Fixing Inequality through Taxes

I see that reading comprehension is not part of your skill set. But it does seem that jumping to conclusions is at the top of your physical activities list.

And why do I care what Georgia does, it has no effect on me. Just another childish ploy to somehow try and instill some higher moral ground that doesn't exist. It is yourself that keeps bring up this neoliberal and lazziez faire economics as if they really mean something. But if it makes you feel like you are a "big" boy, then go ahead and play that game, I'll pass.

 

let me guess, you worked a minimum wage job for 4 years while mommy and daddy paid your every need to save up for school? Because unless somebody gave you money, without the degree in the first place you'd have never been able to earn enough to save it.

 

And once again, you fail to actual prove or disprove your argument.

 

The reason I say boomers is because they refuse to accept reality and demand the reconcile of these destructive ponzi's. Both my older brothers are highly dependent upon them. I myself am planning on not filing for them due to I despise them.

 

The rich hold only a small portion of their assets in physical currency. They may have a few hundred dollars worth of bills in their wallets and maybe a few thousand dollars worth of bills in their home. The vast majority of their assets are in the form of real estate, stocks, bonds, businesses, CDs, bank accounts, and personal property, which they spend money in order to acquire.

 

You are comparing totally different times. In 1931 this country was still in the great depression. It broke in 1933 with the repeal of alcohol prohibition. Naturally the resulting increase in jobs would bring more wealth to those previously unemployed. There was not the heavy burden of income taxes then either. By 1981 the confiscatory tax burden was robbing 1/3 of the average working man's pay. That's what changed.

 

Right, once money spent, they just sitting and doing nothing.
Money should be invested in domestic business or infrastructure projects that employs local people.
If not people might get angry and expropriate those money one way or another.

 

You said that the money should be moving. I explained how the rich don't actually have currency, but have spent it (moved it) to other people in exchange for other assets.

 

​

 

Doesn't make sense doesn't it??? Homeless go without eating. Elderly go without needed medicines. Mentally ill go without treatment. Troops go without proper equipment.

Yet for most of the past 30 years our government has promoted "trickle down" policies that have redistributed trillions to the richest 1%, who now get about 20% of the nation's income and have about 40% of the nation's wealth, double from 35 years ago.

The 1% will ignore this and come up with excuses for why they are getting so much of the nation's income and wealth while the homeless, elderly, mentally ill and our troops needless go without. Have the guts to re-post this. I KNOW that you're in the 1%.

 

While Progressive Democrats promote, pass programs, and raise taxes on the people in Congress that continually fail.

 

Let's say the sum of all incomes is 100T. Let's also say that the incomes of the richest 1% amount to 20T (20% of total) and the incomes of everyone else is 80T (80% of total).

Now lets's say that things change and the incomes of the riches 1% falls to 5T (6 % of total) with the incomes of everyone else remaining the same at 80T (91% of total).

Income inequality has been reduced, but I can't see how anyone can say that the bottom 99% are any better off.

The desire to tear down the rich doesn't make the rest of us better off. We're better off when we can make a higher income for ourselves, not by worrying about how much rich people earn in income.

 

If GDP had fallen over the past 35 years and that had caused the incomes of the wealthy to disproportionately fall, you'd have a valid point.

But it has not. GDP has more than doubled, the incomes of the 1% (and especially 0.1% and 0.01%) have skyrocketed, and it is the incomes of the 90% that have stagnated.

The desire to suppress the middle and lower classes makes the richest better off, but it hasn't made the middle classes better off. It hurts the economy because the great engine of spending has not shared in the economic gains over the past 35 years, and thus does not have the relative purchasing power to drive a robust economy. Republican austerity hasn't helped.

We're better off when all income groups share in the nation's economic gains, and not continuing "trickle down" policies that redistribute more and more of the nation's income and wealth to the few.

 

Okay, let's take a scenario in which GDP increases.

Let's say that initially the sum of all incomes is $85T. Let's also say that the incomes of the richest 1% amount to $5T (6% of total) and the incomes of everyone else is $80T (94% of total).

Now let's say GDP increases to the point where the sum of all incomes is $100T. And let's say the incomes of the richest 1% grew to $20T (20% of total) and the incomes of everyone else remains the same at $80T (80% of total).

Income inequality has increased, but I can't see how anyone can say that the bottom 99% are any worse off than before.

The desire to tear down the rich doesn't make the rest of us better off. We're better off when we can make a higher income for ourselves, not by worrying about how much rich people earn in income.

 

When you use the term "the nation's economic gains", I take it you mean the economic gains of all the individuals in the nation. I don't see any reason why I ought to share in your economic gains. I'm not entitled to the income you make; you are.

 

Ayuh,.... So why has the wealth gap widened more under Obama, than at any other time in history,..??

 

The middle class is not worse off in terms of dollar value, but they are not sharing in the gains. It hurts our economy because it is powered by middle class spending. When middle class incomes do not grow, then middle class spending cannot grow, and economic growth is hampered. We've seen that trend, especially over the past 15 years.

No. We are not better off when all the income weatlh goes to the few. The desire to suppress the middle and lower classes makes the richest better off, but it hasn't made the middle classes better off. It hurts the economy because the great engine of spending has not shared in the economic gains over the past 35 years, and thus does not have the relative purchasing power to drive a robust economy. Republican austerity hasn't helped.

We're better off when all income groups share in the nation's economic gains, and not continuing "trickle down" policies that redistribute more and more of the nation's income and wealth to the few.

 

1) Republican austerity has suppressed jobs and wage growth, while corporate profits and incomes of the richest have benefited from a booming stock market.

2) Obama's attempts to introduce programs to build up the middle class (jobs programs, expanded social net programs, tax increased on the richest) have been blocked by the Repub

 

I don't know your personal situation. However, IMO middle class workers absolutely should be sharing in the economic gains they have helped produce over the past 35 years.

Instead, their wages have been suppressed by "trickle down" policies and other things, and virtually all of the benefit of their efforts have gone to the richest few, who have in effect gotten their economic gains for themselves.

 

There's no reason why one person should share in the income gains achieved by another person. When you increase your income, I don't deserve to share in your gain.

If the middle class can't increase their incomes, then it's good that the top %1 have taken up the burden of increasing GDP by increasing their incomes.

I assume you are middle or lower class. Perhaps you can describe how anyone has suppressed your income.

The "nations economic gains" is merely the sum total of all the economic gains of all the individuals in the nation. There's no reason why I should share in the economic gains of my neighbor. If I want economic gains, I need to increase my income.

 

I disagree. There is every reason why a worker should share in the economic gains he or she help to produce.

There is no reason why *all* the economic gains produced by workers should only go to owners and upper management.

Everyone is better off when everyone shares in the gains.

You would say that only if you were the 1%. The problem is that the top %1 have *not* taken up the burden of increasing GDP by increasing their incomes. Instead of spending their income and creating jobs, they've put trillions of it in their offshore accounts and stock portfolios, where it does little good for an economy struggling for lack of demand.


The middle class can increase their incomes. But we need to reverse the "trickle down" policies that have suppressed them.

You're repeating yourself.

I don't know your personal situation. However, IMO middle class workers absolutely should be sharing in the economic gains they have helped produce over the past 35 years.

Instead, their wages have been suppressed by "trickle down" policies and other things, and virtually all of the benefit of their efforts have gone to the richest few, who have in effect gotten their economic gains for themselves.

This hurts the nation's economy because the great engine of spending doesn't have the relative purchasing power to drive a robust economy.

 

There's no reason why anyone deserves a share of income made by others.

You'll have to explain how "trickle down" policies suppressed the income potential of anyone in particular.

 

You're repeating yourself and I've already explained why.

I disagree. There is every reason why a worker should share in the economic gains he or she help to produce.

There is no reason why *all* the economic gains produced by workers should only go to owners and upper management.

Everyone is better off when everyone shares in the gains.

Raising taxes on middle lower class workers, cutting taxes mostly benefiting the richest and running up trillions of debt, suppressing and demonizing unions, suppressing the minimum wage, limiting FLSA application and enforcement.

 

A worker gets paid in order to do a job. The worker doesn't deserve the business owner's sales revenue.

If you take one person's income and give it to someone else everyone is not made better off.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the income approach to calculating GDP.

You'd need to specify what "trickle down" policies limit anyone's potential income growth.

 

I disagree. Workers deserve to share in the economic growth of the nation.

I disagree. If you take away income from the workers who spend it and give it to the richest who don't, it hurts the middle class and the economy because the people who drive the economy through spending don't have the relative purchasing power to spend.

If the workers share in the economic growth, more is spent, the economy grows more robustly, everyone benefits.

I am familiar with it.

See prior post.