The Real 'Re-Distribution' of Wealth

Avatar for songwright
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-28-1997
The Real 'Re-Distribution' of Wealth
12
Wed, 05-01-2013 - 12:10pm

I'm intentionally stealing the Conservative meme about how Liberals and Socialists are always trying to unfairly re-distribute the wealth from the rich to the poor -- and how that inevitably makes middle class people work harder to support a bunch of slackers and moochers..

Think of the revenue (Earnings) our economy generates like an enormous wedding cake that is divided up to feed everyone at the reception. 35 years ago, families in the top 1% of our society got about 9% of the cake - leaving the other 91% to be shared by everyone else.  In 2011 the top 1% received 21% of the cake.  This means that in addition to the overly large piece they got 35 years ago, they also got an additional 1/8 of the cake (12%).  To put that into perspective, 12% of our national earnings is just about exactly the TOTAL income of the bottom 50% of American families. To put that into clearer perspective, the income for someone at the TOP of the 50th percentile is about $33,000/year (about twice the official Poverty level for a family of 4) -- all of the remaining 49% of Americans have gradually LESS income. Think real hard about those last numbers the next time you see some pundit on Fox complaining about how the 'poor' (the bottom FIFTY PERCENT??) don't have enough 'skin in the game' because they don't make enough income to owe any Federal taxes.

This redistribution of an extra 12% of our total national income to the top 1% earners is the greatest 're-distribution' of wealth in American history. Taking a look at the state of our economy is all the evidence you need to see exactly how giving all this extra income to the 'job creators' has worked out.

The Conservative argument is that you 'can't tax the rich enough to balance the budget'. Really?  National earnings last year were around $13.4 Trillion.  The extra 12% of our national income that is now going to the top 1% totals $1.6 Trillion.  Since the 2013 US budget deficit is currently running around $1.2 Trillion, it is evident that just the extra amount of personal income the 1% have added over the last 35 years is enough to not only balance the Federal Budget, it would also pay down the National Debt by $400 Billion.

My object in this little exercise is to hopefully get you readers to WAKE UP!!!  Over the last 35 years our system has been systematically skewed more and more to the advantage of the uber-wealthy minority of our society - mostly the top  0.1%.  The increase from 9% to 21% of our total national earnings represents a 133% increase in their share of the 'cake'. Over the same period, median income after inflation has FALLEN by almost 7%. And the inevitable result of this massive redistribution of wealth is a staggering economy -- where the bottom 50% of our population doesn't have enough money in their pockets to sustain Demand for products and services.  And this lack of Demand means that there is no incentive for manufacturers/employers to provide the Supply of goods and services necessary to keep people employed -- which is why we have REAL unemployment in the US at close to 16%.

This is NOT rocket science ... it is Economics 101.  And it is why Conservative politicians just HATE raw, uncooked numbers -- because they so clearly expose the damage their policies have done to our nation. Just this year, THEIR solution was to fight to preserve the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthiest Americans, while re-instituting the Payroll Tax on the people who actually buy the products and use the services that stimulate employment.  They recently allowed the FAA to redirect the Sequester budget cuts that were causing flight delays - just before they adjourned Congress and started flying home to their districts.  But they didn't bother to redirect the cuts that have caused thousands of senior Medicare patients to lose their Chemo-therapy drugs, or to the over 4,000,000 economically challenged seniors who have lost access to Meals on Wheels, or to the 70,000 economically disadvantaged schoolchildren who are losing their Head Start program.

I'm 65 years old, and I am both DISGUSTED and EMBARRASSED at the state to which we have let our society fall.  We are no longer the 'land of opportunity' I grew up in, where the American Dream was vibrant and real.  Instead we have become the 'land of the greedy rich and influential'.  And I'm mostly embarrassed because this is STILL A DEMOCRACY.  Apathy and laziness have caused the American people to accept being spoon-fed lies and mis-information -  while generations of our elected Representatives have sold out our future - and most importantly OUR CHILDREN'S FUTURE - to a corporate and financial Aristocracy that spends a lot of the wealth they are taking out of our society to make sure that only the Representatives that support their continual wealth and power grab get re-elected.  You can all sit back and listen to pundits pontificate, or you can WAKE UP and use your power at the ballot box to reclaim our national heritage -- before it is too late.  If you don't, your grandchildren will look back at these moments and curse you.  And they will be justified.

~ SW

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Sat, 05-04-2013 - 11:59pm

I'm intentionally stealing the Conservative meme about how Liberals and Socialists are always trying to unfairly re-distribute the wealth from the rich to the poor -- and how that inevitably makes middle class people work harder to support a bunch of slackers and moochers.

A sad fact.

Think of the revenue (Earnings) our economy generates like an enormous wedding cake that is divided up to feed everyone at the reception.

Your premise is flawed from the start.  Wealth accumulation…notice I didn’t say “re-distribution”…is not a zero sum game.  There is no finite “pie” or “wedding cake” from which all wealth is allocated.

35 years ago, families in the top 1% of our society got about 9% of the cake - leaving the other 91% to be shared by everyone else.  In 2011 the top 1% received 21% of the cake.  This means that in addition to the overly large piece they got 35 years ago, they also got an additional 1/8 of the cake (12%).  To put that into perspective, 12% of our national earnings is just about exactly the TOTAL income of the bottom 50% of American families.

So what?  Angelina Jolie making $12M to make a movie doesn’t make me poorer…unless I pay for a ticket to see it.  And the top 1% don’t “get” an “overly large piece of cake”…they EARN it…and NOT at the expense of anyone else.

To put that into clearer perspective, the income for someone at the TOP of the 50th percentile is about $33,000/year (about twice the official Poverty level for a family of 4) -- all of the remaining 49% of Americans have gradually LESS income.

They have gradually less income by COMPARISON, not BECAUSE the top earners have more.

Think real hard about those last numbers the next time you see some pundit on Fox complaining about how the 'poor' (the bottom FIFTY PERCENT??) don't have enough 'skin in the game' because they don't make enough income to owe any Federal taxes.

Identifying someone as “poor” is arbitrary, as is the claim that they “don’t make enough income to owe any Federal taxes.”  One only has to look at the lifestyles of the “poor” across the world to see how applicable that characterization really is.  And yes, having “skin in the game” is important.  We have a society where half the population are takers, feeding off the makers.  And with no “skin in the game,” what is their incentive for joining the other side just to be preyed upon?

This redistribution of an extra 12% of our total national income to the top 1% earners is the greatest 're-distribution' of wealth in American history.

What a ridiculous point of view.  There is no “extra 12% of our total national income”…it simply represents a larger piece of a larger pie.  And there was no “re-distribution” of wealth to the top 1%...which is taking money from one person and giving it to another...the top 1% EARNED it…and the bottom 90% benefitted from the means by which the top 1% acquired their wealth.

Taking a look at the state of our economy is all the evidence you need to see exactly how giving all this extra income to the 'job creators' has worked out.

The state of our economy is the direct result of liberal social engineering policies.  And it’s pitiful maintenance is also the direct result of liberal policies inflicted by Obama and the Democrats.

The Conservative argument is that you 'can't tax the rich enough to balance the budget'. Really?  National earnings last year were around $13.4 Trillion.  The extra 12% of our national income that is now going to the top 1% totals $1.6 Trillion.  Since the 2013 US budget deficit is currently running around $1.2 Trillion, it is evident that just the extra amount of personal income the 1% have added over the last 35 years is enough to not only balance the Federal Budget, it would also pay down the National Debt by $400 Billion.

Again, ridiculous…and a completely inane perception of wealth and it’s social distribution and social impact.

And the inevitable result of this massive redistribution of wealth is a staggering economy -- where the bottom 50% of our population doesn't have enough money in their pockets to sustain Demand for products and services.

The plight of the 49%...heck the 90%...is the direct result of failed liberal policies.  Pushing huge increases in the minimum wage and heaping tons of regulations has forced businesses to raise the price of their goods and services, to limit their ability to grow and hire, or has pushed them out of the country altogether.  Then heap on the grossly anti-business environment created by Obama and you’ve got a real recipe for recession and high unemployment.  Enjoy the pain.

And this lack of Demand means that there is no incentive for manufacturers/employers to provide the Supply of goods and services necessary to keep people employed -- which is why we have REAL unemployment in the US at close to 16%.

Their own existence is the incentive for businesses to supply goods and services.  As I said before, it’s the onerous regulations and taxes, like Obamacare, etc, that are the cause of the high unemployment and stagnant economy we’re enjoying today.  Obama creates an oppressive, anti-business environment…so businesses hold back, keep reserves of cash, don’t expand…which naturally means that unemployment will remain high…until the people have enough sense to vote in a pro-business, Republican administration.

This is NOT rocket science ... it is Economics 101.  And it is why Conservative politicians just HATE raw, uncooked numbers -- because they so clearly expose the damage their policies have done to our nation.

We love uncooked numbers…so why not give us some, rather than the skewed, partisan tripe we’ve seen so far?  As I said before, the condition of the economy is DIRECTLY attributable to left-wing policies…and who are equally responsible for the continuation of that sad condition.

Just this year, THEIR solution was to fight to preserve the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthiest Americans, while re-instituting the Payroll Tax on the people who actually buy the products and use the services that stimulate employment.

Actually, it was Obama who said “you don’t raise taxes in a down economy”…right before he extended those horrible tax cuts.  Then, a year later when the economy was even worse, the moron, along with his idiot Democrat compatriots, fought to raise those taxes…to predictable results.

As far as the payroll tax increase in concerned, it was Obama and the Democrats who didn’t include them in their fiscal fight in late 2012.  They were quite happy to raise the taxes on 80% of the population…which cause quite a bit of consternation after promising NOT to raise their taxes.  But to be fair, it would have been devastating to Social Security to have allowed the tax cuts to continue as the payroll tax directly funds SS, which is already in financial trouble.

They recently allowed the FAA to redirect the Sequester budget cuts that were causing flight delays - just before they adjourned Congress and started flying home to their districts.  But they didn't bother to redirect the cuts that have caused thousands of senior Medicare patients to lose their Chemo-therapy drugs, or to the over 4,000,000 economically challenged seniors who have lost access to Meals on Wheels, or to the 70,000 economically disadvantaged schoolchildren who are losing their Head Start program.

You probably didn’t notice, but the FAA exception was a strong bipartisan vote.  You probably also ignored the Republican attempts to give Obama the authority to manage the sequester cuts to minimize the pain felt by the American people.  But Obama, dirt-bag that he is, wanted to maximize the pain inflicted on the American people so he could use it for political reasons and threatened to veto any bill that came to him giving him that authority.  So if a cancer patient loses their Chemo drugs or some senior doesn’t get their meals on wheels, they can thank Obama personally, who cares more for his politics than he does about the health of real people.

Btw…Head Start…proven to be a complete failure.

I'm 65 years old, and I am both DISGUSTED and EMBARRASSED at the state to which we have let our society fall.

Vote Republican.

We are no longer the 'land of opportunity' I grew up in, where the American Dream was vibrant and real.  Instead we have become the 'land of the greedy rich and influential'.

We’re always been the “land of the greedy rich and influential.”  Do you imagine this country became great because of poor, lazy slackers?  Just look at our Founding Fathers…millionaires all.  Landowners…entrepreneurs…risk takers.  Not a welfare queen or nanny-statist in sight.  And the “opportunity” is still here, every day, it’s just tougher now that liberals have put so many roadblocks in your way.

And I'm mostly embarrassed because this is STILL A DEMOCRACY.  Apathy and laziness have caused the American people to accept being spoon-fed lies and mis-information –

This is the age of the low-information voter.  Fed promises and given hand-outs by a liberal government, they’re so stupid they’ll even vote against their own interests for something as insipid as “hope and change.”  Even after four years of abject failure they’ll still re-elect the same fool again.  What’s the definition of insanity?

while generations of our elected Representatives have sold out our future - and most importantly OUR CHILDREN'S FUTURE - to a corporate and financial Aristocracy that spends a lot of the wealth they are taking out of our society to make sure that only the Representatives that support their continual wealth and power grab get re-elected.

I’m afraid it’s the government that has sold out our children’s future…especially the Democrats.  Heaping debilitating debt onto the backs of our children with absolutely no intention of stopping or even slowing down.  Tax and spend, that’s their mantra…no matter what the cost.  Then they attack American business, the backbone of the country…and scratch their heads wondering why the economy sucks, unemployment is high and cry when businesses head overseas.

You can all sit back and listen to pundits pontificate, or you can WAKE UP and use your power at the ballot box to reclaim our national heritage -- before it is too late.  If you don't, your grandchildren will look back at these moments and curse you.  And they will be justified.

VOTE REPUBLICAN!

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Sun, 05-05-2013 - 8:55am

Yes Song, wages have stagnated over the last several decades for the majority of workers in this country.  The people in the top 1% are those who make their money off of the financialization of the economy or should I say the backs of those who produce something for our society be it products or some type of service as long as it's on the stock exchange (hence the desperate push to privatize all things that were once publically owned).  Labor of any sort get the short end of the stick and then are expected to pay out more while those who made their earnings on their backs get special benefits.  Must be nice to be able to buy politicians.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-05-2009
Sun, 05-05-2013 - 9:14am
Save your breathe, Deansdad. A 65 year old who thinks the US is "still a democracy" when it has never been a democracy isn't to be taken seriously on economic issues, or the way a free market system works.
Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Mon, 05-13-2013 - 12:28am

 Hi  there are some errors.  First how is wealth determined?  What is the true value of "paper" wealth?

   This idea of skin in the game is phoney.  Only about 50000 people have skin in the game for they are the one who fund campaigns from primaries on.  So they predetermine (with some very wealthy people who throw their hat in the ring ).  Both the "liberal" and "conservative" parties are corrupted. 

Identifying someone as “poor” is arbitrary, as is the claim that they “don’t make enough income to owe any Federal taxes.”   

   Most realize that is not accurate.  Most people who work pay taxes but get a refund.  That is not the same as not paying taxes. 

    Having great differences in wealth is a prelude to revolution.  (French Revolution)

  While in the US that is unlikely due to the belief system. 

 "What a ridiculous point of view.  There is no “extra 12% of our total national income”…it simply represents a larger piece of a larger pie.  And there was no “re-distribution” of wealth to the top 1%...which is taking money from one person and giving it to another...the top 1% EARNED it…and the bottom 90% benefited from the means by which the top 1% acquired their wealth."

   However that earned has another side.  Much was not earned but was part of the method where companies were bought up and the employee cast adrift. The major stock holders gained and all others lost.

  The nation can tax more form the rich and gain much toward a balanced budget if there is not any new adventures.  Unfortunate there are those who are clambering for such new adventures which they do not want to raise taxes to pay for.

"
The plight of the 49%...heck the 90%...is the direct result of failed liberal policies.  Pushing huge increases in the minimum wage and heaping tons of regulations has forced businesses to raise the price of their goods and services, to limit their ability to grow and hire, or has pushed them out of the country altogether.  Then heap on the grossly anti-business environment created by Obama and you’ve got a real recipe for recession and high unemployment.  Enjoy the pain."

  Incorrect

         The actual cause is the failed policies of both parties over the last 50 years.

   The US economy is at this point a consumption economy.  People who have no disposable income do not consume as much.

 Neither party has the interest of the people.  Both parties are part of a elite.  The first thing i to cut the student loan and reduce the interest to that of that the banks pay.  The second is to outlaw "halving" the grants that most higher ed schools do to increase the debt the students carry.   Next raise the tax top tax rate to 70%   Eliminating the "cap" on social security would help that program become solvent as it is the only guaranteed retirement program.   Retirement programs need to be guaranteed not gambles.  As there will bubbles and busts. 

chaika

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Tue, 05-14-2013 - 5:12pm

This idea of skin in the game is phoney.  Only about 50000 people have skin in the game for they are the one who fund campaigns from primaries on.  So they predetermine (with some very wealthy people who throw their hat in the ring ).  Both the "liberal" and "conservative" parties are corrupted.

Semi-true.  The idea of skin in the game was referring to taxes, not elections, but while the wealthy and connected have a great influence on elections, and are very influential on WHO will run, it's still the voters who choose the winner.  Unfortunately, most voters and ignorant sots who can be sold a candidate with a load of lies as easily as they can be sold a particular type of laundry detergent.

 

Identifying someone as “poor” is arbitrary, as is the claim that they “don’t make enough income to owe any Federal taxes.”   

   Most realize that is not accurate.  Most people who work pay taxes but get a refund.  That is not the same as not paying taxes.

The comment wasn't referring to "most people" it was referring to "the poor" and/or the bottom 47%.  It's also true that some people who pay no taxes at all actually get money from the government in the form of a "refund."


    Having great differences in wealth is a prelude to revolution.  (French Revolution)

  While in the US that is unlikely due to the belief system.

I agree...except in cases, like now, where the government actually fosters hatred and jealousy of the "haves" and instills a feeling of entitlement in the "have nots."


 "What a ridiculous point of view.  There is no “extra 12% of our total national income”…it simply represents a larger piece of a larger pie.  And there was no “re-distribution” of wealth to the top 1%...which is taking money from one person and giving it to another...the top 1% EARNED it…and the bottom 90% benefited from the means by which the top 1% acquired their wealth."

   However that earned has another side.  Much was not earned but was part of the method where companies were bought up and the employee cast adrift. The major stock holders gained and all others lost.

Major stockholders are your 401K and retirement investments of the elderly and stock investments across middle-America.  And when companies are bought up, while some employees may lose their jobs, it either leaves a healthier company or is sold off piecemeal to other companies which enable them to grow.  But all that aside, the top taxpayers EARN their wealth, and do so NOT by taking away the first dime from "the poor."

  The nation can tax more form the rich and gain much toward a balanced budget if there is not any new adventures.  Unfortunate there are those who are clambering for such new adventures which they do not want to raise taxes to pay for.

You could appropriate ALL of the wealth of the top 1% and you would not be able to pay off the debt or balance the budget, and the "not any new adventures" is exactly the conservative Republican position...to cut spending and limit government growth, while the Democrats want to spend, spend, spend and tax, tax, tax.


The plight of the 49%...heck the 90%...is the direct result of failed liberal policies.  Pushing huge increases in the minimum wage and heaping tons of regulations has forced businesses to raise the price of their goods and services, to limit their ability to grow and hire, or has pushed them out of the country altogether.  Then heap on the grossly anti-business environment created by Obama and you’ve got a real recipe for recession and high unemployment.  Enjoy the pain."

  Incorrect The actual cause is the failed policies of both parties over the last 50 years.

I agree that both parties are at fault, but the failure has been with liberal policies, exponentially exacerbated by unfettered Democrats, and Obama in particular since the 2007 crash.


   The US economy is at this point a consumption economy.  People who have no disposable income do not consume as much.

The US economy does consume, but it also produces...as evidence by all the Americans who go to work every day and make stuff.  And people have no disposable income because taxes are high and the price of goods and services are high.


 Neither party has the interest of the people.  Both parties are part of a elite.

In some regards I disagree, but the state of our government seems to be the result of allowing law-makers to make a career out of Congress.  When your job depends on getting money from, and appeasing, certain people, you will inevitably become corrupt serving those certain people

The first thing i to cut the student loan and reduce the interest to that of that the banks pay.

I would make student loans interest free.

Next raise the tax top tax rate to 70%

That would destroy the economy and, quite probably, the country.

Eliminating the "cap" on social security would help that program become solvent as it is the only guaranteed retirement program.

SS should be "means tested."  The cap should be raised, as should the retirement age, and the contribution marginally increased.

Retirement programs need to be guaranteed not gambles.  As there will bubbles and busts.

No, guaranteeing money for one person obligates and takes that money from another.


Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Wed, 05-15-2013 - 2:23am

"it's still the voters who choose the winner". 

  No they pick among already picked candidates.

" It's also true that some people who pay no taxes at all actually get money from the government in the form of a "refund."

  That is not the fault of the person but that of the tax system.

 "
where the government actually fosters hatred and jealousy of the "haves" and instills a feeling of entitlement in the "have nots."

      That is the aim of ideological political pandering.  Much is given to the false idea of entitlements.  It is in many ways congress over the decades whose failure to act no matter which party was in power brought us to this. Congress did not act.  The population has exceeded the employment.  In the technological future there is a very good chance of two out comes.  One is Darwin days.   The other is a world of technological wonder and the fear of no need to labor for living costs.  Both are in their ways dangerous.

     Have nots are product of environments that preclude thinking in future terms.  Vance Packard wrote about delayed gratification.  What Vance did not understand was the effect on policies that made it more difficult to escape from that life.  Ghetto residents whether in London or los Angeles have a prison in their mind.  That has not changed since the time of the 19th century mega millionaires.   The so called programs are useless if the mind set is not changed.  Even in pop media we have stereotypes for the Ghetto.   The pressure to have unfunded children falls on those  who cannot afford it the birth control and abortions are made difficult and more expensive yet that same political unit will spend 1000x times as it would cost for the birth control and abortions.

"You could appropriate ALL of the wealth of the top 1% and you would not be able to pay off the debt or balance the budget, and the "not any new adventures" is exactly the conservative Republican position...to cut spending and limit government growth, while the Democrats want to spend, spend, spend and tax, tax, tax." 

     That is incorrect the Gop started two unfunded wars,bailed out failing banks that is pending money the government did not have.  Had taxes been raised to fund the conflicts it would have been  a different story.  Neither party is guilt free.

     Taxes can be raised.  In fact they can be raised a lot. but the wealthy who have most of their wealth in stocks are frighten by two things one is they are gambling on a grand scale the 2nd is a crash or bubble burst could be catastrophic.


 "The US economy does consume, but it also produces...as evidence by all the Americans who go to work every day and make stuff.  And people have no disposable income because taxes are high and the price of goods and services are high."

     The major portion of the US economy and it's place in the World Bank is as a consumer economy.  What manufacturing that does occur is small potatoes to what it one was and will never be the driver of employment that it was either.  Taxes are low.  Over the time from 1948 to today the tax code as messy as it is has dropped the highest rate to a foolishly low of 35%(39.6% estimated for 2013 per Forbes). 

  Costs have gone up gas is at $4+ in some places.  That means everything else goes up. 

"
Major stockholders are your 401K and retirement investments of the elderly and stock investments across middle-America.  And when companies are bought up, while some employees may lose their jobs, it either leaves a healthier company or is sold off piecemeal to other companies which enable them to grow.  But all that aside, the top taxpayers EARN their wealth, and do so NOT by taking away the first dime from "the poor.""

    Not true.  Companies are bought for a variety of reason but the devastation that this pirate approach has brought has been horrendous.  Yes the big stockholders make a mint.  But the total out come is less competition and higher prices.  Most of the top taxpayers wealth is in stocks so it cannot be said that they earn it it is a game.  A gambling game.  Wage earners do not have that freedom.  The idea of a insecure item like a 401K being used as a retirement vehicle is very risky.

  Growth cannot go on forever.  Boom and bust cannot continue,   Neither can  it if we continue to allow immigration to take away the good jobs or stay while working the dirty ones because in time those jobs will be gone to technology.

 I agree that both parties are at fault, but the failure has been with liberal policies, exponentially exacerbated by unfettered Democrats, and Obama in particular since the 2007 crash."

  That has not been born out in the last fiscal reports.  Neither parties economic plans are perfect.  I looking over results from the last 70 years shows the higher taxes are not a killer of jobs in the middle class.  Manipulation of the tax code can be very healthy. 

SS should be "means tested."  The cap should be raised, as should the retirement age, and the contribution marginally increased.

The age needs to stay at 65.  WE cannot guarantee the health of retirees.  What that means is raise the tax to pay for it.  perhaps allowing further input to increase out put in later years as well as means tested (billionaire do not need it but some sort of offset is needed )

Retirement programs need to be guaranteed not gambles.  As there will bubbles and busts.

No, guaranteeing money for one person obligates and takes that money from another.

  That in the case of insurance such as Social security is not true.  With out a handle on costs the problem will continue. 

dragowoman

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Wed, 05-15-2013 - 10:05pm

  Have you not understood history?  History is cyclic.  We humans repeat out mistakes.  Study 19th century US.

dragowoman

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Thu, 05-16-2013 - 2:14am

"it's still the voters who choose the winner". 

  No they pick among already picked candidates.

Yes, that's what I said.


" It's also true that some people who pay no taxes at all actually get money from the government in the form of a "refund."

  That is not the fault of the person but that of the tax system.

Yes and no.  Lawmakers create the tax system to appease the voters and the people vote for the candidate in order to get "stuff."  It's a vicious cycle and self-corrupting.


where the government actually fosters hatred and jealousy of the "haves" and instills a feeling of entitlement in the "have nots."

      That is the aim of ideological political pandering.

We don't have to tolerate this kind of divisiveness just because some political hack needs to gin up hate to get votes from ignorant voters.


The population has exceeded the employment.

No, employment has shrunk below the number of workers.


In the technological future there is a very good chance of two out comes.  One is Darwin days.   The other is a world of technological wonder and the fear of no need to labor for living costs.  Both are in their ways dangerous.

Star Trek is fiction.


"You could appropriate ALL of the wealth of the top 1% and you would not be able to pay off the debt or balance the budget, and the "not any new adventures" is exactly the conservative Republican position...to cut spending and limit government growth, while the Democrats want to spend, spend, spend and tax, tax, tax." 

     That is incorrect the Gop started two unfunded wars,

Sorry, wrong. The war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq had strong Democrat support...and the war in Afghanistan was increased under Obama.  In fact, Democrats had been pushing for action against Iraq since the Clinton administration.  It was Clinton who made "regime change" the US policy towards Iraq and it was Clinton who stated unequivocally that there were WMDs in Iraq when he left office.

Also, it is the Congress who allocates funding and the Democrats held both the House and Senate in 2003 and chose to fund the wars, as they continued to do under Obama, with borrowed money.

bailed out failing banks that is pending money the government did not have.  Had taxes been raised to fund the conflicts it would have been  a different story.  Neither party is guilt free.

The bank bailouts were a bipartisan answer to a percieved crisis...and again, it was the Democrats who controlled both houses of Congress and the purse strings.

     Taxes can be raised.  In fact they can be raised a lot. but the wealthy who have most of their wealth in stocks are frighten by two things one is they are gambling on a grand scale the 2nd is a crash or bubble burst could be catastrophic.

Yes, taxes can be raised if you want to hobble the economy.  And the wealthy are usually too smart to put all of their eggs in one basket...and can make money in either an up or a down market.

     The major portion of the US economy and it's place in the World Bank is as a consumer economy.  What manufacturing that does occur is small potatoes to what it one was and will never be the driver of employment that it was either.

That depends.  The US has now outpriced itself for general manufacturing, sending those jobs overseas where it can be done at a fraction of the cost.  But eventually, the rest of the world will catch up...perhaps hundreds of years from now...and "manufacturing" in whatever form, might return.  Until then, we'll have to be content with making money on new technologies.


Taxes are low.  Over the time from 1948 to today the tax code as messy as it is has dropped the highest rate to a foolishly low of 35%(39.6% estimated for 2013 per Forbes).

Because you don't feel you're paying enough in taxes?  Because you foolishly believe that people will stand for the government imposing oppressive taxes?  Maybe you should take a lesson from France or New York City.

 

Major stockholders are your 401K and retirement investments of the elderly and stock investments across middle-America.  And when companies are bought up, while some employees may lose their jobs, it either leaves a healthier company or is sold off piecemeal to other companies which enable them to grow.  But all that aside, the top taxpayers EARN their wealth, and do so NOT by taking away the first dime from "the poor.""

    Not true.  Companies are bought for a variety of reason but the devastation that this pirate approach has brought has been horrendous.  Yes the big stockholders make a mint.  But the total out come is less competition and higher prices.

Ridiculous.  Yes, companies are bought for a variety of reasons...to acquire marketshare, to acquire propriety technology, simple expansion or consolidation, to turn around ailing companies for a profit or to kill off failed companies for a profit.  All are ultimately positive for the economy.

Most of the top taxpayers wealth is in stocks so it cannot be said that they earn it it is a game.

Wealthy people invest in a variety of places and those investments, like your's, mine and everyone elses, are made with money they earned.  Btw, it's not a "game" to invest in companies and share in their profits or losses.

Wage earners do not have that freedom.

Everyone is free to invest their own money.

The idea of a insecure item like a 401K being used as a retirement vehicle is very risky.

Not at all...that's why they're the most common retirement fund, preciisely because they are both very secure and generally see solid growth, depending on the person's individual investments.

  Growth cannot go on forever.  Boom and bust cannot continue,

That is why diversity is key...but yes, boom and bust CAN continue.  They have and they will.


Neither can  it if we continue to allow immigration to take away the good jobs or stay while working the dirty ones because in time those jobs will be gone to technology.

I support building the fence, enhancing border security and aggressively implementing our immigration laws.


 I agree that both parties are at fault, but the failure has been with liberal policies, exponentially exacerbated by unfettered Democrats, and Obama in particular since the 2007 crash."

  That has not been born out in the last fiscal reports.  Neither parties economic plans are perfect.  I looking over results from the last 70 years shows the higher taxes are not a killer of jobs in the middle class.  Manipulation of the tax code can be very healthy. 

Sorry, but your opinion simply doesn't bear close scrutiny.  There is a simple, undisputable fact...when you take away someone's money, be they a business or an individual, they have less money to grow or spend, both of which is negative for the economy.


SS should be "means tested."  The cap should be raised, as should the retirement age, and the contribution marginally increased.

The age needs to stay at 65.  WE cannot guarantee the health of retirees.  What that means is raise the tax to pay for it.  perhaps allowing further input to increase out put in later years as well as means tested (billionaire do not need it but some sort of offset is needed )

When the retirement age was set at 65, the average life expectancy was 58 for men and 62 for women.  Now that life expectancy has grown by two decades, obviously the math needs to be recalculated.


Retirement programs need to be guaranteed not gambles.  As there will bubbles and busts.

No, guaranteeing money for one person obligates and takes that money from another.

  That in the case of insurance such as Social security is not true.  With out a handle on costs the problem will continue.

The original design of Social Security was that the individual and his/her employer would make a contribution that would pay for the person's full retirement.  And with retirement age exceeding life expectancy, most people never used their full SS contribution, creating a growing surplus.  Now, with life expectancy exceeding the retirement age by decades, the equation has flipped, depending on new workers to subsidize the financial gap for retired people.  That is an unsustainable situation and must be corrected by increased contributions and raising the retirement age to 70.

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Thu, 05-16-2013 - 3:15am

  Candidates are picket by the National comettees and the big donors without theri money winning would be a forlorn affair.

No, employment has shrunk below the number of workers.  Same thing.  Too many workers not enought good jobs.


Star Trek is fiction it was; however., many of Gene Rodenberry's ideas have come true.  They are making billions of dollars in sales.

Yes, taxes can be raised if you want to hobble the economy.  And the wealthy are usually too smart to put all of their eggs in one basket...and can make money in either an up or a down market.

   Hogwash.  the economy is not dependent on capital gains taxation


Because you don't feel you're paying enough in taxes?  Because you foolishly believe that people will stand for the government imposing oppressive taxes?  Maybe you should take a lesson from France or New York City.

   Then why are companies based there and the economic vitality is undiminished.  There is no exodus from making money.


Ridiculous.  Yes, companies are bought for a variety of reasons...to acquire marketshare, to acquire propriety technology, simple expansion or consolidation, to turn around ailing companies for a profit or to kill off failed companies for a profit.  All are ultimately positive for the economy.

   Wrong they have a negative effect on competition and employment. But they make a few pirates a lot of money


No, guaranteeing money for one person obligates and takes that money from another.

   There is no such proof.  That does not happen.  The only way to have retirement is a nation pension plan that is guarenteed.  ad so the person lives long tough.  at 65 most wil have some time to enjoy their retirement rather than wasting their health in a company who can't wait to throw them under the bus.  That means that society will have to find more means of funding it.  It is only a matter of will.


I support building the fence, enhancing border security and aggressively implementing our immigration laws.

  Agreed but it would be good to import lots of beautiful women with higher degrees nice to have some one to talk to.


There is a simple, undisputable fact...when you take away someone's money, be they a business or an individual, they have less money to grow or spend, both of which is negative for the economy.

  Nope does not work that way when the tax code rewards business creation as it did in the 70's.

dragowoman

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Tue, 05-21-2013 - 1:36pm

Candidates are picket by the National comettees and the big donors without theri money winning would be a forlorn affair.

There are big donors and big money on both sides...and one side always loses so...

No, employment has shrunk below the number of workers.  Same thing.  Too many workers not enought good jobs.

You said "the population has exceeded the employment" and that's quite different from shrinking employment, as evidenced by the fact that prior to the crash we had roughly the same number of people and unemployment was low.


Star Trek is fiction it was; however., many of Gene Rodenberry's ideas have come true.  They are making billions of dollars in sales.

Yes, sales in fictional movies and merchandise...but again, quite different from your claims of a two-outcome future of "Darwin Days" (whatever that is) and some technoligical wonderland where people "don't have to labor for living costs."

Hogwash.  the economy is not dependent on capital gains taxation

You said "taxes can be raised. In fact they can be raised a lot."  You didn't mention capital gains specifically.  You're right, raising the tax rate on capital gains won't hobble the economy, but it will seriously stunt it by removing incentives to invest, thereby damaging the economy and also hurting the people who depend on college and retirement investments.


Because you don't feel you're paying enough in taxes?  Because you foolishly believe that people will stand for the government imposing oppressive taxes?  Maybe you should take a lesson from France or New York City.

Then why are companies based there and the economic vitality is undiminished.  There is no exodus from making money.

Take a look again.  There is an exodus from France and NYC of their wealthy and businesses looking for safer enviorns.  And how is France trying to attract investment in it's flagging economy?  Right...but lowering capital gains taxes and offering other tax benefits.  Everywhere in the US you see people and businesses leaving high tax states and relocating to low tax states.  It's not tough to figure out why...unless you're a liberal from a high tax state who simply scratches their heads in befuddlement and then whines about it...before raising taxes again and driving even more people away.


Wrong they have a negative effect on competition and employment. But they make a few pirates a lot of money

I'm afraid you're mistaken.  Removing an ailing company creates marketshare for healthier companies...good for the economy.  And acquiring companies allows the mother company the ability to expand their business and hire more people...again, good for the economy.  The "pirates" as you call them who buy ailing companies and sell them piecemeal are, again, removing a wounded member of the herd and building up the other companies that buy the assets.


No, guaranteeing money for one person obligates and takes that money from another.

There is no such proof.  That does not happen.

Of course it does...where do you think the money comes from?

The only way to have retirement is a nation pension plan that is guarenteed.

Guaranteed by whom?  Right...other people who work to pay for that "guarantee."

ad so the person lives long tough.  at 65 most wil have some time to enjoy their retirement rather than wasting their health in a company who can't wait to throw them under the bus.  That means that society will have to find more means of funding it.  It is only a matter of will.

You have a ridiculous nirvana-like view of the world.  It isn't the obligation of society, or of a company, to "guarantee" that seniors have comfortable idle years at the expense of everyone else.  And funding requires money and money isn't produced by "a matter of will"...someone has to work for it.


I support building the fence, enhancing border security and aggressively implementing our immigration laws.

Agreed but it would be good to import lots of beautiful women with higher degrees nice to have some one to talk to.

I'm married, so that isn't a big concern of mine. ; )  What is a concern is that illegal immigration be stopped and the expense removed from our ledger.  Build a fence...build it high, and put lots of armed security on both of our borders.  After that, you can invite all the "beautiful women with higher degrees" as you like.


There is a simple, undisputable fact...when you take away someone's money, be they a business or an individual, they have less money to grow or spend, both of which is negative for the economy.

Nope does not work that way when the tax code rewards business creation as it did in the 70's.

You just contradicted yourself.  Tax code rewards...i.e. letting businesses and individuals keep MORE of their OWN money, creates a growing economy.  It's common sense.

 

Pages