dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
5039
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL

1 recommendation

Mr Matt

Member

The Two Percenters are at it again.

The Broadband industry is a reflection of the make up of the US population and economy. Two Percent of the population controls 95% of the wealth. A small percentage of companies control the broadband and communications services.

Let the uneducated vote in the greedy old pigs (GOP) this November so they can permanently reduce taxes for the wealthiest 2% and block any relief for communication services customers.

zalternate
join:2007-02-22
freedom land

1 edit

zalternate

Member

'Propaganda' from the 'greedy old pigs' is running rampant. Keep the Rich, rich. And keep the poor in the Sheeple position with blinders on.
Consumers keep screwing themselves by acting on mis-information.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

1 recommendation

openbox9 to Mr Matt

Premium Member

to Mr Matt
said by Mr Matt:

Two Percent of the population controls 95% of the wealth.
And ~40% pay no taxes to support our government...maybe they shouldn't have a voice?

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

3 edits

1 recommendation

FFH5 to Mr Matt

Premium Member

to Mr Matt
said by Mr Matt:

Two Percent of the population controls 95% of the wealth.
Here are the CORRECT numbers:
10% of the population controls 30% of the income -

»www.cia.gov/library/publ ··· rRow=#us
United States lowest 10%: 2%
highest 10%: 30% (2007 est.)
And compare to the WORLD avgs:
World lowest 10%: 2.5%
highest 10%: 29.5% (2003 est.)
»sociology.ucsc.edu/whoru ··· lth.html
And as for WEALTH distribution the top 20% of the population owns 85% of the wealth. NOT 2% owning 95% as you claim.

And an interesting chart:


More info:
»www.wider.unu.edu/public ··· 8-03.pdf
Check Table 1
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL

Mr Matt to openbox9

Member

to openbox9
Forty percent pay no taxes because they do not have any income. They do not have any income because their jobs have been sent overseas on a slow boat to China and are living in poverty.

It was just brought to my attention, on a talk show, that all employed persons pay a 15% payroll tax until they have earned over 100,000.00 Then they stop paying the payroll tax. The payroll tax is regressive. The two percenters pay a smaller portion of their income in payroll taxes than 98% of Americans.

Do you want to allow Americas wealthiest 2% to keep their tax cut so that they can buy another yacht, Rolls Royce or a home theater for their Twenty Million Dollar Mansion while your neighbors are being evicted from their foreclosed homes because they were tricked into buying a house that they could not afford by the Wall Street Weasels. The same weasels are screwing consumers on communications services by not disclosing the true cost of their services when they quote prices.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd

Premium Member

Don't forget how much interest these super wealthy earn off shore where it cannot be taxed by the US Government.
jfd15
join:2008-01-07
West Sacramento, CA

1 recommendation

jfd15 to Mr Matt

Member

to Mr Matt
the 15% payroll tax is for Social Security and what, Medicare? its actually split 50/50 between the employer and employee but if you dare to be self-employed you will indeed pay the 15% all by yourself....

and yes, i do want to "ALLOW" the wealthiest 2% to keep their money because THEY EARNED IT....
jfd15

jfd15 to Kearnstd

Member

to Kearnstd
yeah, steal their money...Get 'em, Get 'em....
jfd15

jfd15 to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
and one more stat they don't want to mention....the top 10% of earners pay 71% of the taxes in the U.S.....
i've only made more than $20k one year in my life but i'm grateful to those evil high-earners who pay 10,100, or 1000x the taxes that the avg person does....we don't need to villify them and steal their money....
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22

1 edit

amigo_boy to Mr Matt

Member

to Mr Matt
said by Mr Matt:

It was just brought to my attention, on a talk show, that all employed persons pay a 15% payroll tax until they have earned over 100,000.00 Then they stop paying the payroll tax. The payroll tax is regressive.
I like a lot of what you've said. But, you're not describing the above accurately.

I believe you're referring to Social Security, which is (technically) an insurance premium (Google for "FICA" which is called "insurance.").

Although the "premium" stops at $100k of income, it is very far from "regressive."

Go here and download the PDF (top-right corner). Print it, and "figure" your Social Security benefit by hand.

You'll see:

• The first 90% of your monthly benefit comes from the first $700 of monthly income.
• The next $3800 in monthly income contributes just 32% to your monthly benefit.
• The next $4000 in monthly income contributes just 12% yo your monthly benefit.

It stops there because earners didn't pay "premiums" on incomes above that level.

So, as you see, on the receiving side, it's significantly progressive. People who earned more, paid more, and didn't receive a proportional benefit.

Maybe it should be more progressive. Maybe the "disability" component of Social Security should be removed and treated like the welfare program it is. Maybe Social Security "retirement" benefits treated more like an annuity (real insurance).

But, it's misleading to focus on the 15% (employer/employee) "contribution" as a flat (regressive) tax without revealing how that 15% is distributed when a "claim" is filed. We'll never have thoughtful reform if we don't understand what it is we're reforming. (Like the other side who mislead people by saying it's a savings account, and they can do better with private savings.).
amigo_boy

amigo_boy to jfd15

Member

to jfd15
said by jfd15:

and one more stat they don't want to mention....the top 10% of earners pay 71% of the taxes in the U.S.....
The question is whether that's fair.

For example, I doubt you'd suggest that the top 10% should pay 10% of the taxes in the US. Clearly you have your own ideas about what's "fair." So, we're just negotiating "fair." Should it be 71% or, 78% ?

The problem with the idea that the wealthiest Americans are paying their fair share is that, since taxes were made less progressive (in the early '80s), the top 10% have increased their share of every dollar earned to its highest level since 1929 (when wealth disparity was at its highest levels). From 34% to 46%. About a 33% increase.

But, more revealing is that almost *all* the top one-tenth's share gains, went to the top 1%, or the top "centile," who doubled their share of national cash income from 9% to 19%.

Even within the top centile, however, the distribution of gains was radically skewed. Nearly 60% of it went to the top *tenth* of 1% of the population, and more than a fourth of it to the top *one-hundreth* of 1% of the population.

Overall, the top tenth of 1% more than tripled their share of cash income to about 9%, while the top one-hundreth of 1%, or fewer than 15,000 taxpayers, quadrupled their share to 3.6% of all taxable income. Among those 15,000, the average tax return reported $26 mil of income in 2005, while the take for the entire group was $384 bil.

In 2005, the 300,000 men, women and children who comprised the top tenth of 1% had nearly as much income as all 150 million Americans who make up the economic lower half of our population.

30 years ago, Ronald Reagan asked, "are you better off today than you were four years ago?" He used this rhetorical question to get elected and reduce the progressivity of taxation. (And, eliminate various regulations which allowed government-backed Savings & Loans to be pillaged.).

Today, if we ask the same question, we're met with jeers of "socialism."
amigo_boy

amigo_boy to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

said by Mr Matt:

Two Percent of the population controls 95% of the wealth.
Here are the CORRECT numbers:
10% of the population controls 30% of the income -
That was a tricky switch of terms (from "wealth" to "income"). When the wealthiest individuals earn their income from investing their wealth, controlling 30% of the national income signifies something far larger about the disparity of national wealth used to control that income.

There's no way to spin as positive our growing disparity of either wealth or income.

We were told 30 years ago that shifting the tax burden away from the wealthiest individuals would result in "trickle-down" benefit to all.

Instead, the average American's inflation-adjusted income has declined while the top 10% has grown (the top 1% at obscene rates of growth).

This trend of income inequality does not portend greatness. See:



(Source: http://seekingalpha.com/article/189649-wealth-disparities-in-u-s-approaching-1920s-levels)

See also the Gini index which shows the same trend. And, worse, that we are increasingly having more in common with Mexico, Brazil and Russia.[1] Nations where individuals have the vote, but real political power is held by the wealthy elite.

The same trend is seen in wealth disparity (not merely income disparity):
quote:
In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth and the top 1% owned 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.[14]

According to this 2006 study by the Federal Reserve System, from 1989 to 2004, the distribution in the United States had been changing with indications there was a greater concentration of wealth held by the top 10% and top 1% of the population.[1]
-- »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Di ··· d_States

quote:
Various sociological statistics suggest the severity of wealth inequality "with the top 10% possessing 80% of all financial assets [and] the bottom 90% holding only 20% of all financial wealth."[2]
-- »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We ··· d_States

These trends can only be worsening when the financial industry was bailed out (so what amounted to "bets" could be paid off). And, at the same time, record numbers of Americans have lost jobs, downgraded to poor jobs.

There's nothing positive about this.

Note to the "it's mine, I wanna keep it" crowd: reduced disparity doesn't equal "equality." Nobody of any significance wants perfect "equality." It's just a matter of how unequal we can be without undermining a sense that this nation exists to benefit everyone.

For example: America's exports are decimated by China's manipulated currency. The result is American jobs lost. We won't retaliate against China because we need China to keep North Korea in line.

The result? Common Americans are paying for the nation's strategic defense. What kind of "wealth transfer" is that? Why shouldn't those who's incomes are growing pay more to offset the effect of low-level Americans losing their jobs as a result of unfair trade? Trade that remains unfair because "we" have a national interest in allowing it to continue?




[1] For Russia's Gini value, see here.

N10Cities
Premium Member
join:2002-05-07
0000000
Asus RT-AC87

N10Cities to jfd15

Premium Member

to jfd15
said by jfd15:

and one more stat they don't want to mention....the top 10% of earners pay 71% of the taxes in the U.S.....
i've only made more than $20k one year in my life but i'm grateful to those evil high-earners who pay 10,100, or 1000x the taxes that the avg person does....we don't need to villify them and steal their money....
Well hoss, if more people had better paying jobs there would be more taxable income that could be collected by the government to support you.

As Mr. Matt put it, the Reagan 'trickle down' did not work. The rich are going to do everything in their power to not spend a penny more than they have to. They have off-shored most industrial labor, they incorporate their main office in the Cayman Islands (less taxation) and other tax friendly nations.

You see companies now selling more products and concentrating more on China because that where a bigger chunk of their sales are at. Why? Because...ding.ding.ding! They have most of the jobs over there! People have jobs and have money to spend! But wait! The U.S. can't collect taxes off of them! Uh oh!

Who's gonna pay your income when Joe Blow no longer has a job over here?

GroovyPhoenx
Premium Member
join:2006-05-22
Gloucester, ON

GroovyPhoenx to jfd15

Premium Member

to jfd15
said by jfd15:

the 15% payroll tax is for Social Security and what, Medicare? its actually split 50/50 between the employer and employee but if you dare to be self-employed you will indeed pay the 15% all by yourself....

and yes, i do want to "ALLOW" the wealthiest 2% to keep their money because THEY EARNED IT....
and yes, i do want to "ALLOW" the wealthiest 2% to keep their money because THEY EARNED IT by lying to the other 98% of the populace and decieved them. -- Fixed for you

footballdude
Premium Member
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO

1 recommendation

footballdude to Mr Matt

Premium Member

to Mr Matt
said by Mr Matt:

your neighbors are being evicted from their foreclosed homes because they were tricked into buying a house that they could not afford by the Wall Street Weasels.
That's the funniest thing I've read online today. Help me! I got tricked into buying a house! It's not my fault!
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

2 recommendations

openbox9 to Mr Matt

Premium Member

to Mr Matt
said by Mr Matt:

Forty percent pay no taxes because they do not have any income.
Sure they don't. They more likely don't have any income above a certain threshold based on our screwed up tax code.
said by Mr Matt:

that all employed persons pay a 15% payroll tax until they have earned over 100,000.00
Which tax are you specifically referring to? Medicare? Social Security? The withhold rates are 1.45% and 6.2% respectively. The Social Security tax tops out at $106.8K of income in 2010. Of course, the benefit from the program is capped as well. So, not really regressive considering the benefit is capped.

Feel free to read more if you're interested: »www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p15.pdf
said by Mr Matt:

Do you want to allow Americas wealthiest 2% to keep their tax cut
I think as a society we pay too many taxes as it is, so yes, I believe the tax cuts should stand for everyone.
said by Mr Matt:

while your neighbors are being evicted from their foreclosed homes because they were tricked into buying a house that they could not afford by the Wall Street Weasels.
Wow. What a distorted understanding of reality. If anyone did the tricking it was our government that wrongly suggested that everyone should own a home and used its mortgage arms of Fannie and Freddie to attempt to make it a reality.
said by Mr Matt:

The same weasels are screwing consumers on communications services by not disclosing the true cost of their services when they quote prices.
Huh? What Wall Street weasels are screwing consumers on communications services?

lakerfan82
join:2009-01-30
Corona, CA

1 edit

lakerfan82 to amigo_boy

Member

to amigo_boy
I'd be interested to see what the "overall" numbers look like instead of just the percentages of distribution. For example, if during that time, the poorest still doubled their income while the richest quadrupled their income, even the poorest are still FAR better off. If there's more wealth in the system, everyone is benefiting, even if some are gaining at a more rapid rate. Trying to make everything as equal as possible just creates a system where everyone is brought down to the lowest common denominator...
viperlmw
Premium Member
join:2005-01-25

viperlmw to jfd15

Premium Member

to jfd15
said by jfd15:

yeah, steal their money...Get 'em, Get 'em....
Hyperbole. No one said anything about stealing anything. Taxes are levied and assessed, and paid by all. No thieving necessary.

Everyone pays some form of tax. Even welfare and unemployment are taxed. My Navy retirement is taxed. Everyone pays sales tax, gasoline tax, various excise taxes, etc.
viperlmw

viperlmw to amigo_boy

Premium Member

to amigo_boy
We are turning into a third world country, where the aristocrats rule, and the poor live in slums. We are loosing the middle class as a result of corporate and millionaire greed. Soon we will have small opulent walled and gated areas, surrounded by vast slums, just like India and Venezuela.
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22

amigo_boy to footballdude

Member

to footballdude
said by footballdude:

said by Mr Matt:

your neighbors are being evicted from their foreclosed homes because they were tricked into buying a house that they could not afford by the Wall Street Weasels.
That's the funniest thing I've read online today. Help me! I got tricked into buying a house! It's not my fault!
Technically, the same thing could be said for Bernie Madhoff's victims. They should have known above-market yields don't occur without above-market risks.

The problem during the real-estate bubble was cash poured into mortgage-backed securities for the same reason: above-market yields which looked like AAA-grade due to the trickery of CDOs and CDSs.

With all that cash pouring in, just dying for mortgages to invest in, we ended up with reassurances to home buyers, like "Suzanne researched this... you can do it:"

»www.youtube.com/watch?v= ··· d-tWYmZw


Sure, home buyers were ultimately responsible for being misled. But, as was the case with Enron, Madhoff, et. al., we tend to take a dim view of those who mislead.

In this case, the financial industry (and investors) were bailed out. I believe it had to be, or it would have taken us all down further than it already has. But, this is another example of why wealth (and income) disparity has widened to levels that make us have more in common with corrupt nations.
amigo_boy

amigo_boy to lakerfan82

Member

to lakerfan82
said by lakerfan82:

For example, if during that time, the poorest still doubled their income while the richest quadrupled their income, even the poorest are still FAR better off.
I was talking about the share of every available dollar of income. You can't double or quadruple that share without someone losing share.

That's why "trickle down" didn't work. The average American's income went down after being adjusted for inflation. Average income for 90% of population peaked in 1973 at $33k. By 2009 it was $29k.

The top centile (1%) doubled their share of the national income. The top 1/10th of 1% tripled their share. The top 1/100th of 1% quadrupled.

It's the same concept as CEO pay rising from 33 times the average worker's income in 1977, to 300 times in the year 2000. Ultimately that money comes from somewhere. It's less compensation available to the average worker who makes up 90% of a corporation's employees.
amigo_boy

1 recommendation

amigo_boy to viperlmw

Member

to viperlmw
said by viperlmw:

We are turning into a third world country, where the aristocrats rule, and the poor live in slums. We are loosing the middle class as a result of corporate and millionaire greed. Soon we will have small opulent walled and gated areas, surrounded by vast slums, just like India and Venezuela.
What seems odd to me is how Americans, even those who are victims of growing economic/financial disparity, have an almost hero-worship notion of "self made" wealth.

The growing disparity of wealth is a direct consequence of social policy. Even Adam Smith recognized that "economies" don't exist in a vacuum. He called it a "political economy."

Average workers (including well-educated tech workers) lose jobs as a result of society intervention in global trade -- ironing out "free trade agreements" that force western norms of commerce upon signatories. Essentially leveling the playing field for businesses who were already free to engage in trade before those "agreements." But, those agreements do not level the playing field for workers. Americans are still forced to pay for sewers, water treatment, animal welfare, child labor protection, and environmental protection. Then allowed to compete against those who don't.

Average Americans also lose their jobs as a result of national defense concerns. China artificially pegs its Yuan to the US Dollar. If the Yuan were allowed to float to it's real market value it would destroy China's export-based economy (which was built through the destruction of America's jobs).

Our society not only turns a blind eye to that currency manipulation, we give China our coveted "Most Favored Nation" status.

Why? Because China is North Korea's only ally. We need China to lean on NK.

So, now we have average Americans bearing an inordinate cost of national security(!).

And then, when we ask if the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share of the cost of our society, we're met with screaming about "socailsim" -- often from the same average worker who's seen a steady decline in their income, standard of living, etc.

The wealthiest Americans have seen their wealth rise as a result of

- Reducing taxes and regulations.

- Not regulating the over-the-counter derivative market in 1997, and prohibiting states from regulating Credit Default Swaps (as insurance) in 2001.

- Repealing Glass-Steagall (a post-Depression safeguard against excessive banking speculation with socially-gauranteed depositor money) in 1999.

- Bailing out the wealthiest Americans after all those deregulatory acts didn't work out. (It was those with the most accumulated wealth who would have lost the most if our financial system collapsed. They depended on that system paying them back.).

A perfect example of how we generally are not "self made" is Forbes list of the 75 wealthiest individuals in all recorded history.

Of those 75, fourteen (a whopping 20%) were born in one country, within the same 10 years. They were Americans born between 1831 and 1840. One decade, in one country, which coincided with the greatest abundance of natural wealth accrued through the social policy of "Manifest Destiny." (A religious excuse to remove Native Americans from their lands.).

If you were born in 1831-1840, into a generation that is about to finalize the "indian question," (using a social premise that God wants you to have their stuff) you had more opportunity than those who live today under the premise that it's "free trade" to force you to pay for a high standard of living, and then "allow" you to compete with those who don't (after spending years negotiating "free trade" agreements to benefit financial and commercial markets).

A really good examination of how "self made" is mostly a myth is Outliers: The Story of Success (Gladwell). I highly recommend it.

To me, it's amazing how average Americans are losing ground and yet cling to a near-cultish worship of "self-made wealth." Adam Smith fingered "the disposition to admire, and to almost worship, the rich and powerful," as "the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments."
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to jfd15

Member

to jfd15
said by jfd15:

and yes, i do want to "ALLOW" the wealthiest 2% to keep their money because THEY EARNED IT....
And the other 98% didnt earn theirs?

I don't believe they should be taxed more, they should just be taxed on all of it like the others.

I personally think there should be a poverty line that pays no tax and then a flat tax on ALL income above that regardless of how it is earned and when.
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22

amigo_boy

Member

said by Skippy25:

I personally think there should be a poverty line that pays no tax and then a flat tax on ALL income above that regardless of how it is earned and when.
Why would you have an abrupt, two-levels of progressive taxation?

Let's say your level between 0% and 20% would be $16k. The premise for choosing that level would be that the dollar earned below $16k is essential to a basic, poverty level of living. But, the very next dollar above $16k isn't?

That leads to the absurd position that the peanut butter, 1978 Ford Pinto and rented room that the $1k (above $16k) buys is just as "essential" and "basic" as the caviar, Ferrari, and McMansion purchased with the $1 million (above $16k).

The idea of two rates as a "flat tax" has never made sense to me. It's based upon an appeal to "fairness" (that not all standards of living are equally essential and basic). And then proceeds to create an unfair condition (that all standards of living are equally essential and basic).

I don't see what the benefit would be. If you're going to require people to report their income, and apply two rates (0% and 20%), it doesn't require any work to make those abrupt rates more progressive (5%, 10%, 15%, 20%).

lakerfan82
join:2009-01-30
Corona, CA

1 edit

lakerfan82 to amigo_boy

Member

to amigo_boy
Again, you can say that out of every dollar, group A received X% and group B only received X/4%, but if there are significantly more dollars in the system (which is the case), group B's status can still improve.

Its just like Android vs iOS. Currently, in terms of market share, Android is behind iOS. However, by 2014, Google is projected to have the largest marketshare, taking "share" from iOS. But guess what, because the market for smartphone operating systems in 2014 will be almost double what it is now, iOS will be selling nearly twice as many phones and making twice as much money as they do currently even as Google will be making 4 times as much money. Both improve on their current status even as one takes "share"...

In addition, I have a hard time believing that someone making $33k in 1973 is "better off" than someone making $29k in 2009. Technology improvements over the last 35 years have increased standards of living greatly. Is someone in 1973 making $33k going to be able to afford a computer or a plane ticket? I'd like to see some disposable income statistics from '73 to '09...
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22

amigo_boy

Member

said by lakerfan82:

Again, you can say that out of every dollar, group A received X% and group B only received X/4%, but if there are significantly more dollars in the system (which is the case), group B's status can still improve.
How would the status improve when their inflation-adjusted incomes have remain flat or dropped?

See:

- »www.declineoftheempire.c ··· ing.html
- »sanders.senate.gov/newsr ··· d43b1856
said by lakerfan82:

In addition, I have a hard time believing that someone making $33k in 1973 is "better off" than someone making $29k in 2009. Technology improvements over the last 35 years have increased standards of living greatly. Is someone in 1973 making $33k going to be able to afford a computer or a plane ticket?
Those improvements in standards of living apply to everyone, right?

OTOH, we had regulatory rollbacks which led to bailing out the financial industry and benefiting some Americans (with invested capital) more than others (common workers).

You could say "hey, they still have a job... so they benefited from the bailout too." But, they didn't quite benefit in the same way as Goldman Sach's employees receiving record bonuses.

I think most people thought "trickle down" would be a little more substantial than these examples.

I do agree with you that the notional "value" of compensation changes over time with the goods and services that can be bought.

For example, when people complain about the deflationary nature of fiat currency (how a dollar won't buy what it did 50 years ago), I always respond that someone like Babe Ruth would have eagerly exchanged his 1940s dollars for today's dollars -- dollars which can purchase a treatment for cancer.

Therefore, I do agree with you that it's hard to compare the "value" of dollars 50 years ago to today's dollars. But, that tends to apply to the entire population. Just as Jaime the janitorial guy can buy a computer for $300, a corporation's CEO can buy a Lear Jet (when such was was not available to most CEOs 50 years ago).

There's really no way to spin this nation's growing wealth and income disparity. Comparing flat wages of 90% of the population to 1/100th of 1% quadrupling theirs isn't going to reasonate with too many people outside the 300,000 men, women and children who comprised the top tenth of 1%, and who had nearly as much income as all 150 million Americans who make up the economic lower half of our population.

lakerfan82
join:2009-01-30
Corona, CA

1 edit

1 recommendation

lakerfan82

Member

said by amigo_boy:

Therefore, I do agree with you that it's hard to compare the "value" of dollars 50 years ago to today's dollars. But, that tends to apply to the entire population. Just as Jaime the janitorial guy can buy a computer for $300, a corporation's CEO can buy a Lear Jet (when such was was not available to most CEOs 50 years ago).
What if the only reason Jaime the Janitorial guy has a job is because the evil CEO bought a Lear jet from the company Jaime works at? I could honestly care less what people who make more than me spend their money on while my standard of living continues to improve.
There's really no way to spin this nation's growing wealth and income disparity. Comparing flat wages of 90% of the population to 1/100th of 1% quadrupling theirs isn't going to reasonate with too many people outside the 300,000 men, women and children who comprised the top tenth of 1%, and who had nearly as much income as all 150 million Americans who make up the economic lower half of our population.
Since we already agree that it is extremely hard, if not impossible to compare the "value" of a dollar over that length of time, this fairness argument is essentially meaningless. If everyone's status (standard of living, etc) is improving, you can't argue that one group is worse off. You are complaining that one group's standard of living is improving at a faster rate than another group but acting like that other group is turning into a refugee camp when in reality their standard of living continues to improve. All you are doing is playing class warfare games.
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22

amigo_boy

Member

said by lakerfan82:

I could honestly care less what people who make more than me spend their money on while my standard of living continues to improve.
Unfortunately, standards of living are not improving for millions of Americans. Ronald Reagan validated the concept of asking "are you better off than you were" in 1980. It's perfectly reasonable to ask how we're better off 30 years later. If some benefited inordinately than others.

If you're not concerned with that, good for you. Most are concerned with issues such as the average worker carrying the burden of our national defense interests (by being forced to "compete" in a market where China's currency is manipulated to the disadvantage of the American worker -- and our society won't stand up for our national interest in this regard because we need China's help with North Korea. That is a direct nationa-defense cost borne inordinately by one class of American. While other Americans have seen their incomes quadruple.).
said by lakerfan82:

You are complaining that one group's standard of living is improving at a faster rate than another group but acting like that other group is turning into a refugee camp when in reality their standard of living continues to improve.
We're talking about two different things. One is the income used to buy goods and services that are available. And, the goods and services that are available -- and their quality/availability changes over time.

Income disparity has grown enormously. The average American's income has remained flat over 30 years, while the Americans in the top 10% have seen their incomes grow (and even quadruple in the top 1/100th of 1%).

That's a significant shift in who can buy and enjoy the improved goods and services which we both agree exist.

Your point is, those improved goods and services may not have existed if the top 1/100th of 1% of the population couldn't have increased their incomes by a whopping 400%.

The problem is: you don't know that. We had tremendous increases in the quality and availability of goods and services between 1900 and 1970. We did that without the kind of income disparity we've witnessed the past 30 years.

Your argument is like the person who said CEO pay increasing from 33 times the average worker's pay in 1977 to 300 times in the year 2000 was a result of (or, resulted in) increased GDP over that period.

But, we had the same increases of GDP for the 23 years prior to 1977 when CEO pay didn't vastly outpace the average American's.
said by lakerfan82:

All you are doing is playing class warfare games.
And you're naive if you believe "ox goring" doesn't exist. It's a natural result of individuals leaving the Lockean "state of nature" and forming societies for their "mutual benefit."

As soon as you have more than two people coming together to sacrifice their individual interests for "mutual benefit" there will be disagreements about what constitutes "mutual."

Wealthy people need the "consent of the governed" for things like international trade agreements negotiated by society, and to benefit financial and commercial markets -- at the expense of labor markets.

Businesses don't offshore jobs because they like those workers. They like them because they'll work cheaper. And they work cheaper because they don't have the same coerced standard of living American workers do. A direct undermining of this nation's "common" or "national" interests.

It's just a fact of life that people with shared interests will group together and discuss how their shared interests are affected by other subgroups who have similarly joined together to promote their own.

IMO, flinging the "class warfare" term is just a cheap attempt at getting people to stay in line. Stay "in their place." Don't ask how society is used to benefit some at the expense of others. (Like the use of "socialism" while hoping nobody will point out how we enjoy "socialism" in our daily lives -- even those flinging the term for self-serving purposes.).

If you don't believe what I describe is occurring, I strongly encourage you to read the book "Outliers." It gives multiple examples of how opportunities are a result of society's influences and rules. Not merely available to everyone equally.

lakerfan82
join:2009-01-30
Corona, CA

lakerfan82

Member

said by amigo_boy:

Unfortunately, standards of living are not improving for millions of Americans. Ronald Reagan validated the concept of asking "are you better off than you were" in 1980. It's perfectly reasonable to ask how we're better off 30 years later. If some benefited inordinately than others.
This is where we continue to disagree. How are standards of living not improving for "millions of americans?" I'd like an example other than "from 1973 to 2009, the wages of millions of Americans stayed flat." If the value of those "flat wages" has increased, the standard of living has increased. I don't have time to address the rest of your response, but I would love to see you give more examples of how standards of living haven't improved for even the lowest class.
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22

amigo_boy

Member

said by lakerfan82:

If the value of those "flat wages" has increased, the standard of living has increased.
You're obviously being disingenuous.

Standards of living are relative. We pick a point at which we call something "poverty" despite the fact that quality of process food or building construction has increased; or the price of clothing has gone down; or that the impoverished can make phone calls cheaper using calling cards.

Extreme wealth is regarded similarly.

When a handful of Americans have quadrupled their inflation-adjusted income, that too is relative to the millions who have remained flat, or lost ground.

That's quadruple the income to buy the better (higher-value) goods which you imply is the only measure of "standard of living."

It's perfectly natural for individuals to ask who is benefiting from society, and if it is disproportionate enough to be considered corrupt (i.e., deregulating an industry, encouraging massive accumulations of wealth through deregulation, and then bailing out those same beneficiaries when the party ended badly.).

You object that this is "class warfare." But, even Adam Smith (the darling of libertarians) recognized that markets exist within a polity. He referred to economies as not simply "economies." He called them "political economies."

He even validated so-called "class warfare" when he wrote:
quote:
This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition, though necessary both to establish and to maintain the distinction of ranks and the order of society, is, at the same time, the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.
-- Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments pt i, sec. i, ch iii, para 28 (1759).