The rich are getting richer

[smc13]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: smc13

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: smc13
The article doesn't actually say that the poor are getting poorer. it says the wealthy are earning more money then they did in '79. You are making the incorrect assumption that the rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor. There isn't a fixed total dollar amount.

lets play with numbers. Lets say in 1979 the total amount of money was $100 (just an easy number to work with)

1979 total $100
lowest 20% $1
top 1% $33.1
middle 79% $65.9

Now lets say today the total is $300

2005 Total $300
lowest 20% $2
top 1% $177
middle 79% $121


Obviously the numbers are made up, however this does demonstrate that it is entirely possible for everyone's income levels to increase at the same time with the richest 1% just earning much more then everyone else.

Also, there is nothing in the article that establishes that the richest in '79 are the richest in '2005 and the poorest in '79 are the poorest in '2005. In fact, we know that this isn't the case. The richest American today (Bill Gates) wasn't the richest in '79. His family was wealthy but not at the top 1% if I remember correctly.

too sum up. That the rich are getting richer doesn't mean the poor are getting poorer

the gap between the rich and poor in increasing. wealth is relative. the poor are relatively poorer.

Wealth is relative? HAHAHA. So my $60,000 a year becomes less if someone wins $20,000,000 lottery? How so? I can still buy the same things I could the day before they won the lottery. If I get a 5% raise next year and some millionaire's wealth increases by 10% that makes me poorer? How? If I make 5% more I can buy 5% more goods. What you are talking about is just jealousy. There will always be people richer and people poorer. There is nothing wrong with that. Someone's success doesn't make me poor.

it not that hard a concept to understand. sure you can buy as much, but everyone else can buy much more.

And how does that hurt me? How does that make me poorer? Are you saying that someone winning the lottery causes me not be able to afford the roof over my head or the food on plate? You are going to have to come up with better explanation on how a widening gap hurts the poor when the rich aren't taking money from the poor. As long as the pot is getting bigger what does it matter if some group gets more of the increase. Your point would make sense if my share were actually shrinking, if I couldn't afford as much as I did last year. instead, I can afford more then I did last year so how does Gates and his Billions affect me?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: smc13

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Yes, we need a very progressive tax system with top marginal rate well north of 50%. We had it in the 50s and we had a huge economic boom.

Yes, let's tax those who are successful. After all, that's the American dream.

Yes, let's tax those who are struggling. After all, thats the American dream

That's why we have a graduated income tax. Nice try.

That's why we have a regressive payroll tax. Nice try.

Don't even try to say the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes. The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes in the country. Quit your bitching and thank them for paying your taxes.

The rich don't pay their fair share of taxes. If the top 1% makes 90 times as much as those in the bottom 20%, that 40% number is not very impressive. I pay a higher combined tax rate than those making over $1M.

No, you don't. Do you pay over 50% of your income in taxes?

Yes, I do.
Look at Rip's link. The top 1% pay 27% income tax rate. I pay a higher percent of my income in taxes.

You pay more then 27% on your federal income tax?

Of course he doesn't.

 

[Riprorin]

I just checked my 2003 Tax Return. I paid 9.3% of my adjusted gross income in Federal Tax.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Wealth redistribution hasn't worked and will never work. Plus, it goes against every ecnomic ideal that the US stands for. I don't need the government to tell me where to donate my money, nor does anyone else.

Bahahahahaha

Great job SuperTool and guys, you got a Republican to admit Trcikle Down Economics is 110% Bullsh!t. :shocked:

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Why don't you just come out and say you hate wealthy people and get it over with.

Absolutely, hate them when they say they are "trickling" down the wealth and they are in fact trickling down sh1t.

 

[Zorrander]

This is inevitible in our capitalist society and global economy. The sheep work jobs they hate in order to survive and to spawn more corporate giants to control all the aspects of our lives.

 

[Zorrander]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Why don't you just come out and say you hate wealthy people and get it over with.

Absolutely, hate them when they say they are "trickling" down the wealth and they are in fact trickling down sh1t.

I hate people that place their own status and wealth above everything else, community, country, religion... As many outside the US will tell you, we are the most self centered arrogant people in the world. It's true.

 

[Zorrander]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I just checked my 2003 Tax Return. I paid 9.3% of my adjusted gross income in Federal Tax.

That's lower than mine.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: ntdz
That's life, there is nothing you can do about it.

thats a great attitude :roll:

I bet that atitude will get you far in life.

Right, because we are always supposed to do 'something' about bad situations even if it means sacrificing all our liberties and setting up Orwellian wealth distribution schemes administered by an all powerful government state.

This is the most common and most attractive fallacy employed by the left i.e. the "At least WE are doing SOMETHING" fallacy. Are there poor people in the world? Yes. Does it suck? Yes. Does this justfiy government wealth redistribution schemes? NO.

Increasing freedom from government is the only way to help improve standards of living, because ultimately it is only the free market which can truly improve living standards. And of course it is the government which is the greatest impediment to technological progress in the free market.

Nonsense. Once there is no protection at all then the wolves have free reign. We would become a defacto feudal system, with our lords being CEOs. Eventually they would be few left, and they could formally call themselves royalty. Those dependent on the company store have no say in the company

Uh, let's see here. Coporations have been using government power for all kinds of wicked things ever since the government was created. Now you are saying it would be worse without a government? The government and the corporations are in bed with each other, hello!

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Increasing freedom from government is the only way to help improve standards of living, because ultimately it is only the free market which can truly improve living standards. And of course it is the government which is the greatest impediment to technological progress in the free market.

There is no such thing as a "free market". It is a fiction. No market can be "free", because the market itself is an "intervention" (and invention) by man. The rules for a market are established by the stake-holders. It is entirely reasonable for "the people" (via the government) to establish market rules that produce a desired outcome. Some people, such as yourself, want rules that allow the richest, most greedy people to accumlate vast sums of money, unfettered by petty concerns of environmental protection, decent treatment of employees, and so on. Others (the majority of the population, I believe) want market rules that allow trade to occur while ensuring our environment is not destroyed, workers are not exploited in ways perceived to be immoral or undesirable, etc. There is no convincing argument that the type of market you want is any more "free" than any other type of market, nor is there a convincing argument that your desired set of market rules are somehow more virtuous or moral than say a set of market rules that take into consideration environmental protection, worker protection, taxation of income for the betterment of the community, etc.

Oh there isn't? Try reading the works of Ludwig von Mises, Hayek and Rothbard. You can start here: mises.org

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Wealth redistribution hasn't worked and will never work. Plus, it goes against every ecnomic ideal that the US stands for. I don't need the government to tell me where to donate my money, nor does anyone else.

Bahahahahaha

Great job SuperTool and guys, you got a Republican to admit Trcikle Down Economics is 110% Bullsh!t. :shocked:

I'm not a Republican. Not that it matters to you.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: smc13

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: StormRider
Have you guys ever watched Survivor? In every season there are always some lazy people who do nothing but lie around on the beach all day. This always causes resentment among the people who work their butt off. This happens every season. You cannot create a society in which you mandate everybody gets an equal share because this will cause major strife and resentment against the people who just don't work. In the end, a lot of people would just stop working hard because they are tired of supporting all the people who just slack off and live off the hard work of others. This society would just have a mediocre standard of living. Look at the standard of living between every capitalist society and every communist society.

The current capitalist US society isn't perfect. In my opinion, it needs some tweaking. I like the idea of a capitalist society that rewards hard work while providing a socialist safety net for those less fortunate.

The sad fact is that life isn't fair. But all I want is an opportunity -- the possibility that my hard work will be rewarded. But I also know that this isn't a guarantee that my hard work will always be rewarded. But all I want is a chance.

The wealthiest few percent of the population are paying less in tax now than they have in 40 years. As a result, the burden of tax has shifted onto the MIDDLE CLASS. What this means is that the quality of life of the majority of people in the country -- people like you, i.e., the so-called middle class -- has declined. More equal distribution means making multi-billionaires like Richard Scaife and multimillionaires like George Bush pay more in tax. It does not mean making people like you (assuming you are of the middle class) pay more tax.

What you are saying isn't true. The wealthiest have a lower tax rate then they have in 40 years. The wealtiest make considerably more now then they did in '79 (see the original post) so they pay more in taxes then they did in '79. True, it is less then they would if the tax rate had stayed the same (though there is no evidence that they would have made as much if the tax rate had stayed as high as it was - so there is no evidence they would have paid more taxes), however they are still paying more taxes.

Sorry for the confusion. Yes, I did not bother adding "as a percentage of income" as it is inconceivable the gross amount paid by the wealthiest few percent has declined. I assumed people would understand I am talking about the percentage of income being paid as tax. The wealthiest few percent of the population are contributing less tax to the community, as a percentage of their income, than in 40 years.

Originally posted by: smc13
Quality of life is worse now then it was in 1965? You're kidding, right? We have moved away from manufacturing jobs to service jobs which means we have easier jobs. We have significantly better conviences now then we did in 1965. Microwaves, color TVs, cable and satelite TV. VCRs and dvd recorders/players, music cds and movie dvds, ATMs, computers and game consoles. internet acess, cell phones, etc. How is quality of life worse?

Based on the research, it's reasonable to say that key aspects of quality of life in the US has been declining since the early 1980s. If you look at the research, high tech gadgets and cable TV are not what make people happy. Things that have had a negative impact on wellbeing include loss of leisure time - people are working longer hours to achieve the same [in relative terms] income - and time spent with family, i.e., reduced social wellbeing.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
After total decimation of the middle class is complete

The problem is that the middle class are angry at the poorest citizens. The middle class has been "sucked in" by conservative rhetoric of poor citizens living the high life on government subsidies, kicking back on lobster and champagne on government cheques, etc. In fact, the reason why quality of life for the middle class is declining (e.g., people have to work longer hours for the same - in relative terms - level of income) is because of changes in tax policies which benefit the wealthy few at the expense of the hard-working majority.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Yes, we need a very progressive tax system with top marginal rate well north of 50%. We had it in the 50s and we had a huge economic boom.

Yes, let's tax those who are successful. After all, that's the American dream.

Of course those who are successful should be required to give back in to the community. (The community that enabled them to achieve success in the first place.)

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Wealth redistribution hasn't worked and will never work.

Yes, it has worked. Tax policies during the 1950s to 1970s ensured that the economic gap between the wealthiest few percent of citizens and everyone else was DEcreasing. Changes to tax policies, beginning in the mid-70s, saw that trend reversed. IN fact, whether or not a society allows small numbers of individuals to hog the vast majority of resources is a choice. There is nothing inevitable about enormous disparities of wealth in society. When a majority of people get sufficiently angry about the current situation, you will see a reversal of the current trend.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
OK, I am off to study for my exam

[/quote]

good luck with your exam, SuperTool!

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Increasing freedom from government is the only way to help improve standards of living, because ultimately it is only the free market which can truly improve living standards. And of course it is the government which is the greatest impediment to technological progress in the free market.

There is no such thing as a "free market". It is a fiction. No market can be "free", because the market itself is an "intervention" (and invention) by man. The rules for a market are established by the stake-holders. It is entirely reasonable for "the people" (via the government) to establish market rules that produce a desired outcome. Some people, such as yourself, want rules that allow the richest, most greedy people to accumlate vast sums of money, unfettered by petty concerns of environmental protection, decent treatment of employees, and so on. Others (the majority of the population, I believe) want market rules that allow trade to occur while ensuring our environment is not destroyed, workers are not exploited in ways perceived to be immoral or undesirable, etc. There is no convincing argument that the type of market you want is any more "free" than any other type of market, nor is there a convincing argument that your desired set of market rules are somehow more virtuous or moral than say a set of market rules that take into consideration environmental protection, worker protection, taxation of income for the betterment of the community, etc.

Oh there isn't? Try reading the works of Ludwig von Mises, Hayek and Rothbard. You can start here: mises.org

I'm not even remotely convinced.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Increasing freedom from government is the only way to help improve standards of living, because ultimately it is only the free market which can truly improve living standards. And of course it is the government which is the greatest impediment to technological progress in the free market.

There is no such thing as a "free market". It is a fiction. No market can be "free", because the market itself is an "intervention" (and invention) by man. The rules for a market are established by the stake-holders. It is entirely reasonable for "the people" (via the government) to establish market rules that produce a desired outcome. Some people, such as yourself, want rules that allow the richest, most greedy people to accumlate vast sums of money, unfettered by petty concerns of environmental protection, decent treatment of employees, and so on. Others (the majority of the population, I believe) want market rules that allow trade to occur while ensuring our environment is not destroyed, workers are not exploited in ways perceived to be immoral or undesirable, etc. There is no convincing argument that the type of market you want is any more "free" than any other type of market, nor is there a convincing argument that your desired set of market rules are somehow more virtuous or moral than say a set of market rules that take into consideration environmental protection, worker protection, taxation of income for the betterment of the community, etc.

Oh there isn't? Try reading the works of Ludwig von Mises, Hayek and Rothbard. You can start here: mises.org

I'm not even remotely convinced.

In that case why don't you just advocate a total communist state? Or perhaps that is what you are advocating, but I doubt it:

All people, however fanatical they may be in their zeal to disparage and to fight capitalism, implicitly pay homage to it by passionately clamoring for the products it turns out.

- Ludwig von Mises

It is much more likely that you are a hypocrit of one of the highest orders.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: ntdz
That's life, there is nothing you can do about it.

That's just because most people are idiots, and believe everything they are told and taught. Even I didn't really think for myself for quite awhile. Basically when I faced a wasting death for the second time.

In crazy states of consciousness by will alone (not even sapho!),
Cerbie (now I just need a Mac, and I'll be set!)

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Forsythe
I'm not talking about reason. I'm talking about what when they will own more than 40 or 60% of the country, what when they own the country? imo the current form of society doesn't fit everyone. Atleast in america.

Eminent(sp) domain. In the vast majority of the U.S., you don't have the power to retain ownership of your property, should the government want to stick a new Walmart in town.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: ntdz
That's life, there is nothing you can do about it.

thats a great attitude :roll:

I bet that atitude will get you far in life.

Right, because we are always supposed to do 'something' about bad situations even if it means sacrificing all our liberties and setting up Orwellian wealth distribution schemes administered by an all powerful government state.

This is the most common and most attractive fallacy employed by the left i.e. the "At least WE are doing SOMETHING" fallacy. Are there poor people in the world? Yes. Does it suck? Yes. Does this justfiy government wealth redistribution schemes? NO.

Increasing freedom from government is the only way to help improve standards of living, because ultimately it is only the free market which can truly improve living standards. And of course it is the government which is the greatest impediment to technological progress in the free market.

Yet, it is interesting that when given extreme freedom, most people are still unaware enough as to give up the freedom that they would be fighting for if they were under a different type of system.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Increasing freedom from government is the only way to help improve standards of living, because ultimately it is only the free market which can truly improve living standards. And of course it is the government which is the greatest impediment to technological progress in the free market.

There is no such thing as a "free market". It is a fiction. No market can be "free", because the market itself is an "intervention" (and invention) by man. The rules for a market are established by the stake-holders. It is entirely reasonable for "the people" (via the government) to establish market rules that produce a desired outcome. Some people, such as yourself, want rules that allow the richest, most greedy people to accumlate vast sums of money, unfettered by petty concerns of environmental protection, decent treatment of employees, and so on. Others (the majority of the population, I believe) want market rules that allow trade to occur while ensuring our environment is not destroyed, workers are not exploited in ways perceived to be immoral or undesirable, etc. There is no convincing argument that the type of market you want is any more "free" than any other type of market, nor is there a convincing argument that your desired set of market rules are somehow more virtuous or moral than say a set of market rules that take into consideration environmental protection, worker protection, taxation of income for the betterment of the community, etc.

Oh there isn't? Try reading the works of Ludwig von Mises, Hayek and Rothbard. You can start here: mises.org

I'm not even remotely convinced.

In that case why don't you just advocate a total communist state? Or perhaps that is what you are advocating, but I doubt it:

All people, however fanatical they may be in their zeal to disparage and to fight capitalism, implicitly pay homage to it by passionately clamoring for the products it turns out.

- Ludwig von Mises

It is much more likely that you are a hypocrit of one of the highest orders.

I advocate strong safe guards against the worst excesses of capitalism. I support strong labor protection laws, strong environmental protection laws, and a progressive tax system where the wealthiest citizens are required to contribute a greater portion of their income back into the community. Such a system is not "socialism" or "communism", by the way.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: ntdz
That's life, there is nothing you can do about it.

That's just because most people are idiots, and believe everything they are told and taught. Even I didn't really think for myself for quite awhile. Basically when I faced a wasting death for the second time.

In crazy states of consciousness by will alone (not even sapho!),
Cerbie (now I just need a Mac, and I'll be set!)

What was the wasting death? A Mac and you'll be happy?

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: ntdz
That's life, there is nothing you can do about it.

That's just because most people are idiots, and believe everything they are told and taught. Even I didn't really think for myself for quite awhile. Basically when I faced a wasting death for the second time.

In crazy states of consciousness by will alone (not even sapho!),
Cerbie (now I just need a Mac, and I'll be set!)

What was the wasting death? A Mac and you'll be happy?

Lyme disease, allergies (related--born with Bb). I lost my ability to be awake evn 12 hours a day, and literally could not read. Worse than any point before. I was also clearly suffering adrenaline exhaustion. Going down the path of my relatives quicker than any previously, I had a near bedridden life to lead, until I croaked with a heart attack one day. Or I could live assisted for decades, and just wait for organs to start giving out.

I had to quit high school due to a similar experience, but not quite as bad. That time, however, I only questioned the world outside of myself. This time, I questioned behaviors, thoughts, and goals of my own; along with fears and insecurities. If you haven't questioned why you want a thing, need a thing, or do a thing, for every choice you make, you have not truly thought for yourself. You might think on your own, but not thinking or acting for your own wellbeing.

The Mac part just being a bit of a joke. I've gotten rather tired of fixing up PCs lately, even my own.

 

[PatboyX]

what the hell is all this "you hate rich people" and "you hate workers" BS?
i didnt realize sean hannity was a member of ATPN.