The numbers don't lie

[Zebo]

This is as natural as sun rising every country/society does this then there is usually bloody revolutions when all societies productive assets are held by a few. It's only happened like a million times. It's still that way in many parts of the world and we are seeing live on TV revolutions because of it. We prevented revolution back in the 30s with redistributing some assets back into the masses with progressive taxation and unions, SBA loans, etc but don't seem to be on that tract today. Prepare.

 

[JS80]

Geebus dude, what the fuck?

What, are you going to say I am jealous of you?

How can you be jealous of me, i have nothing. Yet.

I disagree, the concentration of wealth toward the top is harmful, and it is not fair, as it is occurring unnaturally. A strong middle class should be the result of a capitalistic economy.

There was a chart posted many months ago showing the unemployment rate by class. The lower one was on the scale, the more likely they were unemployed, and the differences were huge.

I give Progressives props for understanding this is a problem (Elizabeth Warren has a great speech on this) and having a desire to correct it. Republicans just don't see it as a problem, most likely because, like the Progressives, they don't understand the cause. Republicans see this as an attack on capitalism, when it certainly shouldn't be, as that isn't the cause. Crony capitalism and bad monetary policy are the culprits.

I disagree with people that there is no middle class. If you consider standards of living, even the poorest in the US can be considered "middle class." Go look inside a poor person's home. They don't work or work little, have a stocked fridge, LCD TV, iPhones, cable, weed, etc.

I agree with you in philosophy about wealth concentrating unfairly. But in reality and practice it appears you have to choose crony capitalism or socialism. There is no middle. And I will choose crony capitalism and work towards being a crony.

 

[Zebo]

So who do you blame? Do you blame the rich for making money or do you blame everyone else for continually buying things like new cars, iPhones, computers, and all kinds of things. Ever notice how the richest people are heads of companies that make things you don't have to have to survive?

Anyone in the technology sector, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Harlan Ellison, the list goes on. Guys like this represent the top teir of the income bracket, and if you look at it, most of them started from the very bottom.

I'm not rich by any means, I make above the national average, and I can't go out and buy whatever I want, but I understand that the rich are rich because they worked to get there.

The poor are poor because they are not willing to work or better themselves. I've seen single parents, manage to work a fulltime job for minimum wage, go to school and make their lives better. It's all about motivation, and sadly in this nation there is less of it. Why work your ass off and succeed on your own when you can have someone else do it for you. That's the mentality of anyone that thinks taxing the rich more to pay for the poor is the answer.
You can't make the bottom rungs of society better by bringing down the top rungs. You have to make the bottom rungs climb up the ladder.

I think more people would be for wealth redistribution if it wasn't just taking money from the rich to give to the poor so they can go out and buy Air Force One's, which ironically gives mony back to the rich.
Instead of giving the poor, wealthfare checks and food stamps for nothing. Make them attend job training. Make them attend social welfare and responsibility classes. Make them do something that will embetter themselves, instead of giving them a reason to sit on their ass and do nothing.

They'll be newly minted billionaires made every year. That's not the issue it's the vast millions who do work hard and finding little opportunity and savings. America is morphing into a win big lose big society and I'm not sure that's healthy long term.

I agree with you about welfare..should be workfare.

 

[gregoryvg]

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

Great visual reference point for the growing income inequality in America. Scary really. :thumbsdown:

I don't think the disparity really matters for the US. Even most of those in the lower income brackets have housing with heat and AC, they have HD TV's and cable, computers and internet and do not go hungry. Not a whole lot for them to get upset over.

 

[Zebo]

I disagree, the concentration of wealth toward the top is harmful, and it is not fair, as it is occurring unnaturally. A strong middle class should be the result of a capitalistic economy.

There was a chart posted many months ago showing the unemployment rate by class. The lower one was on the scale, the more likely they were unemployed, and the differences were huge.

I give Progressives props for understanding this is a problem (Elizabeth Warren has a great speech on this) and having a desire to correct it. Republicans just don't see it as a problem, most likely because, like the Progressives, they don't understand the cause. Republicans see this as an attack on capitalism, when it certainly shouldn't be, as that isn't the cause. Crony capitalism and bad monetary policy are the culprits.

It's actually quite natural as in it always happens. Success in the market is about market position.eg. what you control > that control eventually moves from factories to banking to the FED/central bank to politics to police to where you are above the law because you are the law, etc. It's only happened like a million times everywhere.


I don't know what fair means. It is what it is. You can either apply mixed markets that work and have longevity or go the fail/revolution route.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

I don't think the disparity really matters for the US. Even most of those in the lower income brackets have housing with heat and AC, they have HD TV's and cable, computers and internet and do not go hungry. Not a whole lot for them to get upset over.

following that logic you would be equally content under a dictatorship so long as you had HDTV and heat

 

[Craig234]

I don't think the disparity really matters for the US. Even most of those in the lower income brackets have housing with heat and AC, they have HD TV's and cable, computers and internet and do not go hungry. Not a whole lot for them to get upset over.

You're just wrong for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that when the poor only get 'food and heat', while the concentration of wealth skyrockets, democracy fails.

Democracy and plutocracy are incompatible.

The rich do not care to have the masses over their head able to pass laws against their interests, and when the wealth is too much in their hands - democracy won't really exist.

It might be 'soft killed' where money filters who can win, or 'hard killed'.

A hard kill can come in degrees, from limiting the power of government but still technically having a 'democracy' that passes 'National puppy day', or more, e.g., Russia/China.

Bottom line: the society is far better off with moderate concentration of wealth.

 

[Craig234]

following that logic you would be equally content under a dictatorship so long as you had HDTV and heat

This is the formula China followed: the government made a deal with the people: they can have prosperity if they do not challenge the political power of the 'communist' leaders.

The people have accepted this deal indefinitely.

I think many Americans would, too. I see many who don't really care about democracy - especially when it's corrupted by money.

 

[bamacre]

I disagree with people that there is no middle class. If you consider standards of living, even the poorest in the US can be considered "middle class." Go look inside a poor person's home. They don't work or work little, have a stocked fridge, LCD TV, iPhones, cable, weed, etc.

I agree with you in philosophy about wealth concentrating unfairly. But in reality and practice it appears you have to choose crony capitalism or socialism. There is no middle. And I will choose crony capitalism and work towards being a crony.

You cannot deny the facts though. Those being that the necessities for people have risen in price compared to the increase in their incomes. Food, health care, housing, education have all risen in price compared to income. I don't think your stereotypical perception of the poor quite fits with reality. I would also argue that it isn't crony capitalism and socialism that needs a middle, but that crony capitalism is the result of the misguided perception that we need a middle of the road policy between capitalism and socialism. It surely wasn't the intention, but it surely has been the result.

 

[Throckmorton]

This is the best part

 

[Throckmorton]

92% of Americans prefer Sweden's wealth distribution. Not just liberals and socialists-- 92%.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/23/americans-support-wealth-redistribution_n_736132.html

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Since everyone is so keen on graphs and stuff...here's an interesting tidbit of information...the percentage of the tax burden for those in the Top 25% Income range increased from 76% in 1986 to 86% in 2007.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Since everyone is so keen on graphs and stuff...here's an interesting tidbit of information...the percentage of the tax burden for those in the Top 25% Income range increased from 76% in 1986 to 86% in 2007.

makes sense since they are earning more they should be paying more as a result.

 

[Throckmorton]

Since everyone is so keen on graphs and stuff...here's an interesting tidbit of information...the percentage of the tax burden for those in the Top 25% Income range increased from 76% in 1986 to 86% in 2007.

And how much have their income and wealth increased in that time? Their share of total income went from 59% to 68%. Think about that. The top quarter gets 68%. And almost 1/3 of that actually goes to the top 1%. Mind boggling-- almost 1/4 of total income going to 1%. The rest of us fight like dogs over the 32% scraps falling from their table.

The top 1% had their incomes DOUBLE, while their tax burden only went up by 57%.

Edited because I was looking at 10% instead of 25%.

 

[Engineer]

Since everyone is so keen on graphs and stuff...here's an interesting tidbit of information...the percentage of the tax burden for those in the Top 25% Income range increased from 76% in 1986 to 86% in 2007.

So their income went up by 305% and their taxes went up by 246%? Sounds like they are making more and paying less, no?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

makes sense since they are earning more they should be paying more as a result.

And they are....it's not like they're not taking on a huge portion of the tax burden as some would like us to believe.

Now...here's the $64 question...how much is their "fair share"? I keep hearing about it but I've never seen anyone who could tell me what this really means.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So their income went up by 305% and their taxes went up by 246%? Sounds like they are making more and paying less, no?

Do the math...if you increase their taxes from 246% to 305% they would be paying beyond the entire tax burden. Is this fair? Is this what we really want?

 

[werepossum]

92% of Americans prefer Sweden's wealth distribution. Not just liberals and socialists-- 92%.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/23/americans-support-wealth-redistribution_n_736132.html

I prefer it too.

The problem I have with progressives is the assumption that if I prefer Bill Gates' wealth, it somehow becomes moral and right for me to band together with others and take it. I am completely for building society's regulatory and tax structures so that a strong middle class results. I am completely against building a huge government to simply and continuously take wealth and redistribute it according to some preferred percentages.

 

[Throckmorton]

The tax rates are a red herring. Redistribution is a red herring.

The issue is they're concentrating wealth by outsourcing our jobs to make products to sell to us, giving us loans to buy price inflated houses that they built with illegal immigrant labor, and convincing us that we need to vote for politicians who further their efforts with nonsensical rhetoric about businesses "creating jobs" like they're such kindly generous job granters. It's like a bizarre reverse colonialism.

But the rich are good at trickery. You say "this is unsustainable economically", and their response is "you want to redistribute our wealth you socialist" or "we pay a large percentage of total taxes!" Well guess what, even with flat tax the top 25% would pay 68% of taxes, and the apologists for thirdworldization would praise them for that too.

 

[Engineer]

Do the math...if you increase their taxes from 246% to 305% they would be paying beyond the entire tax burden. Is this fair? Is this what we really want?

You can volunteer to pay more so they can pay less. No skin off of my back.

Not sure how you arrive that they aren't doing better. Their percent of income went up by 305% while their percent of tax went up 246%. If their tax rates would have remained the same, it would have went up by 305% instead of 246%. Just exactly what is wrong with that picture that has you riled up?

Are you bitching because the people, who's incomes have regressed after inflation for the last decade + aren't paying enough? You wanting the lower's to pay more so the uppers can pay less?

 

[JD50]

The tax rates are a red herring. Redistribution is a red herring.

The issue is they're concentrating wealth by outsourcing our jobs to make products to sell to us, giving us loans to buy price inflated houses that they built with illegal immigrant labor, and convincing us that we need to vote for politicians who further their efforts with nonsensical rhetoric about businesses "creating jobs" like they're such kindly generous job granters. It's like a bizarre reverse colonialism.

Then why do liberals think the answer is to raise taxes on "the rich?"

 

[Craig234]

I prefer it too.

The problem I have with progressives is the assumption that if I prefer Bill Gates' wealth, it somehow becomes moral and right for me to band together with others and take it.

95% of what is said about liberals here is wrong or lies, I can't remember the other 5%.

I am completely for building society's regulatory and tax structures so that a strong middle class results.

No, you're not. That's what progressives are for that the right including you fight them on as your 'policies'.

You are just too clueless to understand the effect of the policies you push.

You are a dupe of the right-wing propaganda to sell you on polices - let's take the dishonestly named 'fair tax' for example, that does nothing but shift taxes off the rich.

That's the point of their propaganda, lie to you to get you to back policies good for them.

 

[Zebo]

Since everyone is so keen on graphs and stuff...here's an interesting tidbit of information...the percentage of the tax burden for those in the Top 25% Income range increased from 76% in 1986 to 86% in 2007.

Didnt slow em down none from getting richer.


I'll tell you what give me 1% FED loans and let me buy guaranteed Federal Treasuries at 2% spread and I'll pay 99% taxes and still be rich. Why can't I get 1% money and Goldman can only to loan it to me at 6%?

 

[Throckmorton]

Then why do liberals think the answer is to raise taxes on "the rich?"

That's a straw man. We recognize that taxes need to be raised to get a handle on the deficit, and the rich wallowing in their cash are the only ones who can afford it. They sure as hell won't notice some piddly 1% reduction from their money banks full of gold coins that they swim around in.

 

[Illusio]

This article lost a lot of credit with me as impartial once they grouped anyone making under $165k as the bottom 90%.
I don't fall in the top 10% but I certainly don't fit in with the people making $31k. How about a more realistic breakdown. I'm sure there are a ton of people in the 50-75k range alone.