The real class warfare and who's losing

[HomerJS]

I'm really fed up with the right always crying "class warfare" when it's suggested the top income earners go back to the tax rates under President Clinton when they all prospered. You know, the same argument they use to say reverse-racism is a bigger problem then real racism.

This chart depicts the share of national income from 1979-2007. So where is the real class warfare and who is losing this war?

The top 400 richest people in the country earn more then the bottom 50% (currently 156 million). I don't know why this trend is acceptable to Republicans. I also don't know why rank and file Republicans have been "brainwashed" (Cainism) into believing this trend is ok. After all those 400 are the "job creators"

According to Herman Cain if you are not doing well it's your fault. By that logic I guess the only people working hard since 1979 are the top 1%. The rest of you 99% get up off your welfare collecting asses and put in more hours!

 

[Fear No Evil]

So tax the 1% at 100%.. now what? Give it to the 99%? Everyone gets like $2000 more for a year... now what?

 

[HeXen]

appears the old saying is true. the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

appears the old saying is true. the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

That saying has more to do with the decision making process of both groups rather then their actual state of being. A person could easily go from "poor" to "rich" (in retrospect to their current poor state) due to them moving away from making horrible decisions in life and them seeking out wiser decisions making process.

 

[davmat787]

So tax the 1% at 100%.. now what? Give it to the 99%? Everyone gets like $2000 more for a year... now what?

I was thinking that if the ultra wealthy gave every family of upper middle class and under $1 million dollars, how long would it take until that wealth was redistributed via the market and you had rich and poor/wealth disparity again?

 

[Jhhnn]

It's only class warfare when people fight back. Otherwise, it's just date rape, along with bread and circuses.

If the trend of the last 30 years is allowed to continue for another 30 years, the income distribution curve will be that of a third world country, the Repub leadership's ideal society.

Rank and file Righties will blame teh ebil libruhls, natch, when they're not busy paying obeisance to their betters.

 

[Jhhnn]

That saying has more to do with the decision making process of both groups rather then their actual state of being. A person could easily go from "poor" to "rich" (in retrospect to their current poor state) due to them moving away from making horrible decisions in life and them seeking out wiser decisions making process.

Some of the lamest apologisms ever. If it were "easy", then everybody would be rich. Which assumes infinite wealth, another commonly held belief of righties.

 

[Jhhnn]

I was thinking that if the ultra wealthy gave every family of upper middle class and under $1 million dollars, how long would it take until that wealth was redistributed via the market and you had rich and poor/wealth disparity again?

So what? Progressive income taxes can prevent that in a continuous ongoing fashion.

 

[HeXen]

That saying has more to do with the decision making process of both groups rather then their actual state of being. A person could easily go from "poor" to "rich" (in retrospect to their current poor state) due to them moving away from making horrible decisions in life and them seeking out wiser decisions making process.

Decision process is a peculiar thing in regards to financial success. See one could wisely choose to go to college, but does not guarantee wealth or even a job.
One could wisely choose to invest in a growing company, only to risk losing it all.

see its not just deciding, like life is a path of right and wrong. Some people try super hard but fail due to other variables, competition, lack of resources...yet some succeed based completely cause they knew or were related to someone who could get them there. Sometimes its just purely chance...make a website, product or service it just happens to catch on while so many similar or better ones fail.

So there is no "correct" decision that leads to success. Plenty of success stories based on a series of bad decisions too. Many poor people are the hardest workers and try harder than rich people to get somewhere, but opportunity is really a key player and not everyone is so innovatively minded.

 

[davmat787]

Some of the lamest apologisms ever. If it were "easy", then everybody would be rich. Which assumes infinite wealth, another commonly held belief of righties.

Would you trust a righty to tell you what your commonly held beliefs are? No? Then why do you feel you can do the same to others?

Sorry, don't mean to pick on you personally, but lately I keep reading people, from both sides but mainly left this time, insist they know what the others beliefs are. Inevitably, they are always negative, disingenuous, and at most a distortion of a very small truth.

 

[monovillage]

Why do all your charts end in 2007? I'm sure that things are sooo much better now that Pres. Obama is in office.

 

[Craig234]

Would you trust a righty to tell you what your commonly held beliefs are? No? Then why do you feel you can do the same to others?

Sorry, don't mean to pick on you personally, but lately I keep reading people, from both sides but mainly left this time, insist they know what the others beliefs are. Inevitably, they are always negative, disingenuous, and at most a distortion of a very small truth.

There's a partial truth in your comments, but you're largely wrong. The right is quite guilty of what you say - see my '95%...' marking of threads for evidence.

The left is sometimes guilty of it, but take this example, Jhhnn is reasonably commenting on the things the right says.

When someone says something you see an error in, you should point out the error, not silently go with your advice and leave errors without any response. They can correct.

It's often the case that someone is fed a line of propaganda, and someone can point out an error in it that might help them, as Jhhnn does here with the infinite wealth' fallacy.

 

[Craig234]

Why do all your charts end in 2007? I'm sure that things are sooo much better now that Pres. Obama is in office.

Because yes, in the last few years, the situation has totally reversed and now the middle class has a fair share. Of course the opposite is true, it's gotten a lot worse.

 

[HeXen]

Why do all your charts end in 2007? I'm sure that things are sooo much better now that Pres. Obama is in office.

well everything peaked in 2007. lol

 

[Craig234]

I was thinking that if the ultra wealthy gave every family of upper middle class and under $1 million dollars, how long would it take until that wealth was redistributed via the market and you had rich and poor/wealth disparity again?

You hit on more of an issue than you might realize. Capitalism itself tends to lead to this extreme concentration of wealth, and if you aren't going to have a horrible situation of a few with everything and everyone else poor, with all the injustice and suffering and concentration of political power and security forces that implies, you need some corrective measure in place to moderate the concentration of wealth. To lead to a society with the benefits of capitalism - the productivity, the rewards - but balanced. Progressive taxes.

 

[Craig234]

Workers have been getting a far smaller share since 1980. What's one cause?

 

[davmat787]

There's a partial truth in your comments, but you're largely wrong. The right is quite guilty of what you say - see my '95%...' marking of threads for evidence.

The left is sometimes guilty of it, but take this example, Jhhnn is reasonably commenting on the things the right says.

People of both sides do it Craig, you know it and you are doing it here by saying that right is guilty of it but the left only sometimes. You are supporting my point in a way just by how you worded your response.

Again, would you trust a righty to accurately and fairly describe your core beliefs? No? Then don't feel like you can do the same to your counterparts with any accuracy. This is a fault of human nature, not what stupid party or ideology someone decides to be a tool of.

 

[davmat787]

You hit on more of an issue than you might realize. Capitalism itself tends to lead to this extreme concentration of wealth, and if you aren't going to have a horrible situation of a few with everything and everyone else poor, with all the injustice and suffering and concentration of political power and security forces that implies, you need some corrective measure in place to moderate the concentration of wealth. To lead to a society with the benefits of capitalism - the productivity, the rewards - but balanced. Progressive taxes.

But what does my core point suggest? That if wealth was redistributed, how long would it take to have rich and poor, and wealth disparity again? What one feels is the required solution is another matter, mainly of partisan BS which I am not interested in.

 

[Craig234]

But what does my core point suggest? That if wealth was redistributed, how long would it take to have rich and poor, and wealth disparity again? What one feels is the required solution is another matter, mainly of partisan BS which I am not interested in.

Who's talking about some one-time redistribution of wealth? The current system gives too much power to the wealthy, and they get too much wealth. We need to fix that.

 

[SandEagle]

"We can have a democratic society or we can have the concentration of great wealth in the hands of the few. We cannot have both."

-- Louis Brandeis, Supreme Court Justice, 1916--1939

 

[Craig234]

People of both sides do it Craig, you know it and you are doing it here by saying that right is guilty of it but the left only sometimes.

You are supporting my point in a way just by how you worded your response.

No, that's called 'accuracy'. You are guilty of false equivalency - everything has to be equally bad about both sides' no matter what the facts are.

It's in contrast to your falsely asserting the equality of the behavior that I corrected it, and you are proving my point by repeating it, insisting that no, the facts are wrong.

Again, would you trust a righty to accurately and fairly describe your core beliefs? No? Then don't feel like you can do the same to your counterparts with any accuracy. This is a fault of human nature, not what stupid party or ideology someone decides to be a tool of.

It's not about trust. If a righty ACCURATELY discussed my views, then I might agree or disagree. Not a problem. It's not whether I 'trust' them to - they do or they don't.

You are arguing something absurd - everyone always gets everything those they disagree with wrong. If you make an argument, it can't POSSIBLY get a valid counter.

 

[Jhhnn]

Would you trust a righty to tell you what your commonly held beliefs are? No? Then why do you feel you can do the same to others?

Sorry, don't mean to pick on you personally, but lately I keep reading people, from both sides but mainly left this time, insist they know what the others beliefs are. Inevitably, they are always negative, disingenuous, and at most a distortion of a very small truth.

Oh, please. Ducati monster offered that getting rich was "easy", if people just made the right decisions. The only way that he could possibly believe that to be true is if he ascribes to the infinite wealth & resources concept that allows anybody to believe that to be true.

He seems to have a great deal of support from his fellow travelers on the right, indicating that they too believe in the availability of infinite wealth & resources. If they didn't, they couldn't possibly believe that becoming wealthy is just a matter of choices.

If I don't believe in God, I can't possibly believe that Jesus was the son of God.

 

[Craig234]

More on this infinite wealth fallacy of the right.

Let's say the right is correct, and ANYONE can become a billionare with a little less porn and some hard work. OK.

That doesn't change the fact that ANYONE doesn't mean EVERYONE, and when there are only a very, very few such spots - and the fact is there are, because if everyone was a billionare, that would just be inflation and houses would cost trillions - then it stil leaves the issue of how the 99% of people who aren't the billionare are doing.

That's what the right completely ignores. There can only be an extremely few such spots - and yet, the right has only one answer to the oppressed workers - be that one lucky person. Who care about the 99% otherwise? But they don't admit this is what they're saying. They pretend everyone can do it - despite the laws of physics.

This is a fallacy leading them to support bad policies that INCREASE poverty.

We need policies that support opportunity, not policies that increase poverty.

 

[monovillage]

Workers have been getting a far smaller share since 1980. What's one cause?

Women in the workforce?

 

[Lithium381]

Why would a company put up with a strike? that means they're loosing money = fire everyone and get a new workforce that appreciates the job......