Do You Think The Rich Should Be Taxed More?

[Nordberg]

We were on the gold standard back then. Do you think we should return to it?

We didn't have the internet then. Do you think that helped our infrastructure? In short, no connection. Just like gold standard.

This is about distribution of wealth. it is now worse than it was during the Gilded Age. This is caused partly by our tax system that takes less and less from the top. Also be legislators who respond to lobbying power and donations. We can achieve a fair deal if we go to public financing of election, 100 percent.

 

[cawacko]

We didn't have the internet then. Do you think that helped our infrastructure? In short, no connection. Just like gold standard.

This is about distribution of wealth. it is now worse than it was during the Gilded Age. This is caused partly by our tax system that takes less and less from the top. Also be legislators who respond to lobbying power and donations. We can achieve a fair deal if we go to public financing of election, 100 percent.

Not a good analogy. The internet has little to do with infrastructure. Our money supply has a lot to do with inequality.

We'll never have public financing of elections because money will always be attracted to power. It's like trying to keep money out of NCAA football and basketball. Just not going to happen.

 

[/MSG/]

Pure conjecture. No cause and effect shown.



Why guess? We already did this and wealth creation was fine enough to build interstates, airports, hospitals and schools, AND allow every worker to have a home, a car, a vacation and a family supported by one income. Rich executives earned 10-15-even 20 times what the average worker earned. The rich lived a life of luxury. About the only thing the rich were not able to do was catapult their wealth into the stratosphere by screwing workers and consumers. Check out that video posted by Frank. Great graphics to show just how extreme wealth inequality has become. If you dare...

After top tax rates fell, the rich were able to do all that, tear our nation apart with extreme crony capitalism, and that's when wealth inequality grew.

Yeah, and most women didn't work and we were the only industrial nation untouched by the ravages of two world wars. So unless you're gonna recreate all that, your premise is inherently flawed.

 

[cawacko]

Yeah, and most women didn't work and we were the only industrial nation untouched by the ravages of war. So unless you're gonna recreate all that, your premise is inherently flawed.

Whether on purpose or they just don't think about it they always (conveniently) leave that part out as if it didn't play a role.

 

[Nordberg]

Not a good analogy. The internet has little to do with infrastructure. Our money supply has a lot to do with inequality.

We'll never have public financing of elections because money will always be attracted to power. It's like trying to keep money out of NCAA football and basketball. Just not going to happen.

Same logic as gold standard. Gold standard helped hold down inflation and money creation.

 

[Celticguy]

Of course not, equal protection under the law. Pretty basic.

 

[cawacko]

Same logic as gold standard. Gold standard helped hold down inflation and money creation.

After the LBJ years (and beginning of Nixon) it couldn't hold down inflation. Can't spend like they were with no repercussions.

 

[Nordberg]

But we had a lot less inequality under the gold standard. We get off it and inequality explodes.

And if we're talking about taxing at 90% rates that right there reduces wealth creation

Not because of gold standard, but due to the constant onslaught of the wealthy on our politicians., They kept whittling away at our balance until now the tip is way, way in the favor of the wealthy. But as bad as the wealth distribution is, it is getting a lot worse. Trumps tax policies and dereg are going to help the rich and corporations a lot more than the masses.

This is not an accident. The wealthy are getting their way. Money =-power. They are creating a plutocracy . American people are in the way. The rightys are voting for the wealthy thinking they give a shit about them. What suckers.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Not because of gold standard, but due to the constant onslaught of the wealthy on our politicians., They kept whittling away at our balance until now the tip is way, way in the favor of the wealthy. But as bad as the wealth distribution is, it is getting a lot worse. Trumps tax policies and dereg are going to help the rich and corporations a lot more than the masses.

This is not an accident. The wealthy are getting their way. Money =-power. They are creating a plutocracy . American people are in the way. The rightys are voting for the wealthy thinking they give a shit about them. What suckers.

The American conservatives actually think the very wealthy will allow wealth to trickle down to them if only we allow them to accumulate just a little more!!!

You gotta wonder how much of the Kool Aid these people drink to be that deluded.

The rich are not going to allow any more to "trickle down" than they possibly can...and they are setting things up so that less and less CAN "trickle down."

Never in the history of humanity has there ever been a bunch of misguided jerks as there is in American conservatism.

 

[cawacko]

Not because of gold standard, but due to the constant onslaught of the wealthy on our politicians., They kept whittling away at our balance until now the tip is way, way in the favor of the wealthy. But as bad as the wealth distribution is, it is getting a lot worse. Trumps tax policies and dereg are going to help the rich and corporations a lot more than the masses.

This is not an accident. The wealthy are getting their way. Money =-power. They are creating a plutocracy . American people are in the way. The rightys are voting for the wealthy thinking they give a shit about them. What suckers.

Ok. And the lefties are "smart" because they voted for Obama and QE to create asset bubbles whose gains all went to the top 1%? But it's ok because a Democrat did that right?

 

[Flash]

We didn't have the internet then. Do you think that helped our infrastructure? In short, no connection. Just like gold standard.

We can achieve a fair deal if we go to public financing of election, 100 percent.

We currently have public financing of presidential elections and nominations. Both Democratic and Republican candidates took the federal general election money from 1976 to 2008. That meant they could only spend the amount designated and could not raise private funds. President Obama was the first candidate not to accept federal funds because he could raise much more privately and his spending was not limited.

 

[cawacko]

The American conservatives actually think the very wealthy will allow wealth to trickle down to them if only we allow them to accumulate just a little more!!!

You gotta wonder how much of the Kool Aid these people drink to be that deluded.

The rich are not going to allow any more to "trickle down" than they possibly can...and they are setting things up so that less and less CAN "trickle down."

Never in the history of humanity has there ever been a bunch of misguided jerks as there is in American conservatism.

Maybe they've followed what socialism has done around the world and don't find it all that enticing. For some reason it's difficult for you to believe that not everyone falls for the "vote for me and we'll do massive income redistribution for you and that will be a good thing" motto.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Maybe they've followed what socialism has done around the world and don't find it all that enticing.

No reason to embrace socialism in order for the dolts to see that the "trickle down" nonsense is a huge joke on them. The monied few who need their votes to get the political clout they need...must wonder how the joke works so well. It has to be a mystery even to them as to why so many are so gullible.

For some reason it's difficult for you to believe that not everyone falls for the "vote for me and we'll do massive income redistribution for you and that will be a good thing" motto.

My personal philosophy of how to get away from the enormous disparity of wealth now prevailing in this country is NOT rooted in the "vote for me and we'll do massive income redistribution for you and that will be a good thing" motto.

It is much more complicated than that.

 

[cawacko]

No reason to embrace socialism in order for the dolts to see that the "trickle down" nonsense is a huge joke on them. The monied few who need their votes to get the political clout they need...must wonder how the joke works so well. It has to be a mystery even to them as to why so many are so gullible.



My personal philosophy of how to get away from the enormous disparity of wealth now prevailing in this country is NOT rooted in the "vote for me and we'll do massive income redistribution for you and that will be a good thing" motto.

It is much more complicated than that.

That's the current democratic argument and what you suggest people should vote for otherwise they are gulliable in your view

 

[evince]

fuck you lying wack


you don't get to say what we are for


Putin does get to say what you are for though

 

[Ross Dolan]

That's the current democratic argument and what you suggest people should vote for otherwise they are gulliable in your view

I think people should vote for whomever they choose.

But anyone who votes expecting money to "trickle down" because of the favorite American conservative fantasy...is kidding him/herself.

 

[cawacko]

I think people should vote for whomever they choose.

But anyone who votes expecting money to "trickle down" because of the favorite American conservative fantasy...is kidding him/herself.

You're essentially arguing the only way one will improve themselves economically is throught greater government redistribution.

 

[Ross Dolan]

You're essentially arguing the only way one will improve themselves economically is throught greater government redistribution.

No I am not.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Quetzalcoatl,

Yeah, and most women didn't work and we were the only industrial nation untouched by the ravages of two world wars. So unless you're gonna recreate all that, your premise is inherently flawed.

Good point about the USA being largely untouched by infrastructure damage (not completely - don't forget Pearl Harbor) and that was a huge factor in our success of the 50's, but at the same time we had Tremendous debt to pay off from WWII. We also helped rebuild Europe, forking over $13 billion during 4 years of the Marshall Plan. We did all of that, paid for the GI Bill, the middle class was stronger than ever, - and - the rich still earned 10-20 times the income of the middle, and they lived in luxury. It's not like the high taxes of that age held capitalism back. The biggest difference was that wealth was distributed more equitably than it is now.

 

[cawacko]

Hello Quetzalcoatl,



Good point about the USA being largely untouched by infrastructure damage (not completely - don't forget Pearl Harbor) and that was a huge factor in our success of the 50's, but at the same time we had Tremendous debt to pay off from WWII. We also helped rebuild Europe, forking over $13 billion during 4 years of the Marshall Plan. We did all of that, paid for the GI Bill, the middle class was stronger than ever, - and - the rich still earned 10-20 times the income of the middle, and they lived in luxury. It's not like the high taxes of that age held capitalism back. The biggest difference was that wealth was distributed more equitably than it is now.

You leave out Japan being deveatated and china and India in the throughs of communism. Not to mention discrimination country wise against black people in the u.s. You're also speaking about a time before automation took over