Fixing Inequality through Taxes

Taxes don't limit income. They take income. And, of course, I would be in favor of reducing government spending so as to reduce the need for taxes.

Does not limit the ability of the middle class to increase their income.

Anyone can take a second job, increase their job skills to command a higher wage, or start their own business. Nothing prevents them from doing so.

 

Ayuh,.... Obo had both houses under his control for 2 years, 'n the senate for 6 years,....

Obo did absolutely Nothin' to help yer cause, because he's to busy floodin' his buds pockets with My money,....

It's Obo's policies,...... The more he claims to raise taxes on the rich, the middle class pays the brunt of the increase,....

He claims to cut taxes on the workin' poor, then Obocare hit's 'em in the pocketbook for even More of their money,.....

 

When you raise taxes on middle class incomes, the money they get in their pockets is decreased, and they have less money to spend or save.

It does eventually because the amount of Govt debt eventually interferes with the ability of the Govt to spend on things that economically benefit the middle class. This happened in this economic recovery.

Fantasy. Millions can't even find a first job because not enough jobs are available. Starting millions of businesses is not going to work where there is insufficient demand in the economy.

The bottom 90% didn't just stop working second jobs and starting businesses in 1981. Something else happened that year.

 

Can't pass a law if you don't control the House.

It wasn't "Obo" who blocked jobs programs and taxes on millionaires and forced austerity. it was your Tea Party friends.

It's Obo's policies,...... The more he claims to raise taxes on the rich, the middle class pays the brunt of the increase,....

He claims to cut taxes on the workin' poor, then Obocare hit's 'em in the pocketbook for even More of their money,.....[/QUOTE]

 

I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying here.

Let's say a sculptor pays a worker $10 to sweep his shop floor every afternoon. The sculptor carves a statue that he sells for a million dollars. It sounds like you're saying that the broom pusher deserves more than the $10 daily wage.

You say there's "every reason" why the broom pusher should share in the sculptor's economic gains. I'd love to hear all these reasons.

 

Probably. I am saying that the workers in American should share in the economics gains in the country.

I have explained it several times already. You just ignore it. Not an effective debate tactic, IMO.

When the working people do not share in the economic gains they help to create, middle/lower class incomes stagnate, as has happened over the past 35 years.

The middle classes are the great engine of spending that drives the economy. When you redistribute all of the growth in income and weatlh away from the middle classes to the richest, the middle class does not have, proportionally, the same income to spend. Proportionate to GDP and 35 years ago, about $2 trillion *less* is going to the bottom 90% *every year,* and about $1.5 trillion more is going to the richest 1%, *every year*.

The 1% now gets about 20% of the nation's income and about 40% of the nation's wealth, double from about 35 years ago, before the Reagan "trickle down" revolution.

Thus, the great engine of spending, the middle classes, now do not have the same income and wealth to spend, proportionate to GDP. That means we have less spending in the economy. Less spending means less demand, means less opportunity to expand production and jobs.

That is what has been happening since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution. Compare:

Year - % chng real personal expenditures
1982 1.4
1983 5.7
1984 5.3
1985 5.3
Average: 4.4

1992 3.7
1993 3.5
1994 3.9
1995 3.0
Average 3.5

2002 2.5
2003 3.1
2004 3.8
2005 3.5
Average 3.2

2010 2.0
2011 2.5
2012 2.2
2013 2.0
Average 2.2

Source data: http://bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1#reqid=9&step=1&isuri=1
Table 2.3.1. Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Personal Consumption Expenditures by Major Type of Product

That weaker spending in the last few years (made worse by Republican forced austerity) is a big reason why the economy is growing so sluggishly.

So yes, there is "every reason" why broom pushers should share in the economic growth of our nation along with everyone else, and not just the richest few.

- - - Updated - - -

Probably. I am saying that the workers in American should share in the economics gains in the country.

I have explained it several times already. You just ignore it. Not an effective debate tactic, IMO.

When the working people do not share in the economic gains they help to create, middle/lower class incomes stagnate, as has happened over the past 35 years.

The middle classes are the great engine of spending that drives the economy. When you redistribute all of the growth in income and weatlh away from the middle classes to the richest, the middle class does not have, proportionally, the same income to spend. Proportionate to GDP and 35 years ago, about $2 trillion *less* is going to the bottom 90% *every year,* and about $1.5 trillion more is going to the richest 1%, *every year*.

The 1% now gets about 20% of the nation's income and about 40% of the nation's wealth, double from about 35 years ago, before the Reagan "trickle down" revolution.

Thus, the great engine of spending, the middle classes, now do not have the same income and wealth to spend, proportionate to GDP. That means we have less spending in the economy. Less spending means less demand, means less opportunity to expand production and jobs.

That is what has been happening since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution. Compare:

Year - % chng real personal expenditures
1982 1.4
1983 5.7
1984 5.3
1985 5.3
Average: 4.4

1992 3.7
1993 3.5
1994 3.9
1995 3.0
Average 3.5

2002 2.5
2003 3.1
2004 3.8
2005 3.5
Average 3.2

2010 2.0
2011 2.5
2012 2.2
2013 2.0
Average 2.2

Source data: http://bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1#reqid=9&step=1&isuri=1
Table 2.3.1. Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Personal Consumption Expenditures by Major Type of Product

That weaker spending in the last few years (made worse by Republican forced austerity) is a big reason why the economy is growing so sluggishly.

So yes, there is "every reason" why broom pushers should share in the economic growth of our nation along with everyone else, and not just the richest few.

 

Sure there is a reason. The reason being that they did not risk their own capital upfront, and they do not share in any potential economic loss going forward. An employee is NOT a speculator, and as such, they merely work for a predetermined wage or hourly rate. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

When your income isn't growing, you do not have the additional "capital to risk." The 1% had more capital to risk because since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution, virtually all of the growth in the national economy has gone to the 1%.

 

Perhaps so. That still doesn't mean that a business owner is therefore obligated to share his profits with anyone that didn't risk their own capital. If they risked their own money upfront, they are an investor. If they did not, they are an employee. You said there is no reason that employees should not share in the profits. Their lack of risk is that reason.

 

I disagree. Workers should share in the greater wealth and economic prosperity they help to produce, for reasons I've set forth above.

Employees absolutely have risk. If the company has a downturn, they are often the first ones sacrificed and lose their income and livelihood.

 

Yeah, they also run the risk of being hit by a car on their way to work. Unfortunately though, you don't seem to grasp the concept of investment risk, which is what is being discussed here.

 

I understand it just fine. You apparently don't seem to grasp the concept of the risk to a working person losing their job.

 

Yep, and the filthy rich were still the filthy rich. They needed tax relief from Reagan like I need another rectum.

 

If the post Reagan years are any indication, that statement is simply not true.

 

You don't understand it "just fine", as evidenced by the fact that you mention losing ones job in a conversation about INVESTMENT risk....Either you don't understand it, or you are simply intellectually dishonest. I chose to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are honest, but simply ignorant.

 

To pretend that a worker doesn't have risk of losing his livelihood if a business falters is ridiculous.

 

Wow, now THAT is the quintessential definition of a strawman argument. NOBODY said or implied that a worker doesn't always have the risk of losing their livelihood. This discussion is about investment risk, which is an entirely different subject.

 

Well great. Then you understand that employees have risks involved with businesses as well, and the fact that people have risks is therefore no justification for the 1% to get virtually all of or nation's economic gains since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution.

 

Yes, like Hell it is. Or, does the right exhibit only cognitive forms of dissonance regarding our Wars on Crime, Drugs, Poverty, and Terror and the "hellish" conditions on Earth as a result.

 

Yes I understand that EVERYONE encounters risk in every aspect of their life everyday. In regards to investment risk however, since employees do not share in the investment risk for a business, they have no claim to any profits beyond those that pay their predetermined wage or hourly rate.

 

You'll get no argument from me that taxes are too high. I was unaware, however, that taxing people was one of the fundamental tenets of "trickle down".

I don't know what you mean specifically by things that economically benefit the middle class. But we were talking about policies that suppress the income of the middle class.

Nothing prevents anyone from taking a second job, starting a side or full-time business, or increasing their skill level to command a higher wage. Anyone who hasn't done some or all of these things is only having his incomed supressed by himself.

Please elaborate.

 

If it was Only that; nobody would mind. But, trickle down for the right merely means, bailout the wealthiest and then let it trickle down.

 

The richest did not suddenly start taking risk in 1981, and the 90% did not suddenly stop taking risk in 1981, that caused the inequality gap to explode.



Something else happened that year.

 

A nice strawman, followed by a non sequitur I see. You certainly are making the rounds today.

I would be curious to know how many of your 67,000 posts involve Reagan, and even further, how many times you have used the expression "something else happened that year". One would think that you would desire to broaden your horizons and discuss other topics, but instead, you seem to always take any topic, and somehow try to tangentially connect it back to Reagan. It is almost like the Kevin Bacon game.

 

Let's say a sculptor pays a worker $10 to sweep his shop floor every afternoon. The sculptor buys a very rare and expensive chunk of marble for $250,000 with which he intends to carve a special statue. After he carves the statue, highest price he can get for it is $100. Thus he has lost nearly $250,000 on his business.

It sounds like you're saying that the broom pusher has every reason to share in the sculptor's loss.