The real class warfare and who's losing

[Moonbeam]

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.

Hahahahahahahahaha Hahahahahahaahahahahahaha Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

[trenchfoot]

Isn't it just so plainly obvious that the rich have used their wealth to buy influence over our politicians and have now used our politicans and the system of governanace our politicans have sway over to make themselves even wealthier and resultingly more powerful and influential still? Is there any way any sane person can deny this fact? Obviously not.

That's something that the middle class and the poor cannot do. Concentrated wealth in the hands of a select few has infinitely more leverage than widely dispersed resources held by a multitude of citizens with infinitely different views and opinions.

The vastly outnumbered rich have been using this disparate advantage to successfully wrest control of the government away from the majority. They have also used this advantage to flood the media with their narrowly focused propaganda and disinformation in conjunction with the firm hold they now have over our politicians. They have managed to convince the middle class to wage war against itself by using divisive issues and fear tactics.

They are manipulating the Party they fully control by having their politicians consistently focus on legislating single issue concerns like second amendment rights, illegal immigration, abortion, religion, anti-unionism etc. and thus have made these issues the highest priority among their middle class and poor party members to keep them fighting against their own best interests.

The very rich know that a weak government is a gov't that they can easily control and have been pushing hard and fast to weaken the go'vt as much as they possibly can. A weak gov't gives them complete control over the majority.

This is the war the very rich have been waging against the middle class and the poor ever since the middle class came into being.

So how ludicrous it is that the Repub spin machine now accuses the middle class and the poor of waging class warfare on the very rich. Is that the best argument they can muster against asking the very rich to chip in an amount they would rather casually flush down the toilet than contribute toward the overall prosperity of the nation?

 

[SamurAchzar]

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

Looking at the OP graph, I wonder what kind of progressive taxation could change this situation. You'd need nearly 100% taxation for the highest earners; but this would not be enough. It will enrich the government no doubt, but you'll need an effective enough policy to reinvest this money in society so that it causes a significant growth in income for the low earners. Unless of course your idea is to literally redistribute the income - run around and give money to the poor, no questions asked.

If we look at it on the individual level, clearly policies must not allow the creation of billionaires in order for this gap to close. Now, how do you do this? Let's take Mark Zuckerberg for example. He's sitting on tens of billions in company equity, which can not be taxed until he sells any of it. What will you do? Tax him 100%? Force him to sell early, when the company worth is in the millions? Take the shares by force?

 

[Craig234]

Looking at the OP graph, I wonder what kind of progressive taxation could change this situation. You'd need nearly 100% taxation for the highest earners; but this would not be enough. It will enrich the government no doubt, but you'll need an effective enough policy to reinvest this money in society so that it causes a significant growth in income for the low earners. Unless of course your idea is to literally redistribute the income - run around and give money to the poor, no questions asked.

If we look at it on the individual level, clearly policies must not allow the creation of billionaires in order for this gap to close. Now, how do you do this? Let's take Mark Zuckerberg for example. He's sitting on tens of billions in company equity, which can not be taxed until he sells any of it. What will you do? Tax him 100%? Force him to sell early, when the company worth is in the millions? Take the shares by force?

We need gradual measures. It took time to get into this, and it'll take time to get out. When the right talks about a '100% tax', it's a straw man.

We can look at the history of the re-adjustment after the great depression - it's called 'the great compression' when inequality was reduced, lasting until 1980.

 

[thepd7]

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.

I believe anyone can become a millionaire and I don't believe in infinite wealth. I believe that everyone has the opportunity. The same likelihood? Absolutely not, but news flash: life's not fair.

Hahahahahahahahaha Hahahahahahaahahahahahaha Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

To be fair: you have to stop posting eight paragraph novels on AT.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Gradual measures is fine, compression of inequality is also fine - but in practice, how do you do this? What measures will you enact?

I don't see any effective solution that would not result in a sharp decline in growth, but maybe you do.

 

[Craig234]

If we look at it on the individual level, clearly policies must not allow the creation of billionaires in order for this gap to close.

I disagree. It's good to make new billionares, if it's done right.

Now, how do you do this? Let's take Mark Zuckerberg for example. He's sitting on tens of billions in company equity, which can not be taxed until he sells any of it. What will you do? Tax him 100%? Force him to sell early, when the company worth is in the millions? Take the shares by force?

On the one hand, he's less of a concern than people making money less productively.

But like others at the top, one option is a 'wealth tax'.

I'd want to look more into the options of just what the best specific taxes are, but the bottom line is to gradually fix the issue and increase opportunity for more people.

 

[SamurAchzar]

On the one hand, he's less of a concern than people making money less productively.

But like others at the top, one option is a 'wealth tax'.

I'd want to look more into the options of just what the best specific taxes are, but the bottom line is to gradually fix the issue and increase opportunity for more people.

For all that we know, Mark Zuckerberg might have $51.92 in his checking account and all his net worth in Facebook equity. How can you tax that?
This is the main reason tax percentage on the very high net worth individuals is marginal. Their worth is their equity and there's nothing that lets you tax that at present, for as long as they don't sell it.

So in essence you are left chasing the crumbs that they get in salaries, dividends or the little equity they do sell, but the majority of their wealth can't be touched (not under the current system).

You'd be very hard pressed to find a single billionaire that has all, or most of his net worth in cash. It's always equity in something.

 

[Rainsford]

For all that we know, Mark Zuckerberg might have $51.92 in his checking account and all his net worth in Facebook equity. How can you tax that?
This is the main reason tax percentage on the very high net worth individuals is marginal. Their worth is their equity and there's nothing that lets you tax that at present, for as long as they don't sell it.

So in essence you are left chasing the crumbs that they get in salaries, dividends or the little equity they do sell, but the majority of their wealth can't be touched (not under the current system).

You'd be very hard pressed to find a single billionaire that has all, or most of his net worth in cash. It's always equity in something.

In addition to all that equity, the rich ALSO take home quite a bit of money in various ways. You don't buy giant houses and fancy cars with equity, after all. Trying to tax equity would be silly, but there is plenty of actual income that makes progressive tax rates worth it.

 

[SamurAchzar]

In addition to all that equity, the rich ALSO take home quite a bit of money in various ways. You don't buy giant houses and fancy cars with equity, after all. Trying to tax equity would be silly, but there is plenty of actual income that makes progressive tax rates worth it.

True, but tax it at even 80% and you'd still won't be able to touch their net worth. The gaps will not close. Tax the living expenses of each of the Forbes 500 list and you'd perhaps get fractions of percent from their net worth. But then, you would also reduce the amount of money they directly put back in the economy - if they are taxed at 80%-90% on their cash money, you won't see many of them taking out dividends and salaries and buying yachts. Curbing luxury consumption does the economy no good.

But lets say you don't care if they buy less; all you care about is taking and redistributing their wealth. Unless you take away or devalue their equity, you will not affect in any meaningful their share of national assets.

 

[Jhhnn]

Gradual measures is fine, compression of inequality is also fine - but in practice, how do you do this? What measures will you enact?

I don't see any effective solution that would not result in a sharp decline in growth, but maybe you do.

"Growth" isn't much of a metric when it all goes to the tippytop & stays there, when the vast majority of the population doesn't share in that growth. It's not a positive factor at all when growth at the top means greater & more extended unemployment for the rest, which is negative growth for them.

If we want to change it, then we need to understand what caused it, and for that, we need a historical perspective. We need to acknowledge that this change began ~1980, with the rise of the Reagan Republicans and the policy changes they brought.

Not that it'll make any difference so long as Repubs occupy a blocking position in our govt. The way it is and the direction it's headed is a direct and intentional result of their policy in action.

 

[SamurAchzar]

If we go back to the Mark Zuckerberg example, the only way to eliminate it would be by creating an environment or regulation in which Facebook could not be created - disallow market disruption. Nothing the Unification Board can't handle through Proposition 10-289. Otherwise, I've yet to hear a single reasonable argument on how to prevent Gates, Ellison, Dell, Buffet, Zuckerberg, Brin, Page, Schmidt and co. to amass a completely disproportional share of the national wealth.

Other than heirs, you simply can't touch these people unless you destroy what they make.

 

[HomerJS]

I see a lot of people while not directly saying, seem to support the continuation of the trend in the chart. Do you really think the country would be better off let's say if 100 people controlled more wealth then the bottom 75%?, etc. Do the 1% really work that much harder then the bottom 99%, enough to justify the disparity?

I have 1 example of a baby step. I'm sure there are many more

How about an arrest of a dozen CEOs of the financial institutions and rating agencies that caused our economic meltdown. Instead they get to keep their multi-million dollary salaries with their multi-million dollar bonusus, courtesy of the US taxpayer and go on their merry way. At the same time lobbying against any regulations that may prevent this from happening in the future. They get to remain in that 1% while the average citizen sees their home value, 401K plummet and some at the same time lose their jobs.

This won't correct everything but sends a strong message for their successors.

 

[HomerJS]

If we go back to the Mark Zuckerberg example, the only way to eliminate it would be by creating an environment or regulation in which Facebook could not be created - disallow market disruption. Nothing the Unification Board can't handle through Proposition 10-289. Otherwise, I've yet to hear a single reasonable argument on how to prevent Gates, Ellison, Dell, Buffet, Zuckerberg, Brin, Page, Schmidt and co. to amass a completely disproportional share of the national wealth.

Other than heirs, you simply can't touch these people unless you destroy what they make.

Let's say you are the average CEO in the United States.

While you can't mandate what they give their employees, just as a matter of principle wouldn't everyone be better off let's say if CEO's offered fully paid healthcare and adjust their ratio to let's say 425 to 1?

 

[SamurAchzar]

I see a lot of people while not directly saying, seem to support the continuation of the trend in the chart. Do you really think the country would be better off let's say if 100 people controlled more wealth then the bottom 75%?, etc.

Do the 1% really work that much harder then the bottom 99%, enough to justify the disparity?

Who said they need to work "hard"? Capitalism rewards you by the VALUE you bring to society, not by how "hard" you work. You can work the most number of hours and still bring negligible value to society. Your material rewards will not be great.

Now, nearly no one on the Forbes 500 list is rewarded by his work. They are rewarded by their equity, which is their property. It doesn't matter what they did and whether they worked at all; this is THEIR property and it is valued in a certain way by the market. What do you propose? Kill the businesses, or nationalize them, or just take away the cut of the large private equity holders?

How about an arrest of a dozen CEOs of the financial institutions and rating agencies that caused our economic meltdown. Instead they get to keep their multi-million dollary salaries with their multi-million dollar bonusus, courtesy of the US taxpayer and go on their merry way. At the same time lobbying against any regulations that may prevent this from happening in the future. They get to remain in that 1% while the average citizen sees their home value, 401K plummet and some at the same time lose their jobs.

This won't correct everything but sends a strong message for their successors.

Did they violate laws? If they did, punish them. If they didn't, and you think they should have been treated as such, blame your representatives that failed to disallow this behavior.
What you can't do, however, is to punish them for actions that were legal by the definitions of the law but seemed immoral to you. This is what happens in dictatorships, where "justice" is relative and punish is handed out according to political need.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Let's say you are the average CEO in the United States.

While you can't mandate what they give their employees, just as a matter of principle wouldn't everyone be better off let's say if CEO's offered fully paid healthcare and adjust their ratio to let's say 425 to 1?

Look, I'm just an average guy. I don't make that much money. I would be much better off if all the CEO pay went to me or to the states which would administer it back to the population as free money. However, it's not my decision to tell a company how much it should compensate the CEO. Neither me, you, the government or the "deprived 99%" a side to the CEO compensation, if the shareholders wish to compensate him in such way.

 

[novasatori]

if the shareholders wish to compensate him in such way.

except it isn't really the shareholder's decision

 

[glenn1]

It seems of those on the left have conceded even the very idea of increasing their own economic productivity or increasing value they add to the economy. The only possible reason that they are not making more money is because of the rich oppressing them and has absolutely nothing to do with their values, life decisions, or spending and savings habits.

 

[HomerJS]

Who said they need to work "hard"? Capitalism rewards you by the VALUE you bring to society.

Now, nearly no one on the Forbes 500 list is rewarded by his work. They are rewarded by their equity, which is their property. It doesn't matter what they did and whether they worked at all; this is THEIR property and it is valued in a certain way by the market. What do you propose? Kill the businesses, or nationalize them, or just take away the cut of the large private equity holders?

If what you say is correct how did the CEOs who presided over the bankrupting of their financial institutions (wiped out all their VALUE), took money from the average US citizen to prop them back up, keep their jobs, multi-million dollar salaries and bonusus?

Seems to go against what you just stated.

 

[SamurAchzar]

except it isn't really the shareholder's decision

Collectively, it is. And if you are dissatisfied with the CEO compensation, or think that the large shareholders and the board are conspirating against you, just sell the stock and move to something else.

 

[SamurAchzar]

If what you say is correct how did the CEOs who presided over the bankrupting of their financial institutions (wiped out all their VALUE), took money from the average US citizen to prop them back up, keep their jobs, multi-million dollar salaries and bonusus?

This is a question that should be referred to the administration, not to the companies. The federal loans and the conditions under which they were made were not something that can be generally rationalized and protected, at least not by me. There may or there may not be a reasonable justification for this course of events, and the only people who can tell are the ones in the administration who signed the loans and set the terms.

 

[HomerJS]

This is a question that should be referred to the administration, not to the companies. The federal loans and the conditions under which they were made were not something that can be generally rationalized and protected, at least not by me. There may or there may not be a reasonable justification for this course of events, and the only people who can tell are the ones in the administration who signed the loans and set the terms.

Not entirely. The government bailed out the FEs to keep our economic system from completely collapsing. Yes, there should have been more strings put on the money but there were time contrainsts.

Again, CEO bakrupts company they should lose their job. Could it be this good 'ole boy system watches each others backs? Instead it was the average middle class worker who lost their job. Sounds like once you become a member of that club normal rules of capitalism don't apply.

 

[Pens1566]

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.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you DELUSION.

 

[HomerJS]

Look, I'm just an average guy. I don't make that much money. I would be much better off if all the CEO pay went to me or to the states which would administer it back to the population as free money. However, it's not my decision to tell a company how much it should compensate the CEO. Neither me, you, the government or the "deprived 99%" a side to the CEO compensation, if the shareholders wish to compensate him in such way.

You just threw up a strawman. I never said nor hinted CEOs should give away all their money. I just suggested something that sounded resonable that would benefit all.

I'm not really sure what the ratio would need to be to provide heathcare but I'm sure it would cut into their current 475 to 1 very little.

 

[SamurAchzar]

You just threw up a strawman. I never said nor hinted CEOs should give away all their money. I just suggested something that sounded resonable that would benefit all.

I never said or implied that you did.

I'm not really sure what the ratio would need to be to provide heathcare but I'm sure it would cut into their current 475 to 1 very little.

Obviously, but that's not for us to even debate for as long as we're not shareholders in those companies. If two private parties strike an agreement, it's nobodies business.

What I am for, however, is that the public made aware of their rights in these companies, which they might be shareholders of through their retirement funds or whatever. The only rules that should be here are to protect the shareholders (ALL shareholders). And if, fully aware, they choose to compensate the CEO for 475x of the average worker salary - so be it. Their money.