What made the big disparity in wealth?

Iriemon in 1983 after the tax cuts revenue to the government doubled. Unfortunately Democrats quadrupled down on spending. The problem wasn't the Reagan tax cuts, it was the Democratic houses zeal to spend every dollar recieved and several dozen billion more.

 

What Reagan did was change the rates to favor concentration of wealth with the few, and to shift wealth from the middle class.
It was with the new Reagan tax rates that the debt increased 2000%, very little has been done to change those rates, and racking up debt is the normal mode of government since those rates were put into effect. Only in the very best years, with the highest rates since Reagan, has the government been able to run a surplus.
And that spending you whine about has continued, through Democratic and Republican control of congress and the White House.
Until we return to rational tax structure, the debt will continue to mount.

 

Obama has the highest annualized growth rate of national debt of any recent president--even higher than Reagan's. If one wants to look at raw numbers, then Carter was on track to also doubling the debt during his administration if he had had two terms as Reagan did. Ironically, Clinton had one of the lowest, and the democrats who praise Clinton policies, don't want to contain the debt because that would austerity and austerity is "bad". Obama has spent more money in his first term than Bush II did in 8 years, and that includes the spending that was done under Bush in the fall of 2008 when the recession hit and the banks were being bailed out.

 

And includes all those bailouts under Bush which added to the debt, that were paid back in the Obama administration reducing his debt.

 

Providing for the general warfare and common offense on a for-profit basis, instead of the general welfare and common defense on that same basis.

 

pretty much sounds like the Bush/Obama admins.

- - - Updated - - -

if they were worth face value, they would would sell them on the open market.

 

Why soo much entiltlement that mostly benefits only the wealthiest, with the money of the (other) People.

 

imo, it is the concept of ownership of land and resources, without limitations, which is the main defect of the current form of capitalism. Without limits, the unscrupulous immoral few in any society will tend to exploit the greater number of well intentioned many desiring only a more peaceful world. The inevitable end, of such form of decadence encouraged by the defect, will be disparity that is so severe that revolt or war must result. It is therefore imperative that man should strive to end this destructive cycle by developing a better system.

imo, it is up to the next generation, in this early part of the 21st century, to help integrate the population of earth into a world community which is willing to establish a world "bill of rights" which will establish some limits on just how much percentage of land and resources any one individual can claim for themselves exclusively. The many will have to democratically arrive at some resolution which can then be implemented for the preservation of resources and land as community property, rather than to be exploited for purposes of greed or lust for power. It will become increasingly more obvious, thus logical, that basic needs of food, shelter and clothing for the many, must take precedence over the idolatry of greed and desire for individual supremacy.

 

Capitalism caused the big disparity in wealth.

 

Capitalism simply allows it to occur while socialism prohibits it from occurring.

 

Yes, we are in agreement. Socialism there is no disparity in wealth. Capitalism needs a disparity of wealth. Otherwise, it isn't capitalism. The larger the disparity, the closer a system is to pure capitalism. We are becoming a more capitalistic society each day.

 

It's not capitalism that caused the disparity of wealth. It's the crony capitalism that does and it's exactly the policy the progressive liberals would love to defend it to death.

 

Dishonest, psychotic, power-hungry, cheating, thieving bastards. That about sums it up.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep!!!

 

Yep. Him and the people who drove the things around him.

[video=youtube;tF7BOcwJBN4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF7BOcwJBN4[/video]

 

Keynesian monetary policy has also played a very large role in this polarization - the same way that the Universe is expanding (read: we are moving farther apart from other celestial bodies), the expanding money supply is causing the difference between rich and poor to be more stark.

Simple math.

 

They don't want to 'answer' that one.

 

They know this... they just don't want to have an honest/open discussion about reality, as they are are seeking to actually perpetrate the 'exploitation' you mention above.

Those aware of their agenda, will be the only resistance they encounter.

 

Like I said, government could equalize wealth through taxation and transfer payments to those in need, and it would still be capitalism with private ownership of the means of production and price and quantity set in open markets. Would certainly be less effective but capitalism none the less. It would suffer from the same problem inherent in socialism. A lack of incentive to work. A lack of incentive to innovate and taking risks.

 

Wealthy Americans leaving the US for less tax abroad

Why would anyone renounce their American citizenship? For many, on the surface the answer is quite simple, and the number one reason for many big life decisions: money. The wealthy are paying a lot more taxes in America than in any other country. So many are making the decision to renounce their citizenship.

It all started as a way to reduce tax evasion. In an effort to crackdown on the wealthy who lived in the United States, but stored money in banks overseas to avoid taxes, the United States put in strict regulations regarding the taxation of money stored and earned in other countries. This puts a huge tax burden on anyone who decides to reside in another country, but retain their United States citizenship. Individuals are subject to taxes in the foreign country in which they choose to reside, as well as in the United States. Over the past few years, this burden has become more than the unfathomably rich are willing to bear. Therefore, some have decided to renounce their citizenship.

From 2009, to 2011, the number of people renouncing their citizenship doubled, according to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). A primary cause was the federal income tax rate rising from an already astronomical 35% for couples earning over $450,000 a year and singles earning over $400,000 a year, to an even more astronomical 39.6% rate. State income taxes are also rising in many states for the wealthy. Some state rates are jumping as much as 3%.

While the IRS is reporting a significant increase in expatriates, the State Department advises the number has been fairly steady at around 1100 a year for many years now. The numbers are reported differently with the two agencies, and many feel the IRS is only reporting expatriates to show these individuals as purely financially motivated to forsake their country. What the IRS does not share is that many of these expatriates already reside in a foreign country, and are rarely, if ever, in the United States. Many have always lived abroad.

Not everyone renounces for financial reasons. The extremely wealthy are not the only ones being affected by this rule and deciding to renounce citizenship. While the IRS offers exclusion for the first $95,100 earned in foreign countries, everyone is still required to file and report their income. Individuals are also required to report any accounts they may be associated with that contain over $10,000. This includes accounts held by spouses and any company accounts associated with either party. For many it is an issue of privacy.

This seems a breach of confidence to many married couples and has caused many to leave their American citizenship behind.
Avoiding the whole complicated mess of filing for no reason other than to tell the government all your financial business is another reason many renounce. The process involves a lot of government red tape. The process is so complicated the filing deadline is in June instead of the standard stateside April deadline.
Another backlash is that current US citizens are having a harder time banking abroad now. Many banks are hesitant to assist American citizens because of the requirement to provide the IRS with account information on United States citizens. With the tax evasion crackdowns and inquiries into many overseas banks, things have been made worse for United States citizens.

One final note on the cost of renouncing citizenship in the United States is an exit tax. There is a fee for leaving. For those already living abroad, this should not be a big deal. For those still residing primarily in the United States or doing most of their business in the United States, this information should be carefully considered when deciding whether to renounce citizenship or not.

Reference sites:

http://www.gobankingrates.com/tax/wealthTy-americans-relinquish-us-citizenship-avoid-high-taxes

http://latinonewstoday.com/2013/03/04/wealthy-americans-leaving-the-us-for-less-tax-abroad/

 

True, under socialism everyone is poor and equal except the government.

 

I could answer that one pretty readily. You just won't like the answer and likely would not accept its validity as I suspect it is the complete opposite of your position. It is a very fundamental answer that totally gets not discussed by the way.

 

In the interest of open and honest discussion of reality, what was benefit to the "greater number" of people in nations, kingdoms or empires that restricted ownership of land and resources? How do the "greater number" of people benefit in North Korea by the restrictions on ownership?

 

... let's be HONEST about what we see going on in America. Greed is destroying this nation's well-being (no matter how you wish to talk-around the same).

 

If you're suggesting that I don't trust that what is said in this forum is truth (always), then you are correct.

I'm just blasting my opinions here, people can learn truth for themselves or just disagree.

No problem.

 

I stopped reading that link part way into the first paragraph, with idiocy like this:

The austerity push by politicians, political operatives, and pundits of the last 5 years is the height of economic, political, and social perversity and stupidity.

...we are now seeing in the US and elsewhere, the deficit hysteria campaign is threatening to undermine what remains of the American social safety net that helped form and support the American middle class over the past 70 years.

Blowing thru $6 trillion in deficit spending in under five years is not what has "helped support the middle class for 70 years." Demanding better accountability for spending taxpayer dollars, instead of politicians funneling that borrowed taxpayer money into the pockets of the crony capitalists, and wasteful use by government is not "the height of economic, political, and social perversity and stupidity." It's *******ned common freaking sense.