Income Gap
- Thread starter Cancel7
- Start date
Darla said:
That they shouldn't have kids?
Darla said:
To be fair the article makes no distinction between what is considered wealthy - that was my assertion. They lump earners into two categories (top 10 and top 1%) and speaks to their income gains/tax cuts and talks about cutting education programs and lack of insurance for the middle class. In my opinion, the article sounds like a prelude to an argument to increase taxes on the "wealthy". My biggest fear especially being where we are is that such a tax increase would cripple the middle class if anything. What I find really annoying in articles like this is that there is no mention of the pork that is loaded into our budgets and the fact that we are throwing away billions on the war machine. Not mention administrative waste along the way. I just wish congress would police their spending like they do corporations. I wonder how much money we'd save for such programs if the government had to comply with SOX. I personally think more priority should be given to what Washington is doing with our money.
Tiana, why do you think that rolling back the tax cuts for the top 2% would cripple the middle class? I think that if you look at say, Edward's health care plan, he specifically states he would roll back those tax cuts, but not the (relatively) small ones the middle class received from bush. Now, I read an incredibly illuminating study, and I believe it can be found in "Death by a thousand cuts" a book about the estate tax...anyway, and this is the truth, when polled, 30 something percent of Americans believed they will one day be in the top 2% economically. Even funnier? 20 something percent answered that they already were in the top 2 percent!
LOL. And this goes a good long way to explaining why Republicans get away with regressive rather than progressive taxation policies. Because Americans are convinced that someday, they're going to be in the top 2%. But you see, they never will be. For the top 2%, will always be the top 2% and by definition, cannot encompase more than 2% of the population.
Now, the income disparaties we see here, historically will cause political and social upheavals. See, and that is why bush is actually talking about them. Maybe they can stave off the inevitable societal corrections, by talking a lot of shit, for a year...or two.
But this will tend to correct itself, and if it doesn't, well...then it will correct itself anyway, but perhaps not within the confines of the capitialistic system.
I didn't mean to imply that the roll backs on the top 2% would effect the middle/upper class but when I see articles like that that talk about people making $100K and lumping them in with people that are making millions, I have a problem with it. People teetering around 100K aren't rolling in the dough. A lot of these are people that, god willing they make into retirement, will hopefully be able to live comfortably when that time arises. Again, I don't think the article suggests raising taxes on the top 10% but it certainly sets the stage for some over zealous politician to start talking about it when they should be focusing on streamlining governmental agencies and cutting gov't fat.
Oh ok, I understand what you are saying now.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Tom Joad (Talking about making money):
"I just wish you didn't have to take it away from someone else to do it"
This line from John Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath" is a perfect illustration of one of the biggest leftist myths - that someone who is making lots of money is hurting someone else. It's so widespread and it really annoys me because of it's absolute stupidity. If I make a yacht, does that mean someone else loses their yacht? No. Obviously not. Economics is not a zero sum game. Things are constantly produced and lost. Money is MADE, not transeferred around.
Just because the rich are gaining doesn't mean the poor are being hurt.
"I just wish you didn't have to take it away from someone else to do it"
This line from John Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath" is a perfect illustration of one of the biggest leftist myths - that someone who is making lots of money is hurting someone else. It's so widespread and it really annoys me because of it's absolute stupidity. If I make a yacht, does that mean someone else loses their yacht? No. Obviously not. Economics is not a zero sum game. Things are constantly produced and lost. Money is MADE, not transeferred around.
Just because the rich are gaining doesn't mean the poor are being hurt.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
The rich worked for it. If it takes no work to become rich, then why aren't you rich, US?
I do not mean literally going out and building a yacht, US. Taking a risk in a business, investing, building something up. The current mega-rich in the US had to take RISKS to get where they are, and they were rewarded for that. The average employee makes less because they've taken very little risk.
uscitizen
Villified User
But where does that capital come from to invest and take the risk with ? All of us are not born with a silver foot in our mouth.
Some seem to think all should make their money thru the market. Who would produce products for the market to gamble on if everyone played the market ?
Some seem to think all should make their money thru the market. Who would produce products for the market to gamble on if everyone played the market ?
It hurt 90% of the country. If you notice, while the incomes of the elites have hit highs not seen since 1928, the bottom 90 percent (again, that is most of us), have seen their incomes lowered. And that is only a very small part of the story.
Worker productivity in America has risen year after year. However, wages have not, wages have stagnated. Now, when productivity rises, that means that companies have to hire less people. So high productivity = higher profits. During good times for the worker, the worker will share in that, which is after all, the benefit of his hard work. During bad times for the worker, the worker will not share in the benefit of his hard work. That is what is happening today and what has been happening.
And of course, much of the income of the 2 percentile is due to capital gains, stocks, dividends, etc. All areas that have enjoyed massive tax cuts under bush. At the same time, things like heating oil programs for the poor, health care, section 8, have all been cut back on. This is what any fair-minded person would be able to see as, in fact, a massive transfer of wealth from the poorest amongst us to the richest amongst us.
If that is the case, why has the gap between what the average employee makes and what the ceo makes grown to such an eye-popping level? Are the rich taking more risks than they were, in what was the middle class hey-day of say, the 1950's? Are the poor taking less risks?
What are you talking about?
Topspin
Verified User
head not exploding
But my sides are killing me laughing at you UFO spotters.
Darla good on ya for reading the business section I agree on the early big stories bit.
Hurting the rich does not help the poor it also hurts the poor.
Here's real world economics for you class, not usc he's a non believer.
This thing called globalization is going to continue to make it worse for non college educated and several groups of college educated in terms of income.
That coupled with both parties bandering to the illegal immigrant wages will be under duress for years to come.
The only way to make head way for those lagging behing is to increase college assistance and votech education.
P.S. Class do some reading
today's assignment is to come up with jobs associated with luxury cars and boats annually. Then tell me who's hurt when taxes get hike.
But my sides are killing me laughing at you UFO spotters.
Darla good on ya for reading the business section I agree on the early big stories bit.
Hurting the rich does not help the poor it also hurts the poor.
Here's real world economics for you class, not usc he's a non believer.
This thing called globalization is going to continue to make it worse for non college educated and several groups of college educated in terms of income.
That coupled with both parties bandering to the illegal immigrant wages will be under duress for years to come.
The only way to make head way for those lagging behing is to increase college assistance and votech education.
P.S. Class do some reading
today's assignment is to come up with jobs associated with luxury cars and boats annually. Then tell me who's hurt when taxes get hike.
But my sides are killing me laughing at you UFO spotters.
Darla good on ya for reading the business section I agree on the early big stories bit.
Hurting the rich does not help the poor it also hurts the poor.
Here's real world economics for you class, not usc he's a non believer.
This thing called globalization is going to continue to make it worse for non college educated and several groups of college educated in terms of income.
That coupled with both parties bandering to the illegal immigrant wages will be under duress for years to come.
The only way to make head way for those lagging behing is to increase college assistance and votech education.
P.S. Class do some reading
today's assignment is to come up with jobs associated with luxury cars and boats annually. Then tell me who's hurt when taxes get hike.
Oh ok. So anyway, if you feel like addressing any of the actual points in my post, I guess...come back?
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
I won't deny that the workers haven't really been gaining in the past few years. They've barely been beating inflation. I'm just disputing using income distribution to measure that.
I also won't deny that Bushes tax cuts probably weren't good for the average worker... we go through ups and down all the time, but this business cycle is odd in that the booms are all going to the rich. The poor aren't getting any of it like they have in the past. The economies too big to point at any one factor, but it seems like an awfully big coincidence that this happened just as soon as the Republicans got in office.