Teflon Don
I'm back baby
You don’t even understand your own graph.
Republicans have no answer to this simple chart
- Thread starter Craig234
- Start date
You don’t even understand your own graph.
Of course much of the money DID go to the American people, directly and indirectly. Not all - moon project had only indirect benefits, the Vietnam War - but much did, and moreso today. And the wealthy not being so absurdly wealthy inhibited their political organizing to take over the American political system, as they did as of the Nixon administration, feeding into the Reagan administration. Where do you think all that increased productivity that didn't go to wages went? Into the pockets of the rich.
I don't think American soldiers accounted for wage increases. If NASA and war help workers we should be doing great since we still have a space program and TWO wars.
That's the opposite of what I said. The space program didn't help workers much - but you're also wrong in that our spending on space now is a sliver of what it was, then it was as much as 5% of the federal budget.
You really are utterly uninformed. Wages have been flat for about 50 years. obama was creating that mess when he was a kid. Or you are just ignorant. You are ignorant.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/income-inequality_n_1032632
Wealth gap a flat out lie. No you are flat out stupid. The CBO stated that. They are numbers, something you are unfamiliar with. Here too. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...n-rise-for-decades-is-now-highest-since-1928/ You are depressing because every scribble you post, is wrong and stupid., I would think after the first 5 or 6 thousand times you were refuted, you would learn. But you stay just as aggressive and stupid today as you were in the past.
I was going to explain economic demand to you, but I have learned, you cannot understand that. You cannot allow any information into your bunker.
Boris The Animal
It's Just Boris!
It's morons like Craig and Nordbogger who want equality of OUTCOME, not opportunity.
OK--I understand what you were saying. But the money going to workers was from their employers, not from government revenue.
That is true. But the issue is how now, the workers are no longer getting that share of the productivity, and how government policy plays a role in that. And whether you even see that as a bad thing and if so how you suggest changing it.
I think the first issue is seeing it as a bad thing, that all new economic growth goes to the very top instead of being shared by everyone as it used to be. And that is simply an issue of power the wealthy have obtained over democracy.
But I can't remember ever hearing the Republicans discuss that as a problem, except in the rare cases they're dishonestly pretending to be on the side of the people, like when trump attacked the wealthy or claimed his tax bill will hurt the rich.
What Republicans need to understand is that the threat of tyranny is not the government, but the concentration of wealth, and that the high concentration has largely removed real democracy in the US, the rule by the people.
Irish Exit
Verified User
It is morally wrong but factually correct. Your gap was unphased in its trend by top rate increases in the 90's. Democrats are doing such things. They are the ones who harp about government subsidizing Walmart workers but when pointed out that those subsidies come as a direct result of DNC policies, they "Look, Squirrel!!!"
Imagine if all that development were done as efficiently as privateers.
The claims that corporations pay a much smaller percent of income taxes today than they did in the past is very misleading:
"Today, most business income is taxed through the individual income tax code, rather than the corporate code. This concerns a distinction only a CPA could love. One type of corporation, a "C-corporation," pays corporate income taxes on its profits. Another type, the "S-corporation," pays taxes on its profits through the individual income-tax returns of the owner.
"Changes in tax rates and rules for C- and S-corps contributed to more firms becoming S-corps and thus paying individual rather than corporate income tax," said Kyle Pomerleau, an economist with the Tax Foundation. That has boosted individual income-tax collections and reduced corporate income-tax collections.
Between 1980 to 2010, the category of businesses that includes S-corporations, sole proprietorships, partnerships and LLCs has increased by 10.9 million to over 30 million, while the number of corporations has declined, Pomerlau said.
This means there are fewer corporations to pay the corporate income tax. In addition, the amount of business income generated by these types of businesses has risen as well, Pomerlau said. Between 1980 and 2010, this type of income has increased fivefold, from $320 billion to more than $1.6 trillion, he said.
"In fact, most recent data shows that (these) businesses are earning more total net income than traditional C-corporations," Pomerlau said. "In 1980, it was the complete opposite."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-sanders-says-tax-share-paid-corporations-ha/
"Today, most business income is taxed through the individual income tax code, rather than the corporate code. This concerns a distinction only a CPA could love. One type of corporation, a "C-corporation," pays corporate income taxes on its profits. Another type, the "S-corporation," pays taxes on its profits through the individual income-tax returns of the owner.
"Changes in tax rates and rules for C- and S-corps contributed to more firms becoming S-corps and thus paying individual rather than corporate income tax," said Kyle Pomerleau, an economist with the Tax Foundation. That has boosted individual income-tax collections and reduced corporate income-tax collections.
Between 1980 to 2010, the category of businesses that includes S-corporations, sole proprietorships, partnerships and LLCs has increased by 10.9 million to over 30 million, while the number of corporations has declined, Pomerlau said.
This means there are fewer corporations to pay the corporate income tax. In addition, the amount of business income generated by these types of businesses has risen as well, Pomerlau said. Between 1980 and 2010, this type of income has increased fivefold, from $320 billion to more than $1.6 trillion, he said.
"In fact, most recent data shows that (these) businesses are earning more total net income than traditional C-corporations," Pomerlau said. "In 1980, it was the complete opposite."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-sanders-says-tax-share-paid-corporations-ha/
What government policy today that didn't exist in the past keeps workers from getting a larger share of that productivity? Higher taxes on the wealthy does not achieve that.
cawacko
Well-known member
LOL, that's all it is, inheritance? Ok
Workers do not have to work harder to increase production--technology accounts for most of those gains. A majority of millionaires and billionaires did not inherit their fortune. That is a myth by those who resent the wealthy and want to find ways to denigrate their success by suggesting they inherited their money or did not earn it honestly and by claiming they do not pay their fair share of taxes.
So you think the problem is Democrats helping low-paid workers, not Republicans causing workers to be low-paid.
Look, squirrel!
Correct, and irrelevant. The gains should be shared, not all taken by the 1%.
No, actually, inheritance and generational advantage are huge problems causing low mobility, lack of opportunity, and reduced productivity as the best are not given a chance to protect the fortunes of the heirs.
Higher taxes on the wealth and corporations DOES go a long way to achieve that. Many policies influence the distribution of income and wealth, the balance of power between workers and owners, and the scale is hugely tiled to the wealthy.
This is how we've gotten to the point that government mostly serves the few richest and most powerful now rather than the people, and those few keep it that way.
As Jimmy Carter said, the US no longer has a functional democracy.
You're asking what specific policies are affecting distribution of wealth, but what you need to understand is simply who government is serving.
Moron; I do wish you had a brain:
US Wages Have Been Rising Faster Than Productivity For Decades
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...r-than-productivity-for-decades/#71372deb7342
I didn't say wealth gap you incoherent moron; I said WEALTH EQUALITY arguments. Maybe if I make it bigger you'll comprehend it.
You are depressing because trying to argue with someone so lacking in intelligence and reading comprehension skills can be frustrating. But I get it; if you weren't a total low information moron, you wouldn't be a liberal or Democrat.
I was going to explain economic demand to you, but I have learned, you cannot understand that. You cannot allow any information into your bunker.[/QUOTE]
Wealth inequality is an argument for morons and idiots. Thank you for proving that out.