Even Fox admits that income inequality is hurting this country

[layoutshooter]

The top 1% is how people usually frame this discussion. A quick google reveals... WTF? Forbes is at it again with painting pictures of rich people as victims. Like battered wifes they are. lmao!!!

Are You Rich Enough? The Terrible Tragedy Of Income Inequality Among The 1% - Forbes

Anyway, it looks like $400K/year and $1.5M in "liquid assets". What's "liquid assets"? Richspeak for everything but retirement accounts and real estate?

I wanted to know which figure you were using. Not everyone agrees with that number. Some use 250K. I wanted to be on the same page.

Now, I don't believe that you can raise taxes enough, on just those people, to accomplish what is needed. I don't believe that if you lowered it to the 250K level. That is not were the bulk of the wages are made. It won't produce enough. In the end, either the deficit will go up, OR, everyone's taxes will, OR, they will FINALLY have to start spending less than they take in.

I also have seen the results of that kind of taxation when I lived in England. I spent a lot of time with many who were considered rather well off there. Professionals and business owners. There taxes were crippling and killed production. Once they made so much per week, 98% of the remainder went to taxes. Like most normal people, they did not like the idea of only realizing 2% for that work, SO, they just took the rest of the week off. Less economic activity was the result.

We do NOT have a revenue problem, it needs to be leveled out for sure, equal rates for all. What we have is an overspending problem. Until government is cut, spending cut, nothing will change.

 

[davekc]

I asked how your upward mobility would be hindered by uber wealthy people paying more and you paying less taxes.

To humor you though here's some economic data from today just to show you I do try to "keep up". The first is a table from an economist showing progress on the debt. It's not gloom and doom like you keep repeating and the more the economy improves and the more people that get back to work and pay taxes instead of getting benefits the more the rate of improvement should accelerate.

View attachment 8148

Oh and about the economy improving, we've had great jobs data, consumer sentiment data, manufacturing data etc etc etc in the last month or two and revised qtr3 GDP came in at a quite respectable 4.1%.

U.S. Third Quarter Third Gross Domestic Product (Text) - Bloomberg

Can you explain in economic terms (without getting into values!), the mechanism that shows how the truly rich paying a little more and you paying a little less in taxes hinders your upward mobility?

Oh my...where do I start. For one, your graph only shows the paydown number, and doesn't put that number against the total debt load which is 17.2 TRILLION and growing by the minute.
A record never achieved by another president. Unemployment is still high and not much improvement. But, the economy has shown a better quarter than expected which is good, but not enough. If so, the Fed wouldn't continue to print money which they said yesterday would have to continue and slowly taper it off over a year if nothing goes south. Keep printing money and the stock market hit a record again. Economy is facing a lot of headwinds next year with Obamacare being a big one.

As for the "rich"....the liberal talking points are to tax them more. Why would you tax the job creators? And of course that 1 percent just isn't enough people to cover the ills even if you took every penny they have. Just not enough of them. Simple math. Could they pay a little more? Sure...but to what end? We see how well that plan works in Europe or other nations that try it.

Here is my recommendation. Before you raise taxes anywhere, I would start with these as I have mentioned before. 100 of them just for starters. Think we first have to identify the problem.
Throwing more money at the same problem, doesn't fix your problem. Have to take the emotion out of it. "Those evil rich people".
Tom Coburn ?Wastebook?: $125K 3-D pizza - Lucy McCalmont - POLITICO.com

And to imagine, this doesn't count the wasted money on "shovel ready jobs" wasted, or say something like 500B wasted on Solyndra, or.....there are so many.

 

[WanderngFool]

I'm asking about you personally.

And to simplify things further let's not even worry about percentages.

If rich people paid a certain percentage more in taxes, and if you paid a certain percentage less in taxes, how could it possible hinder your upward mobility?

In other words, you get to keep more of the money you make each week. Please tell me how that is a bad thing.

 

[WanderngFool]

Oh my...where do I start. For one, your graph only shows the paydown number, and doesn't put that number against the total debt load which is 17.2 TRILLION and growing by the minute.
A record never achieved by another president. Unemployment is still high and not much improvement. But, the economy has shown a better quarter than expected which is good, but not enough. If so, the Fed wouldn't continue to print money which they said yesterday would have to continue and slowly taper it off over a year if nothing goes south. Keep printing money and the stock market hit a record again. Economy is facing a lot of headwinds next year with Obamacare being a big one.

As for the "rich"....the liberal talking points are to tax them more. Why would you tax the job creators? And of course that 1 percent just isn't enough people to cover the ills even if you took every penny they have. Just not enough of them. Simple math. Could they pay a little more? Sure...but to what end? We see how well that plan works in Europe or other nations that try it.

Here is my recommendation. Before you raise taxes anywhere, I would start with these as I have mentioned before. 100 of them just for starters. Think we first have to identify the problem.
Throwing more money at the same problem, doesn't fix your problem. Have to take the emotion out of it. "Those evil rich people".
Tom Coburn ?Wastebook?: $125K 3-D pizza - Lucy McCalmont - POLITICO.com

You're actually using the term "Job Creators"? After years of watching our jobs go to China you're using the term Job Creators? And now we're watching people losing their jobs to Roombas and you're using the term Job Creators?

 

[davekc]

You're actually using the term "Job Creators"? After years of watching our jobs go to China you're using the term Job Creators? And now we're watching people losing their jobs to Roombas and you're using the term Job Creators?

Ok.....take the top 10 percent of wage earners out and who is going to create, maintain or provide the jobs? I can hardly wait for your answer.

 

[WanderngFool]

Ok.....take the top 10 percent of wage earners out and who is going to create, maintain or provide the jobs? I can hardly wait for your answer.

The real job creators are people like me. Middle class people who work hard and branch off into business for themselves. To relate it to trucking, they add a 2nd truck and a 3rd and so on. Most jobs in this country are created by the middle class, not the 1%.

 

[davekc]

The real job creators are people like me. Middle class people who work hard and branch off into business for themselves. To relate it to trucking, they add a 2nd truck and a 3rd and so on. Most jobs in this country are created by the middle class, not the 1%How many jobs do you think Jeff Bezos from Amazon is adding this year? I can hardly wait for you answer.


.

Middle class (median family income of 52K via census) is not the primary job creators.
As for Amazon, seem to be holding their own pretty well.
Amazon Hits 109,800 Employees, Passes Microsoft's Headcount

 

[letzrockexpress]

Middle class (median family income of 52K via census) is not the primary job creators.
As for Amazon, seem to be holding their own pretty well.
Amazon Hits 109,800 Employees, Passes Microsoft's Headcount

Often, quite often actually, they are. Henry Ford was an engineer, (very middle class) and former dairy farmer. Some entrepreneurs are actually downright poor when they start out.

 

[davekc]

Often, quite often actually, they are. Henry Ford was an engineer, (very middle class) and former dairy farmer. Some entrepreneurs are actually downright poor when they start out.

They may start there, no doubt about it, but this is in reference to who is currently paying the taxes verses who may or may not in the future.

 

[WanderngFool]

I deleted the reference to Bezos because even though the video shows how people are being replaced by machines there, I know how insane their growth is. More DCs with fewer people working each DC and the fact that the Roombas probably haven't taken all the jobs yet... I wonder if there's any way to find how how far along they are in replacing people with Roombas.

$52K is the median. Some make less. Some make between $52K and $399K. That's a whole lot of small business people adding a whole lotta jobs.

Edit: A quick scan of the Forbes 500 - are big companies adding many jobs?

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/

 

[paullud]

I'm asking about you personally.

And to simplify things further let's not even worry about percentages.

If rich people paid a certain percentage more in taxes, and if you paid a certain percentage less in taxes, how could it possible hinder your upward mobility?

In other words, you get to keep more of the money you make each week. Please tell me how that is a bad thing.

I don't think most would disagree with that in theory but the current system of taxing people to give it away to others is where most find fault. Why would I have to pay in $1200 while the dummy that had kids she can't afford get $thousands back? Working the same job for the same pay. A national sales tax would beat the current system in efficiency and share the responsibility of living in our society or maybe even a flat tax.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[davekc]

I deleted the reference to Bezos because even though the video shows how people are being replaced by machines there, I know how insane their growth is. More DCs with fewer people working each DC and the fact that the Roombas probably haven't taken all the jobs yet... I wonder if there's any way to find how how far along they are in replacing people with Roombas.

$52K is the median. Some make less. Some make between $52K and $399K. That's a whole lot of small business people adding a whole lotta jobs.

Edit: A quick scan of the Forbes 500 - are big companies adding many jobs?

Fortune 500 2013: Annual ranking of America's largest corporations from Fortune Magazine

Who would consider 399k a year as middle class? Or even 300k? According to Obama, he says you are rich if you make over 250k. Census says its 32k for a individual and 52k for a family of four.

This may help.
American middle class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[WanderngFool]

I don't think most would disagree with that in theory but the current system of taxing people to give it away to others is where most find fault. Why would I have to pay in $1200 while the dummy that had kids she can't afford get $thousands back? Working the same job for the same pay. A national sales tax would beat the current system in efficiency and share the responsibility of living in our society or maybe even a flat tax.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

There's a part of me that agrees with this line of thought. But then I think about corporate welfare and how that adds up to much, much more. And then I think how we've learned to justify our greed and selfishness and then I think about the big lie.

One of the most bizarre things I've witnessed in my life is how so many people on the right are willing to argue against their own self-interest. The mega-rich have PR departments, advertising agencies that are experts in choosing words that pull at people's heart strings or invoke feelings of betrayal or pride in their country or any one of a hundred other emotions.

The mega-rich also fund think tanks. I don't picture these guys sitting around in smokey rooms. I picture them going about their lives and when they have a great idea they send a group email to the rest of the tank. The really good ideas are rewarded by the rich. It's a modern day propaganda machine.

Poor people don't have PR departments or think tanks. "If we give them any food it will make them dependent" is the cold way we talk now.

So the question I posed to LOS has to do with how in the flying fig does it make a lick of sense for him to put the interests of the one-percenters ahead of his own self interest? I know I'm rambling and maybe not making sense but folks on the right have been told the big lie. Just take care of the bigwigs and they'll take care of you in return. That unwritten contract worked 40 years ago. It doesn't work anymore. They ship our jobs to China to make another buck. And they replace us with machines just as quick.

 

[WanderngFool]

Who would consider 399k a year as middle class? Or even 300k? According to Obama, he says you are rich if you make over 250k. Census says its 32k for a individual and 52k for a family of four.

This may help.
American middle class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But I thought we were talking about the one-percenters a few posts back, how many jobs they create vs how many the rest of us create.

Maybe I'm trying to carry on too many conversations. Probably my fault.

 

[davekc]

I would focus on the factual issues. Much of your arguments are centered on a handful of companies ripping people off. It will make more sense when you take the emotion out of it and just study the cause and effect of the numbers.

 

[WanderngFool]

I would focus on the factual issues. Much of your arguments are centered on a handful of companies ripping people off. It will make more sense when you take the emotion out of it and just study the cause and effect of the numbers.

Ok, looking back over I few posts I see where you started to lose track. LOS and I were talking about the one-percenters, seeing as how that's become the norm for this kind of discussion. You turned it into the upper 10% (maybe you misread). The difference between the highest 1% and the highest 10% is huge. I'd guess millions of people.

But why do you need to change the cutoff point? Wouldn't it be a lot simpler to just agree with what I said?

 

[paullud]

So the question I posed to LOS has to do with how in the flying fig does it make a lick of sense for him to put the interests of the one-percenters ahead of his own self interest?

It makes sense to me because I see it as being right to have everyone paying taxes since we all benefit from living in this country. I see no benefit to taxing others to pay for all these welfare programs, corporate or individual. I do agree with things like temporary food stamp programs to help out in an emergency though. Why should someone that either works hard or had a relative that worked hard be taxed more? I understand the idea that they have more to take but why does that make it right?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[davekc]

Ok, looking back over I few posts I see where you started to lose track. LOS and I were talking about the one-percenters, seeing as how that's become the norm for this kind of discussion. You turned it into the upper 10% (maybe you misread). The difference between the highest 1% and the highest 10% is huge. I'd guess millions of people.

But why do you need to change the cutoff point? Wouldn't it be a lot simpler to just agree with what I said?

No. Because you stated the middle class (that 52k a year) are the bulk of the current job creators. I am saying it is the top 10 percent which would also include that one percent.

 

[WanderngFool]

It makes sense to me because I see it as being right to have everyone paying taxes since we all benefit from living in this country. I see no benefit to taxing others to pay for all these welfare programs, corporate or individual. I do agree with things like temporary food stamp programs to help out in an emergency though. Why should someone that either works hard or had a relative that worked hard be taxed more? I understand the idea that they have more to take but why does that make it right?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

But how does it make sense for any of us to put the needs of the richest 1% before our own?

 

[WanderngFool]

No. Because you stated the middle class (that 52k a year) are the bulk of the current job creators. I am saying it is the top 10 percent which would also include that one percent.

Ok, I thought that 52k number might be a little low but I just took your word for it. I thought you were saying what the median was of people that aren't one-percenters since that's what we had been talking about.

So what's the median for people making under $400K? (Probably an unfair question.)

Who do you think creates more jobs? The one-percenters or the rest of us?