YAWotMC thread (War on the Middle Class)

[Zebo]

Wrong thread... sorry.

 

[BoberFett]

You honestly think that if we had no government involvement the economy would just regulate itself?

You honestly think that if we give the government even more money that society will magically improve?

 

[jackace]

You honestly think that if we give the government even more money that society will magically improve?

No just giving the government money for no reason is not going to make anything better.

I do however think we need regulations. Our industries have proven they can't/won't regulate themselves so the only option is the government.

Care to answer my question?

 

[BoberFett]

No just giving the government money for no reason is not going to make anything better.

I do however think we need regulations. Our industries have proven they can't/won't regulate themselves so the only option is the government.

Care to answer my question?

The article in the OP stated that government itself was at least partly responsible for the transfer of wealth.

So you expect regulation to fix the failures of prior regulation?

Care to answer my question?

 

[jackace]

The article in the OP stated that government itself was at least partly responsible for the transfer of wealth.

So you expect regulation to fix the failures of prior regulation?

Care to answer my question?

I answered your question. No giving government money with no purpose is not going to fix things.

You going to dodge my question again?

edit -

As for regulations they have to change as people, corporations, etc find new ways to abuse or as times and circumstances change. Regulations have to always be tweaked, changed, or removed if they are not working.

Now I have answered 2 of your questions and you have dodged my 1 question twice.

 

[Anarchist420]

Monetary policy creates inequality, not fiscal policy.

If only the OP would understand.

 

[theeedude]

I used to feel bad for the middle class, but now I see that they are doing it to themselves, so it's kind of hard to be sympathetic. When they grow a brain and stop being brainwashed by the corporate media, they'll figure it out, it's not rocket science.

 

[blackangst1]

http://www.mackinac.org/3832

Free people are not equal, and equal people are not free.

First, I should clarify the kind of “equalness” to which I refer in this statement. I am not referring to equality before the law — the notion that you should be judged innocent or guilty of an offense based upon whether or not you did it, with your race, sex, wealth, creed, gender or religion having nothing to do with the outcome. That’s an important foundation of Western civilization, and though we often fall short of it, I doubt that anyone here would quarrel with the concept.
No, the "equalness" to which I refer is all about income and material wealth — what we earn and acquire in the marketplace of commerce, work and exchange. I’m speaking of economic equality.

I would argue that if the president could somehow snap his fingers and equalize us all in terms of income and wealth tonight, we would be unequal again by this time tomorrow because some of us would save our money and some of us would spend it.

Government has nothing to give anybody except what it first takes from somebody, and a government that's big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you've got.

Unfortunately, many on the left think taxing the shit out of the wealthy will somehow equalize the population by raising up the lower class. The opposite is true.

But they dont get it.

 

[EagleKeeper]

http://www.mackinac.org/3832

[/I][/B]


Unfortunately, many on the left think taxing the shit out of the wealthy will somehow equalize the population by raising up the lower class. The opposite is true.

But they dont get it.

what they tax does not go for the lower classes to raise them up.

It goes to protect the politicians in projects and is then fed back to those that they profess to hate.

The deficit and economy is not pulled to where it should be when the government gets the extra funds.

 

[Fern]

I've seen an every increasing standard of living for even the poor during my lifetime, and a huge increase in the standard of living for the middle class and upper class. I think often times statistics fail to capture that. "Just getting by" in the 1970s was very different from "just getting by" in 2010, which includes cell phones, cable TV and at least one car.

True (and you forgot large HDTV's and playstations).

Fern

 

[Phokus]

Lets see, for 30 years, we've been cutting taxes for the rich, opening up trade, and deregulating everything under the sun.

The wealth of the capital class has exploded and they have exploited global labor arbitrage to fuck over the working/middle class.

In 30 years, the median income has remained stagnant.

Conservatives, of course, want to keep doing the same fucking shit and cut taxes more/ship more jobs oversees. This is the very definition of insanity.

 

[blackangst1]

Lets see, for 30 years, we've been cutting taxes for the rich, opening up trade, and deregulating everything under the sun.

The wealth of the capital class has exploded and they have exploited global labor arbitrage to fuck over the working/middle class.

In 30 years, the median income has remained stagnant.

Conservatives, of course, want to keep doing the same fucking shit and cut taxes more/ship more jobs oversees. This is the very definition of insanity.

Please explain how cutting taxes for someone making $500,000/yr makes goods and services more expensive for someone making $50,000. While youre at it, why dont you explain how giving someone making $500,000/yr a tax cut takes money out of the pocket of someone making $50,000/yr.

Thanks.

 

[manimal]

Please explain how cutting taxes for someone making $500,000/yr makes goods and services more expensive for someone making $50,000. While youre at it, why dont you explain how giving someone making $500,000/yr a tax cut takes money out of the pocket of someone making $50,000/yr.

Thanks.

please explain to us how another round of tax cuts and deregulation will fix the problems created by said fixes...


Please..

 

[blackangst1]

please explain to us how another round of tax cuts and deregulation will fix the problems created by said fixes...


Please..

Answer my question, and I will and answer yours.

Nice dodge.

edit: also, your point is irrelevant to the topic. The topic is NOT how to fix the economy, but rather the gap between the rich, the middle class, and the poor.

 

[jackace]

http://www.mackinac.org/3832

[/I][/B]


Unfortunately, many on the left think taxing the shit out of the wealthy will somehow equalize the population by raising up the lower class. The opposite is true.

But they dont get it.

See you and the person in your quoted message are taking an extreme position that no one in America or on this board is suggesting. No one is suggesting that we should all have equal income so to base your argument around that assumption makes no sense.

 

[jackace]

Please explain how cutting taxes for someone making $500,000/yr makes goods and services more expensive for someone making $50,000. While youre at it, why dont you explain how giving someone making $500,000/yr a tax cut takes money out of the pocket of someone making $50,000/yr.

Thanks.

No one is saying that cutting/raising taxes for 1 group increase/decreases the costs of good or services for another group. You keep making arguments based on assumptions that just aren't true.

Taxes are used for 2, yes 2, main purposes. The first is to fund the government and the services it provides to it's citizens. The second is to encourage behavior that grows our economy and benefits our entire society. The entire argument for supply side economics was it would grow our economy. This is the reason why we have lowered the tax burden on the rich in the last 30+ years. Now many people want to remove all those tax reductions the rich have received over the last 30+ years because they didn't deliver the growth to our economy the proponents said they would.

 

[Acanthus]

using 1976 as the starting point seems a bit suspect. according to this source, it was well down from the % wealth held by the top 1% from the previous decade.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Fp...q=wealth distribution in america 1975&f=false

as you can see, from 1962 to 1972, the % fluctuated around the upper 20s and lower 30s, averaging 28.65%. by 1976 it had fallen precipitously to 19.2%. that is, the share of household wealth held by the top 1% had fallen by a third. that's probably more due to losses in value of held assets than any redistributive government policy. in fact, the DJIA fell 50% over 1973-74. it recovered a bit, and then started falling again starting in 1976 and remained depressed until 1982
source

so basically the 1976 to 2010 period is going from an abnormally low share of household wealth held by the top 1% to what is probably an outlier in 2010 of the top 1% holding a larger share than trend (because the wealth of the middle class fell due to home value losses, while the stock market is back up quite a bit over the lows seen the last couple years.) whether 2010 represents a new trend or not, i don't know.

There are good parametric estimations by economists going to back to the great depression. The Gini index has been on the rise in the US for 40 consecutive years. The sharpest rise being in the 80's. I would predict, though, that it is returning to a sharper rise in 2010.

 

[Corn]

No one is saying that cutting/raising taxes for 1 group increase/decreases the costs of good or services for another group. You keep making arguments based on assumptions that just aren't true.

Taxes are used for 2, yes 2, main purposes. The first is to fund the government and the services it provides to it's citizens. The second is to encourage behavior that grows our economy and benefits our entire society. The entire argument for supply side economics was it would grow our economy. This is the reason why we have lowered the tax burden on the rich in the last 30+ years. Now many people want to remove all those tax reductions the rich have received over the last 30+ years because they didn't deliver the growth to our economy the proponents said they would.

Here is a nice graph for you to peruse:

Source: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...&fy=fy11&chart=&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&title=US Gross Domestic Product GDP History&state=US&color=c&local=s

Just so we are perfectly clear, your contention is that the economy did barely grew after Reagan's tax cuts?

Silly Liberals.

 

[yllus]

The article in the OP stated that government itself was at least partly responsible for the transfer of wealth.

So you expect regulation to fix the failures of prior regulation?

Care to answer my question?

I think if your government spent a couple of years simplifying the hell out of various things (tax law, finance law, law law) you would see positive change occur. The fewer exceptions there are, the harder it is to cheat (without getting caught). Thus you could say that simplified regulation would fix the failures of prior regulation.

Simplified regulation would almost be definition mean less government which I think almost everyone now believes would be a good thing.

 

[jackace]

Here is a nice graph for you to peruse:

Source: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...&fy=fy11&chart=&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&title=US Gross Domestic Product GDP History&state=US&color=c&local=s

Just so we are perfectly clear, your contention is that the economy did barely grew after Reagan's tax cuts?

Silly Liberals.

My contention is not that the economy didn't grow. My contention is that supply side economics has not provided the overall economic benefit to society that the proponents claimed it would. Most of the economic benefits seen from supply side economics benefited the rich and investor classes at the expense of the Middle class. There are many of different articles and sources on the internet that point out this very thing.

 

[alkemyst]

If trickle down economics really worked then the top should be a bit more than just 1%.

 

[blackangst1]

See you and the person in your quoted message are taking an extreme position that no one in America or on this board is suggesting. No one is suggesting that we should all have equal income so to base your argument around that assumption makes no sense.

No one is saying that cutting/raising taxes for 1 group increase/decreases the costs of good or services for another group. You keep making arguments based on assumptions that just aren't true.

Taxes are used for 2, yes 2, main purposes. The first is to fund the government and the services it provides to it's citizens. The second is to encourage behavior that grows our economy and benefits our entire society. The entire argument for supply side economics was it would grow our economy. This is the reason why we have lowered the tax burden on the rich in the last 30+ years. Now many people want to remove all those tax reductions the rich have received over the last 30+ years because they didn't deliver the growth to our economy the proponents said they would.

Well, indirectly it is implied in almost every thread of this nature. When the income gap is discussed, "tax the rich" is usually the battle cry. When the shrinking of the middle class is discussed, "tax the rich" is the battle cry. When threads are railing against how the wealthier are getting wealthier, and how they did it "on the backs of the middle class", "tax the rich" is the battle cry. Youre being disingenuous in saying "no one is saying".

The fact is, the cause of things like a higher financial burden on the middle class is a direct result of what I mentioned earlier-rising costs. And guess what...taxing the wealthy an additional 20-50% will not do a fucking thing to address that. This thread is titled "YAWotMC thread (War on the Middle Class)", yet no one is talking about how to fix it. Personally, I think "war" is a bit...chicken little-ish, but whatever. But I do admit it is tougher in the middle class than it was 50 years ago. But then again, 50 years ago we didnt have the expenses we have now. And we certainly have a MUCH higher quality of life in all income levels than we did 50 years ago. But back to your point...I could search the forums and find dozens of posts from poeple saying taxing the wealthy will fix the ills of the middle class. Which is complete and utter bullshit.

And your comment about minimal GDP growth since the 50's is a fucking joke.

 

[jackace]

Well, indirectly it is implied in almost every thread of this nature. When the income gap is discussed, "tax the rich" is usually the battle cry. When the shrinking of the middle class is discussed, "tax the rich" is the battle cry. When threads are railing against how the wealthier are getting wealthier, and how they did it "on the backs of the middle class", "tax the rich" is the battle cry. Youre being disingenuous in saying "no one is saying".

The fact is, the cause of things like a higher financial burden on the middle class is a direct result of what I mentioned earlier-rising costs. And guess what...taxing the wealthy an additional 20-50% will not do a fucking thing to address that. This thread is titled "YAWotMC thread (War on the Middle Class)", yet no one is talking about how to fix it. Personally, I think "war" is a bit...chicken little-ish, but whatever. But I do admit it is tougher in the middle class than it was 50 years ago. But then again, 50 years ago we didnt have the expenses we have now. And we certainly have a MUCH higher quality of life in all income levels than we did 50 years ago. But back to your point...I could search the forums and find dozens of posts from poeple saying taxing the wealthy will fix the ills of the middle class. Which is complete and utter bullshit.

And your comment about minimal GDP growth since the 50's is a fucking joke.

The problem is just about all the wealth generated in this country for the last 30+ years has gone straight to the top earners. The middle class has seen none of it and had some of their wealth actually stripped. Part of the reason that has occurred is tax structures. No it's not all of it, but to say it has no part at all is naive at best. Over the last 30+ years, the rich have seen their tax burden reduced in hopes that it would "trickle down" to the rest of us and we would all prosper. That didn't happen. The only logical solution is we try a new strategy or return to the old one.

Not sure what comment you are talking about where I said something about GDP. I never mentioned GDP once. I even clarified my comments in another post just a couple above your post.

 

[Anarchist420]

The rich get richer because of fiat currency and FRB.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

The problem is just about all the wealth generated in this country for the last 30+ years has gone straight to the top earners. The middle class has seen none of it and had some of their wealth actually stripped. Part of the reason that has occurred is tax structures. No it's not all of it, but to say it has no part at all is naive at best. Over the last 30+ years, the rich have seen their tax burden reduced in hopes that it would "trickle down" to the rest of us and we would all prosper. That didn't happen. The only logical solution is we try a new strategy or return to the old one.

Not sure what comment you are talking about where I said something about GDP. I never mentioned GDP once. I even clarified my comments in another post just a couple above your post.

Utter BS. "middle class" today is MUCH different than it was 30 years ago. My parents were "middle class" much the same as I am now - but I know that I have much more wealth now then they had at the same time in their lives. Oh, and I do almost the same thing my dad did so you can't suggest I have a different job- etc. Both have stay at home wives - 3 kids - etc. It's eerie how similar we are yet so different. Yes, anecdotal - but not exactly something to dismiss. You look at what it took to be considered middle class back then and then look at it now - I dare you to claim they are the same. Not only in amount of wealth but in scope/breadth. So while a large chunk has stayed at the top - it's an outright falsehood to suggest that almost all of it did.
The next question is - what is wrong with those who invested/risked/etc creating more wealth for themselves? Do you and your types not understand that the wealth creators are the ones you trade your labor with?