the case. Basically, the budget last year was a little over 2% of GDP. So, why am I not paying about 2% of my income to support the federal budget? Instead, I'm paying nearly a third. I don't support penalizing the rich as is evident in many of my posts, but he who controls the wealth should also control it's debts don't you think? we all have a portion to pay, but there is a disparity between income and taxes and no matter what you say, the numbers show the responsibility is not tilted towards those making the money but rather those laboring to make the money for them. I call shenanigans.

On a side note, can anyone please point me to the total pay for the US population for 2006?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi.../fa/WealthandTaxes.png

I think your figures are off on the budget as well. The budget was ~2.4 trillion and our GDP was 13.4 trillion. Or about 18% of our GDP.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: maluckey

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Communism has never existed except on paper, socialism stifles growth, and North and South Americans threw of Monarchy with a vengeance. Why the sudden need to espouse Socialism and Communisn coming from the left?

Let's assume that they are on to something.....Rich are richer and poor are poorer. OK. How will you educate the poor on best lending practices and on retirement plans. How will you ensure that they are not stuck in a cycle of overpsending and a slave to interest payments?

Boost the ill educated through education. Boost the poor through encouragement and finacial training and punish predatory lenders. Don't punish anyone above a certain income level or level of success to make up for lack of caring for the less fortunate. Continually taking from one to give to another teaches nothing positive and only encourages and expands bad behavior within both groups.

This isn't just the poor, most people, including many of us in the 40-80K/year bracket have been losing ground.

It's not a matter of educating people how to invest their money. If you make 30K a year, depending on your area, you might be almost at the poverty level.

One surefire way to climb up the ladder is through acquisition of property, but the mortgage crises/ridiculous tax/property values that have been present for the past few years has either shut people out of the market, or they've gotten themselves into trouble trying to get a leg up.

Outsourcing has been blamed for some of this, many of the blue collar factory jobs that paid well are now gone. Why? Because it's cheaper for the corporations. Ok great, well that should trickle down into cheaper products right?

Well it hasn't. The "extra" profits are being paid out to those at the top. It's necessary to include CEO vs regular worker salary in this equation.

People are being squeezed at both ends and it's not sustainable.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Originally posted by: Genx87

Top 1% pays about 31% of our taxes, top 5% pays about 54%, and top 20% pays about 80% of our taxes. Anybody in the bottom half of the income bracket pays about 2% of our taxes.

Seeing as Social Security accounted for 37.6% of total income for the US Treasury last year and it is capped at $90,000 income, I find your figures impossible to believe.

The point I'm driving at is whatever portion of the prosperity of this country you control should in turn be your percentage of the bills. If someone shows me that that is the case I'll shut up but we all know that's not the case. Basically, the budget last year was a little over 2% of GDP. So, why am I not paying about 2% of my income to support the federal budget? Instead, I'm paying nearly a third. I don't support penalizing the rich as is evident in many of my posts, but he who controls the wealth should also control it's debts don't you think? we all have a portion to pay, but there is a disparity between income and taxes and no matter what you say, the numbers show the responsibility is not tilted towards those making the money but rather those laboring to make the money for them. I call shenanigans.

On a side note, can anyone please point me to the total pay for the US population for 2006?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi.../fa/WealthandTaxes.png

I think your figures are off on the budget as well. The budget was ~2.4 trillion and our GDP was 13.4 trillion. Or about 18% of our GDP.

You're right, I missed a decimal place. And, if the figures you provided are correct, I don't really see how the rich are "keeping us down." They are paying more than their share in taxes based on income. Now assets are something different entirely and to those that want to "keep the rich man down," I'd suggest you focus on net worth figures rather than income.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Nebor
Now you would think that this would make people strive to better themselves, so they could be in those upper echelons. That's what Americans USED to do. How they USED to think. But socialism and laziness has crept into society, and it's so much easier to just blame those who are better off and take from them.

Blah Blah Blah, don't you guys have any new talking points from your masters?

So you are saying that those who are not doing well should not try?

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Originally posted by: Genx87

Top 1% pays about 31% of our taxes, top 5% pays about 54%, and top 20% pays about 80% of our taxes. Anybody in the bottom half of the income bracket pays about 2% of our taxes.

Seeing as Social Security accounted for 37.6% of total income for the US Treasury last year and it is capped at $90,000 income, I find your figures impossible to believe.

The point I'm driving at is whatever portion of the prosperity of this country you control should in turn be your percentage of the bills. If someone shows me that that is the case I'll shut up but we all know that's not the case. Basically, the budget last year was a little over 2% of GDP. So, why am I not paying about 2% of my income to support the federal budget? Instead, I'm paying nearly a third. I don't support penalizing the rich as is evident in many of my posts, but he who controls the wealth should also control it's debts don't you think? we all have a portion to pay, but there is a disparity between income and taxes and no matter what you say, the numbers show the responsibility is not tilted towards those making the money but rather those laboring to make the money for them. I call shenanigans.

On a side note, can anyone please point me to the total pay for the US population for 2006?

Its not his figures, they are provided by the government

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: ayabe
This isn't just the poor, most people, including many of us in the 40-80K/year bracket have been losing ground.

It's not a matter of educating people how to invest their money. If you make 30K a year, depending on your area, you might be almost at the poverty level.

One surefire way to climb up the ladder is through acquisition of property, but the mortgage crises/ridiculous tax/property values that have been present for the past few years has either shut people out of the market, or they've gotten themselves into trouble trying to get a leg up.

The mortgage crisis did not effect those who were getting proper mortgages and houses for their income level.

the ridiculous taxes that have been put in place are because Government is taking from those who succeed to buy the votes of those who don't

How are you losing ground?

Surely you have itemized your expenses to see where your money is going. The MAJORITY of people with money problems don't do that. As such they actually get in deeper because they don't know what to fix.

What are you really spending your money on. Itemize it. You may be shocked that some of your biggest payouts are for totally frivolous crap. Compare your expenditures to those of a generation ago.

What you will find is that today many Americans who are "just getting by" are putting themselves in this position because they are not spending wisely. They certainly are not saving. If you don't have money to save you are living beyond your means and must have the maturity to accept that and adjust.

Want some help. List all the items you pay monthly on. Get everyone. Then say, which of these are things I truly cannot live without. Which of these I can live with on a reduced version thereof?

The go after your purchases across a month and see where your money went. I am talking getting down to finding out where every dollar went. Until you do so you cannot justify "just getting by or losing ground".

I did this a while back and continue to review my expenses.

My luxury expenses that are monthlies.
1. High Speed Internet
2. Satellite (could be cable for all its worth)
3. Yard care (fertilization program)
4. World of Warcraft
5. My Car
6. My Motorcycle

My luxury expenses that are small inconsistent expenditures
1. Coffee from a shop (starbuck, dunkin donuts, etc) a few times a week
2. Breakfast once a week not at home
3. Lunches eaten out while at work
4. Dinner dates etc
5. Junk food from grocery store


I am sure I can list more in the bottom category but I don't have the spread sheet at hand - and yeah I needed one just to figure them out.

What are some monthlies that cannot be avoided?
1. Electricity (but it can be reduced)
2. Gas (for house)
3. Water bills
4. Property Taxes (accumulate monthly)
5. Mortgage or rent
6. Telephone (or cell - PICK ONLY ONE and reduce the other)
7. Insurance for car, house, and self (yeah I count my health insurance)
8. Savings (well you could, but your silly for not)

What are some reoccuring costs that cannot truly be avoided?
1. Home maintenance (yard, paiting, weatherproofing, cleaning, etc)
2. Food costs (manageable with care... look at what your eating, is it healthy? necesssary? etc)
3. Personal hygiene costs (hair cuts etc... doctor checkups, dental checkups)
4. Clothing replacement etc


Get out a spreadsheet one day and JUST TRY to figure it out. You will be very surprised where your money goes, hell you might find it frustrating just to figure out where it is goind.


You want to get rich. STOP WASTING MONEY. It works for almost everyone. I know there are hardship cases, where something comes up that people have a difficulty coping with. Most increase the difficulty by refusing to adjust to what their new lifestyle may be. I've been to near rock bottom and learned the hard way that every dollar, hell at times every dime counts.

Don't ever claim your losing ground, most likely your the cause

 

[First]

Reposted from a conversation I had about this last year in a Poli Sci class.

The Congressional Budget Office shows that the lowest and second lowest classes of Americans have seen an aggregate increase of 4.7% in their incomes between 1979 and 2003, while the highest and second highest tiers of Americans have seen an aggregate increase of 28.1%. This means that the richest people in the U.S. have been getting richer at a pace nearly six times that of the poorest people in the U.S. What makes this case most compelling is that these statistics are of the lowest and second lowest earners and highest and second highest earners, not just the very bottom and very top earners, where the discrepancy in increased income is 0.7% for the poor and 49.7% for the rich. In other words, only one class, the middle class, is left out of my calculations of 4.7% for the lower classes and 28.1% for the upper classes, which gives tremendous weight in terms of just how many Americans this inequality is affecting.

Also, in the mid-1970s, the top 1% of all income earners held 20% of the wealth in the U.S. Nowadays the top 1% of all income earners hold 33% of all wealth in the U.S. Growing inequality in income distribution can also be found in data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2005, which found that those in the top 20% saw their pretax income rise by 52% while those in the bottom 20% of earners saw their pretax income rise by only 8% between 1978 and 2001 (www.census.gov). There is a remarkable 46% difference in relative income increases, which Democrats conclude is proof positive that growing inequality is an issue that requires immediate attention.

However, the case can be somewhat made for inequality not significantly rising over the past several decades. These people would argue that while those at the higher echelons are seeing their incomes increase at a much faster pace than those with low incomes, people with low incomes are still seeing their incomes increase over time, just at a slower pace. For example, the case made above shows that the bottom 20% of earners saw their income rise by 8% between 1978 and 2001. These people would argue this is obvious progress and that, as we will see later, taxes will make up for this discrepancy.

On that point, they would argue that an equalizing effect has taken place when noting the fact that the top 10% of income earners are taxed at a rate of 65.7%, up significantly from 46.7% in 1960. What this means is that, while inequality is still rising over the past 3-4 decades, the upper classes? higher rate of income growth (cited earlier as 4.7% for the poor and 28.1% for the rich) is being mitigated with 19% higher taxes on the top 10% of the nation?s earners.

My conclusion is that there seems to be a good deal more support for the notion that inequality is increasing at a rate noticeable enough that it must be addressed more urgently before it gets out of hand. The data on these issues of inequality speak for themselves, where large percentages of the U.S. population are seeing their incomes increase, but at a much lower rate than the affluent. There?s also the issue of an accumulation of total wealth in the U.S. rising near levels not seen since the 1920?s and 1930?s, eras known for their inequality and hardship, which eventually led to FDR?s New Deal federal programs. I think it's quite clear that, in the end, inequality must be mitigated as much as possible.

Also, there is no empirical basis for the idea that rich people work harder than poor people. It's unsupported hyperbole.

Originally posted by: Genx87

Contrary to popular belief, the 20s relatively speaking was a good time for all classes.
And contrary to popular belief the 30s what a shitfest for all classes.

Sorry, but this is false and oversimplified, through and through.

 

[spidey07]

Even Lieb,

What exactly is wrong if the rich get richer? Why don't you become part of that? Why should we discourage people from succeeding?

This is what I just cannot understand from socialists/communists. Is it jealousy? Is it an irrational self-hate?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Top 1% pays about 31% of our taxes, top 5% pays about 54%, and top 20% pays about 80% of our taxes. Anybody in the bottom half of the income bracket pays about 2% of our taxes.

Please get your pesky facts, out of here. :laugh:

 

[First]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Even Lieb,

What exactly is wrong if the rich get richer? Why don't you become part of that? Why should we discourage people from succeeding?

You're assuming the gap in wealth isn't harmful. There is significant economic data showing that countries with large gaps in inequality are overwhelming less democratic and less economically vibrant than those countries whose gaps are smaller. I only briefly mention the inequality gaps in 1920's and 1930's America in my concluding paragraph, however the point is well known by now; the gap in inequality was enormous during those two decades and hurt us both economically and democratically until we finally corrected it with domestic reinvestment and government programs. Of course, now, FDR's New Deal programs have been taken to their extreme and need to be reined in in many cases, but I think you understand what I'm saying here.

This is what I just cannot understand from socialists/communists. Is it jealousy? Is it an irrational self-hate?

I'm not a socialist or communist, in fact I've only ever voted right or been registered right. Those who talk about the rising gap in inequality are stating facts, facts that throughout our history have proven themselves harmful to the furtherance of American interests. It has nothing to do with ideology or partisanship. Granted, I agree that there is an inequality trend apparent in many kleptocratic societies going back hundreds of years, these societies consisting of highly centralized governments. But those were very different systems with particularly twisted demagogues. It's not comparable to how the US has progressed, and we should be looking primarily at American history when attempting to improve internal issues such as rising inequality. Plus, the U.S. has never really sniffed anything near a socialist state.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: palehorse74
The gap is intentional, and one the causes is the eternal assault on the middle class by the Left.

That is SO true.

It's pretty sad really when the left engage in this kind of class warfare when they're the ones taxing them out the wazoo and literally preventing them from getting ahead. Then again the poor overwhelmingly vote demoncrat so it's not surprising that in order to maintain power they keep people poor. Sad really because in this country there is no barrier to success other than yourself.

social security is designed to keep the working class poor by taking their wages at gun point and giving them an almost 0 rate of return.

Originally posted by: Craig234

The last big improvement we had in reducing poverty was the war on poverty, which took it to a third lower than it had been for decades before; republicans have left it there.

just focusing on the rate misses the realities of the situation. by pretty much any measure, 'impoverished' people are doing much better than they were when the rate was at it's lowest in 1973. 1973 was a pretty crappy year for everyone, yet that was the lowest rate. weird, huh?

Indeed, since 1973, the official poverty rate has usually moved in the opposite, counterintuitive direction from other common-sense indicators of progress and poverty. When the rate of high school dropouts among America's adult population falls, the official poverty rate rises. When anti-poverty spending increases, so does poverty. And even when per capita income in the United States goes up, official poverty somehow increases, too.

washington post op-ed







and i would think that wealth concentration is normal in any growing economy. think about it. people with excess cash after covering their spending invest it. as everyone should know by now, interest compounds. which means wealth compounds. which means that wealth grows at exponential rates. which means that it concentrates.