Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Phil Perspective
9366 Followers
Julie Tucker
2553 Followers
crymtyphon
744 Followers
Mik Wilker
1448 Followers
Gilbert Mercier
3077 Followers
Comgen & Dr. Socks' love child
12544 Followers
alanocuDec 18, 2010
I'm sorry, did I wake up and find myself in Cuba? Since when do you or I have the goddamn right to tell the rich what to do? This is America folks. You don't "tell" anyone what they have to do. Got it? If you don't like the rich, then fine. But it's their damn money. Not yours.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
novenatorDec 18, 2010
The tinpot dictators in the third world agree with you. It is *their* money. They "earned" it, and how dare their suffering people want a better life!
kaelyiestaDec 18, 2010
You are making an obvious error in reasoning, novenator. I suspect you choose to ignore it. Dictators by definition 'tell people what to do'. Thus they would not agree with alanocus argument at all.
Lets cut through this bulls**t and get to the heart of the matter: violence. It is wrong for the rich to steal from the poor as it is for the poor to steal from the rich. Both rich and poor people use the state to steal from each other and themselves and it is making things worse.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Dec 19, 2010
you seem to miss the point that Alan would just be another dictator. not hanging out with them.
spartan777Dec 26, 2010
"The rich require an abundant supply of poor."
-Voltaire
The rich get their wealth from the poor and working class with help from the government. It is also bad for democracy when a handful of white men own most of the wealth in the country.
sanmanDec 19, 2010
OMG! Somebody just bought themselves a new car, when they could have instead spent their money on me! How selfish of them! The world revolves around me, and those who don't mesh with that are just evil!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JustSayNoPartyDec 19, 2010
A new car? You really don't know how the world works, do you? They didn't buy a new car idiot. They bought their fourth mansion. How? Well, so many have gamed the system, got in bed with congressment, skirted laws, offshored jobs, played with our money etc. on wall street, that they ended up with a princely sum. And idiots like you think all is well.
sanmanDec 19, 2010
offshored jobs? you mean like marrying outside of your town?
if I want to marry somebody from another town or country, that's none of your f**king business. I don't owe you a marriage proposal. And I don't owe you a job.
You want a marriage proposal? Then make yourself more attractive. You want a job? Then make yourself more attractive. Stop grumbling about how all the local boys/girls won't ask you out. f**king whiner - thinks the world owes him something.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JustSayNoPartyDec 19, 2010
Funny thing is, I have plenty idiot. You are the typical conservative that has the 'recording' playing in your head that it's about jealousy. Yes yes, offshoring is fine. And when the government helped offshore jobs? No problem. Amazing how you just look the other way regarding corruption and inequality.
sanmanDec 19, 2010
moron, if businesses are offshoring, it's not because the govt is telling them to, it's comparative advantage which is compelling them to
change with the time, and develop new skills, instead of fretting away over it
some jobs just aren't as valuable as they used to be, just like some cars/appliances/TVshows aren't as popular as they used to be
people aren't going to keep watching the same TV show forever, just because you have a role on it and thus want them to
people will move on to wanting to watch new shows, and you have to learn how to move on too, instead of blubbering about how there's a big conspiracy to get you off the air and put you out of a jobComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Dec 19, 2010
i think it's funny that you're calling anyone moron after saying the things you just did.
i would explain the reasons why you are a moron, but my name isnt Beck or Limbaugh and i'm not an employee of Fuxnews, so you wouldnt believe me anyway.
sanmanDec 19, 2010
sure, you're much too smart to actually reply to the points I made, because no doubt you feel that the replies are obvious enough to write themselves
heh, sureComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
superkendallDec 19, 2010
@foster5652 says "I have plenty idiot".
Yes. Yes you do.
Closed AccountDec 19, 2010
So why do you think the rich are owed tax breaks? They can pay their fair share like everyone else. Note that for the rich, "fair share" is a higher percentage, because the richer you are the more you can part with without hurting your lifestyle.
sanmanDec 19, 2010
pay their fair share? A fair share is defined as being equal to everybody else's share. You're just trying to shift the goalposts by changing the definition of what 'fair share' means, and then carping at them for not supporting your biased and self-serving double standard.
Fair Share != Double Standard
Fair Share = same share for everybody
If you pay $1000 in taxes, or $10000, or $1, then I do the exact same. That's fair - it's not like I'm getting more out of the govt than you are. But if you're trying to use the govt as your proxy to practice redistributionism, then naturally you'll want to slant the definition of fair to mean that you pay $1 and others pay $10000. Fairness means equality of burden. Inequality is not a recipe for fairness.
bcronosDec 19, 2010
"They bought their fourth mansion. How?" - I'll tell you how. They worked smarter, harder and longer than than you, or their parents did or their grandparents did. I know 3 millionaires quite well. They all started with nothing, had successes and failures, and ended up rich. They didn't steal anything from anybody, people willingly gave them money for the products and services they offered.
If you want to steal their money, at least be honest about it and get a mask and a gun...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JustSayNoPartyDec 19, 2010
Ahhh, yes. Three people is surely a large enough sample size. Did Madoff make it in to your sample? If it's true what you say about those 3 oustanding citizens, more power to them. If they didn't screw over someone or rig the system, my power too them. But, if you think that's most of the people in the top 2%, I'm not joining that belief. In the last 30 years, the top 2% did amazingly well. What else happened? The middle class has eroded and most of the country has stagnated. Your fine with that? You think that will work long term?
sanmanDec 19, 2010
"If you want to steal their money, at least be honest about it and get a mask and a gun..."
right on, bcronos - I dugg you up!
davey914Dec 19, 2010
3 people out of how many people aspiring to be millionaires? They're the exception, and not the rule.
giyadDec 19, 2010
we're all idiots...
dayznfuzDec 19, 2010
The problem is the government (and people) lump the working upper mid-upper class with the ultrawealthy. All it takes to be in the top 2% is a salary of $200k/year. Top 1% is $400k. Those aren't trust fund babies or wallstreet mavens. Those are your small business owners and working professionals (doctors, lawyers, etc.).
Don't kid yourself. Raising income taxes isn't going to touch the ultrawealthy who hide their money in tax shelters or pay capital gains at 15% or 20%. You're basically nailing the group of people who pay the highest proportion of the income to the government as it is.
JustSayNoPartyDec 19, 2010
I can't disagree with you here. It's not those making 200K that concern me.
rimboDec 19, 2010
That's odd. See, I happen to be in that top 2%. And I don't recall buying any mansions. In fact, my home isn't even a house; it's an 1100-square-foot condominium. It doesn't overlook the ocean or anything. It's falling apart. It has the same carpet it's had since the 1990s. I don't have a car younger than 7 years old.
Where does the money go?
Well, for one thing, top 2% isn't as much money as it sounds. That starts around $200k-$250k per year for the whole household. That much money enables my family to live in the part of town that we want to, and not much else. And that's another part of the problem with "top 2%" – it's a lot more money for someone living in, say, New Mexico than it is for someone living in California. Gas costs more, housing costs more, taxes are much higher... even groceries cost more.
For another, when you're talking about a country of 350 million people, 2% of that is SEVEN MILLION people. You're not talking about a tiny handful of multi-billionaire elites; you're talking about a huge number of people.
And finally, the rich aren't getting richer at the expense of others. While the ceiling has gone up, so has the floor. Check out this video for a stunning visualization of this happening: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo&feature=player_embedded
bobcat7407Dec 20, 2010
"And that's another part of the problem with "top 2%" – it's a lot more money for someone living in, say, New Mexico than it is for someone living in California"
I've never figured out why no one makes a bigger deal about this. You would think that would be an easy, obvious argument.
ferretmanDec 19, 2010
@novy - You really are envious of the wealthy, aren't you novy?
Okay--what exactly do you propose to better balance monies and possessions? Would you confiscate 100% above some amount of money? What about land--some properly is worth more than others. Do we balance that too (and if so how), or do we just have the Feds take over all of it and then each of us can live on a piece as designated by the state?
I'm really curious here--you (with some justification) rail against the inequities of society but surely you have some ideas on leveling things out?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
novenatorDec 20, 2010
a far stronger progressive income tax code that will fund universal health care and strong public education so that everyone will have opportunity.
Happy?
yurmutha412Dec 19, 2010
This article is about American wealth, bringing up 3rd world dictators is completely OT. In America you earn it or inherit it.
particleman420Dec 19, 2010
or steal it
ohnoes1000Dec 20, 2010
The better question is why won't 90% of the global population tell the other 10% of the affluent west countries that enough is enough!!!!
Seriously, if we are going by this particular logic where the less affluent have a right to the wealth generated by others more fortunate than themselves, then we should all give up all of our wealth and transfer it to developing countries; it would be the "moral" thing to do.
Any one ready to make the first step and actually commit to your liberal philosophy?
novenatorDec 20, 2010
Well, that brings up an interesting point. When the World Bank loans money to undeveloped countries knowing full well they will not be able to pay it back, then they are strapped with debt that consumes over 1/3rd of their GDP, in essence permanently owing developed countries one third of everything they produce.
I believe that the UN and individual developed countries should engage in programs to help folks in the 'third world', or we could help them by simply forgiving the previous debt incurred so that they can better stand on their own 2 feet. This scenario is similar to a domestic economic perspective in that well over 1/3rd of what American workers produce goes to their corporate overlords: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/21/executive-pay-wsj/
cosmicsurferDec 18, 2010
Maybe you did .get shanghai'd to Cuba but the rest of us are suffering the fools who continue to support the top 2 % raping of America as they claim their right to do so....Stay in Cuba if you want but if you really cared about the people in the country in which you claim you live, you would stand up to fight against the building of the oligarchy bill by bill..
laborerDec 19, 2010
People have nothing to fear of government, as they have nothing to fear of a hammer, so long as they hold it. The problem is not the nature of the tool, or the tool itself, but the human holding it. Though people may disagree on how a hammers head is to be shaped, all agree that it should be used for construction in aide of the user. This is as with government. Challenge the holders of power, but do not destroy the tool itself.It may be humanity's best method for activating its most important tool, science. NASA will always work better than a private company, as its mission is for america, then humanity(maybe even vise versa), not the select few majority owners, then the company, then the public.
clvngodessDec 19, 2010
But what happens when the tool becomes obsolete? Do you continue to use the old tool in the old way? Or do you learn new ways of using new tools?
brad1Dec 19, 2010
You need to prevent the hammer from being too powerful for anyone. Even if you agree with the "human holding it". History has shown over and over and over again that it is far too easy for another person to get ahold of that hammer, and especially if the hammer is already strong enough, then they have no problem hammering the s**t out of the people with it.
rethreadDec 19, 2010
Ah, again. A winger that I have yet to dislike. He/she confuses me a bit. I'll attempt a translation here.
Hammers, like laws, are simply a tool for those wishing to build something to accomplish that people want. It is the person using the tool who does the building and shaping. The Government is but a tool to accomplish a means to an end. One does not destroy the tool because it has broken something. Learn to use the tool better, and repair things instead.
The people should fight for the big picture that they want, and the Government is the tool with which to do that. The Government is the tool of the people, not the latest person with a platinum credit card. Privately held companies do not hold the welfare of the people first and foremost. The Government does, as it is the tool wielded by the people. Science, exploration, and expansion are a tool best used by the government which is itself a tool controlled by the people rather that Richie Rich. The people should control the tool which controls the direction of the country, again, not Richie Rich. (Cause he's just looking to get Richer, and not in a good way.)
Follow ya later laborer. Maybe.
laborerDec 20, 2010
You sir, you sir I like.
twetteroffDec 20, 2010
raped by the top 2%?? for your information the top .1% (the top ten of the top 1%) provided 18.5% of federal income tax. (taxfoundation.org) I am by no means close to being this rich, if i was I would purchase digg and get this liberal garbage out of here, but i would say a better metaphor is the top 2% whoring themselves out to support the absurd amount of spending the federal government takes part in.
Not to mention the amount of spending power this top bracket has: I grew up washing cars and waiting tables and am now in construction. Just about every car I washed table I served and building I help build is for someone in the top tax bracket. Their spending supports lots of jobs.
laborerDec 20, 2010
Their inherited/corruptly gained/undeservedly gained money is what keeps the details of the jobs, and very much if in fact they exist at all, controlled by themselves. Why should a financer of projects, who is essentially a middle man, be the owner of what the scientist and artist create. No more. That is not freedom. If they own everything that humanity as a whole creates, they should foot the bill as well. Not let it go to hell in a hand basket, signed personally with love from all the multi-nationals.
biotchDec 18, 2010
Who says anyone has the right to tell anyone what to do? The poor dont have anymore right to tell the rich to pay taxes than the rich have to tell the poor to pay taxes. We just try to land on what is right and what is best for our nation. Since the poor need 99% of their money just to survive, we tend not to tax them as much. When we have an income disparity in this nation that is limiting production and that has been growing for 30 years, we need to do SOMETHING to fix it. One great way to slow the growth of that gap is a progressive tax rate. If you have a better idea, then by all means bring it to the table. We can't continue hording the money at the high income earners. That model results in a poorer nation overall. This nation's economy is reeling from a near depression and taking that accusatory attitude without offering a better solution does nothing to help us.
kamtsaDec 19, 2010
>> We just try to land on what is right and what is best for our nation
Being free to hold to your own property is best for our nation.
anomaly100Dec 19, 2010
No one is taking someone's property.
ricksiteDec 19, 2010
You have never heard of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain
?
cosmicsurferDec 19, 2010
And look who it has been used against...It certainly is NOT the wealthy.
In fact the ONLY time it has been used directly against the people of the nation it has been used against the poor and the middle class.
BUSH killed family farms and horse ranches to build his stadium with eminent domain. Major corps manipulating exit ramps off the interstate manipulating the government to take property from middle class homeowners.
So save the eminent domain crap. The law is for a purpose but the abuse of it has been against the shrinking middle class
bcronosDec 19, 2010
I can't believe these idiots are digging you down. I guess they would rather be slaves...
JustSayNoPartyDec 19, 2010
I can't believe he's making these commonts without looking at the whole picture. Enjoy the country when there are two classes: Rich and all the rest. Look at history. That has worked oh so well.
clvngodessDec 19, 2010
There is only two classes. The sad thing is that no one is willing to see this at this point in time.
nerdsturmDec 19, 2010
Look at historical cases where populists tried to artificially force wealth to be balanced - not only has this caused violence, in many cases it has caused the wealth imbalance to become even worse.
Wealthy people have more capital, making it easier to earn more wealth, so there's is always going to be a significant split between the poor and rich. Taxes on the super rich don't really work, as they also have enough money to afford enough lawyers to make audits almost completely impossible.
The best thing to do is just try to make the poor wealthier and forget about the rich. Wealth isn't a finite substance, and the rich don't necessarily become that way by taking from the poor.
JustSayNoPartyDec 19, 2010
Holding your 'own property' and ignoring the way many got that property is not good for our country. Watching our middle class erode is not good for our country. By the way, give me your property....
clvngodessDec 19, 2010
Why yes, the f**king victims. Goddamn the f**king victims. They screw it up for everyone, don't they?
ferretmanDec 19, 2010
@kamtsa - Well said sir.
It's amazing how some folks are so lazy and envious that they think it's okay to take from others.
caramba421Dec 18, 2010
And how dare anyone tell Marie Antoinette what to spend her money on.
sanmanDec 19, 2010
if Marie is earning her own money, then it's her business where to spend it.
If Steve Jobs is buying his 4th mansion after developing another iPhone, then good for him. If you're watching jealously while wiping tables for a living because you skipped one too many classes, then HAHAHA SUCKER! That'll teach you to be a lazy ass!
Wanna get rich? Then work harder. Stop skipping class. Get up earlier in the morning. Stop thinking the world owes you something.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
anub1sDec 19, 2010
It's funny that you think opportunity is equal everywhere and to everyone. It really is a laughable thought. Many millions of people before you have worked their asses off harder than any millionaire living or dead, only to earn a pile of debt thanks to misfortune, keel over and pass that debt onto their family.
There is a lot that is inherently wrong with your philosophy, and not enough time to break it down.
JustSayNoPartyDec 19, 2010
Have you ever noticed the fallacy that the Rich got their because the worked harder than every one else? Have you noticed they believe people 'arent' rich because they just lazed around? It's amazing how many people holding PHD's are not rich. I don't think they just lazed around. And no, their not cleaning tables. They are part of that 'middle' that's not been getting ahead.
SweetAnnieRichDec 19, 2010
I have to assume you are being dugg down because of your improper use of "their". It should have been "they're".
JustSayNoPartyDec 19, 2010
Oh crap. Darn grammar.
sanmanDec 19, 2010
ethnic discimination incurs an economic cost against the discriminator, and not just against the discriminatee
the discriminator suffers a cost because he's then passing up the more talented person for the wrong reasons, and thus having to settle for inferior talent (again for wrong reasons)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountDec 23, 2010
"It's funny that you think opportunity is equal everywhere and to everyone."
It is. It's funny you think it is not!!
anub1sDec 24, 2010
Apparently we live in two different United States of America's. Two different worlds even.
Have fun in delusionland.
barmatDec 19, 2010
It's not that easy dude. This economy runs on consumerism. Right now all the wealth is concentrated at the top. There isn't enough wealth for the vast majority 98% of people to spend on goods and services. It's not enough to have a huge supply of widgets. There has to be enough people with enough income to buy them. The middle class wages have been stagnant for over 10yrs. The top 2% have been greatly increasing their share. There aren't enough rich people to buy things to create more jobs. The rich are spending their money building factories in China and not shopping at Best Buy. Something has to change or we'll all be living in shanty towns while the top 2% live behind walls with guard towers to keep us out.
ferretmanDec 19, 2010
An interesting hypothesis, barmat. Can you cite evidence that "...there isn't enough wealth for the vast majority 98% of people to spend on goods and services"?
barmatDec 19, 2010
Look at the economy. GDP has grown at an abysmal .2% . 3-4% is healthy. China's GDP grew 15% during the same time. The wealthy buying more mink coats and mansions doesn't drive the economy. More people shopping at target and walmart does.
nuiloaDec 19, 2010
Exactly right. It's not the rich that create jobs, it's consumers that create jobs. And right now, there ain't a lot of wealth left in the hands of consumers.
miklkitDec 20, 2010
Think Robocop.
khastDec 19, 2010
You know, f**k YOU.
I work 40 hours a week, I pay my bills. Back in 1994 when I got my first job working at $4.95/hr I was doing great. In 2000 when I was making $7.25 I was doing awesome. Now that I make $11/hr it is incredibly hard to live. (yeah, I know it's not much, but 3 years ago, I would have been able to own my own home here on that...and a nice one at that. Average house here was $50,000)
Pretty much I hear bitching about how the millionaires have worked so f**king hard to be where they are... it is a f**king lie most of the times. Some...yes. Most...no.
Most of these tax bills I see sound more like whining from the top. I personally say they should abolish income tax all together...and make a federal sales tax that is the same for everyone. (With an even heftier tax on wiring money out of country.) All goods imported may be taxed, but the ones I would like to see a heavier tax is American companies which have goods produced out of country...tariff the s**t out of those products. Encourage more industrialization here in the US, make the jobs so that our middle class can come back...
Our middle class is almost gone, it is because of these rich f**ks who whine and bitch about their tax cuts, while at the same time they are taking our jobs overseas to make them cheaper.
Trickle down economics is a lie. Yes the rich people who "make the jobs" don't give 2 s**ts about their employees, if they can save money by outsourcing, THEY WILL DO IT IN A HEARTBEAT. Lost jobs don't only affect the people that were working, if 10 jobs are lost...big whoop, it ain't going to have an effect on the economy. When 10,000 jobs are lost... that is 10,000 people who are not going to be buying your or anyone elses products...thus causing more layoffs...and then causing even more layoffs.
Trickle up economics would work much more efficiently. If you give a rich f**k the money, they are more likely to save it up...you give people toward the bottom more money they are more likely to buy more things...which buying more things means more products are needed to fill the demand, which means more money is made at the top. It may take longer, but it is more guaranteed that the money will be made by more people across a wider base.
Not everyone needs to be wealthy, but making it easier for the people near the bottom to live...might be the more economic choice to build the economy again. And rather than some f**ked up checks in the mail...how about making more jobs that pay a living wage, and let the people at the bottom decide whether they are willing to work. (I think personally that welfare should be a job...you want government money..you should be forced to work for the paycheck. Make no "free" money...just make jobs for us.)
johngalt750Dec 19, 2010
It's not like the rich put their money in a mattress. Lets say I'm an ambitious person and I start an auto repair shop. Over time I grow it into a chain. I become quite rich in the process. Now here's my choices for my money:
1. Hire more staff.
2. Invest it
3. Give it to the government in taxes
#1 makes sense so long as every person I hire adds to the bottom line. Lets say I can hire someone for $50k/year, and they bring in $75K worth in business. At this proposition I'll be hiring just as fast as I can (even borrowing as much $$ as I can to hire more). Conversely if they can't bring in business it doesn't make sense to hire.
#2 makes sense if I can't grow my business, but even then all it does is go into a bank or investment. That bank then lends it to someone else doing #1. The more rich people sitting on money, the cheaper money gets to borrow. It's in the banks and businesses best interest to create as many #1 situations as possible.
#3 Pay it as taxes to the government. Who will then spend it according to whatever is politically expeidient to the party in power.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
khastDec 19, 2010
You forgot about the fact that you can always make contracts with a country in China to produce all your crap...then sell it at your store with only minimum wage employees.
Need a call center? It is cheaper to run the call centers all from India...so no American labor is needed. Hell, even though you are paying long distance costs...it is still cheaper than paying your employees $7/hr.
Pay your taxes....and then whine about how your tax rate is so high that you can't afford to hire new employees...when in reality you have maybe 20 US employees...and over 300 outsourced employees...but those are in the small details.
JustSayNoPartyDec 19, 2010
Galt, in a perfect world, I would agree with you. But surrounding your logic is a lot of unbalanced policies and practices that have allowed many who are wealthy to 'get wealthy and stay wealthy'. So, if we could fix a lot of those inequalities, then I'm all in on your logic that taxing them more makes no senese.
neveroddorevenDec 19, 2010
Hmm where to begin. "3 years ago, I would have been able to own my own home here on that.." im hoping you didnt get into one of the subprime mortgages that made it seem like you could own a home when in reality you couldnt. And shouldnt houses be cheaper now than they were 3 years ago?
Youre points are very scattered. I think one thing you should distinguish between is corporations and wealthy individuals. It's like the difference between apple and steve jobs. One pays corporate taxes the other pays income taxes. So when you say rich ppl whine about taxes but then take jobs overseas, youre talking about two different entities. Maybe youre more for reforming corporate tax codes. Changing the amount of tax steve jobs pays himself will probably have very little to do with the amount of people he employs
Also when talking about creating jobs that pay a "living wage" the problem is paying more for jobs almost always means less people employed. Its just how the economy works.. While itd be great to have everyone employed making a healthy wage it just isnt feasible. Not with people in china working for next to nothing. Sure corporations are shipping jobs overseas but what choice do they have to remain competitive. If apple made ipods here with the minimum wage we have they wouldnt turn a profit and would go out of business.
Basically I just wanted to say its far more complex than lets pay people more and give them more jobs.
I am with you on the welfare part but when there are no jobs there are no jobs. Maybe to get welfare or unemployment you should have to clean up trash on the highway. But nope thatll never happen americans are too proud for that.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
khastDec 19, 2010
Why in the f**k should I even have to compete with people working in China in the first place? Is that what businesses really want, a bunch of crap they order from China....and nobody here would be capable of purchasing it because nobody has a job that can afford the product they are selling?
GET INDUSTRY WORKING IN THE US AGAIN...Tariff the s**t out of all imports to protect the American workers. (Hell they do that to protect other industries...)
neveroddorevenDec 19, 2010
"Why should I even have to compete" is basically your problem. Why should you have to compete against anyone? Why people in China? Why illegal immigrants? Why people in the US that are willing to work for less than you? Close the borders. Set a 20 dollar minimum wage. No one in the US can buy goods from outside the US. That sounds like a recipe for ..... success? I dont think so.
If you tariff the s**t out of all imports, other countries will do the same. Can you imagine a world where the US is isolated and the rest of the world is freely trading with one another? ipods are 1000 dollars in the US but outside the US the next best thing costs 200?
You think people would be able to afford it then? The lower class probably benefits the most from cheap goods from China. Do you really want a job if you cant buy sht cuz its 10x more expensive?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bookantDec 19, 2010
" While itd be great to have everyone employed making a healthy wage it just isnt feasible. Not with people in china working for next to nothing. Sure corporations are shipping jobs overseas but what choice do they have to remain competitive. If apple made ipods here with the minimum wage we have they wouldnt turn a profit and would go out of business."
Yup, the vast majority (90% +) of Americans who actually work for a living should have to sell themselves to the corporations at prices competative with slave-laobr sweatshops in third world countries. That's the American dream!
But one thing I don't quite understand - when we're all sleeping in cardboard boxes and dumpster diving for our means because the $20 a week we're getting for 60+ hours of work leaves us homeless, who's buying all those iPods? Where are the corporations' customers supposed to come from?
neveroddorevenDec 20, 2010
90% of americans that work for a living? you know im talking about manufacturing specifically...
you do need to compete with china and india for manufacturing because they can do it 100 times cheaper. SO youre missing the point creating jobs through manufacturing is virtually impossible at todays minimum wage. And quite frankly Americans think theyre too good to do crap jobs, thats why we have such demand for illegal immigrant jobs. If you cant compete you will cease to be relevant. Its why education is so important. Sorry if you expect s**t to be handed to you on a platter. Yea itd be great for everyone to be making 20+ an hour but guess what very few/ no corporations can handle that.
You guys have the problem of over simplifying the problem. Is income inequality an issue. Yes. Can everything be solved by taxing the rich? Hell no.
The American dream isnt to do slave labor but it is about working hard. Its not about asking for something its about going out working your ass off and taking it. Study harder. Work harder. Kiss more ass at work. Climb the ladder. Its tough to compete when youre not just up against your fellow american but against everyone in the world. Its the reality of a global economy. Trying to change who we compete against would go against free trade. Any attempts to do such would alienate us and inevitably drive up prices.
WreckedEmDec 19, 2010
You've been working for 15 years and you only make $11/hr?
khastDec 19, 2010
Well considering about 10 years ago one could buy a 4 bedroom house on 1/2 acre...for $20,000 here....BUILT TO SUIT. Yeah, wages tend to be a little lower. And 15 years of working doesn't mean I have been at the same job consecutively.
Highest wage job in my city is $14.55...and the next closest city I can work at is 2 border crossings and 50 miles away.
particleman420Dec 19, 2010
why do you hate Real Americans and why are you so elitist? he doesnt make enough for you so you have to look down your nose at him? i'm sure he's just lazy and doesnt deserve money
miklkitDec 20, 2010
Yup. That is life in the middle class.
Work your fingers to the bone and what do you get?
Bony fingers
Bony fingers.
Closed AccountDec 19, 2010
From the first paragraph of your wages decription you do realize tha government policy has caused your problems.... not "the rich." First yur 4.50 salary isn't worth s**t anymore because the inflation tax has made the dollar worth less. Furthermore they have priced you out of a home by driving a real estate bubble in the name of giving everyone a home. Four years ago you could have had a house only because Fannie/Freddie wouldn't have cared if you were even employed.
Furthermore the majority of millionaires are small business owners or managers who saved most of their income over their entire career. The only way you will be touching their wealth to distribute it at this point is either through corporate gains from their investments or thought the estate tax.
And another thing all throughout history as we have an increased global economy jobs have been outsourced. Yet standard of living has remained very high and unemployment has remained low until this recession. Your leftist isolationist ideology has been proven wrong many times over, especially considering that the more isolated countries with lots of protectionism have especially high unemployment at the moment.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gngo07Dec 19, 2010
the government is the rich
ethanleducDec 19, 2010
Your heart is in the right place, but barriers to trade and a regressive sales tax [yes, you read that right - the poor spend a much larger portion of their income on things to which sales taxes are applicable, thereby paying a larger percentage of their income in total] are not the way to address inequality - progressive income taxes are.
*Some* people will tell you that high marginal income tax rates dis-incentivize work, but this is bulls**t - nobody is advocating for top rates in the 90's, and some of the fastest periods of economic growth in American history have occurred when the top marginal rates were the highest.
And I actually agree with you, in principal, on welfare about such things going to people who don't earn the money, but in practice such no-strings-attached transfer payments are a bargain most of the time, because giving people at least a half-ways tolerable life, even if it's un-earned, is cheaper than dealing with the fallout using police, courts and prisons, not to mention the social harm that crime causes.
It's the same with the death penalty - I support it in theory, but in practice it's just too expensive when applied fairly to be of any use.
bonerpirateDec 19, 2010
I agree and disagree with a number of things in your post. I, like you started out earning basically s**t. I worked maintenance for a commercial realestate company basically picking up s**t in the parking the lot and cleaning and fixing s**t left and right. Put myself through community college while still working. Luckily the COO of the company was a nice guy and would drop by now and then on the various properties, he knew I was interested in marketing and eventually gave me a paid internship while still going to the school. This was awesome because they bumped me up to $11/hr and offered to help me pay off loans... f**kin jackpot. After school they eventually hired me, i've only worked for this one company.
Not all business owners are douches. It probably would have been a hell of a lot easier and cheaper for them to just hire somebody. While the guy that helped me wasn't specifically the owner, its more or less a family company.
As far as taxing the s**t out of American companies that produce goods out of the country. A lot of the reason these companies move overseas is BECAUSE of taxes. The corporate tax rate in America is higher than anywhere in the world. They get taxed by the federal government, i think my company gets hit with like 34-35% tax rate, then the state comes in and demands another 6%.
Companies that move their s**t overseas to just save a buck pisses me off, but it's hard to compete if you aren't on a level playing field.
As far as giving rich f**ks money and them just saving it where as a poor f**k would spend it on s**t. Part of the reason why a lot of people struggling financially are struggling is because they spend their money on things with perceived value or things that don't hold value. They might go out and buy a tv, but in 3 years its obsolete and now where is their ROI? Many people are poorer than ever or essentially homeless today because they had almost all of their worth tied up in their house. House market crashes now its worth nothing. Start making smart investments. Rich people don't take their tax breaks and hide it in a safe somewhere, they diversify and reinvest it. They start new business or invest in other companies and let the money work for them rather than work for the money.
At least thats my 2cents. agree or disagree. I was going to write more but my s**t computer which i'm holding off upgrading because of lack of money is being a slow f**ker.
ruarctbDec 19, 2010
I don't agree on a higher sales tax and no income tax. Sales taxes place the highest burden, by percentage of income, on the poorest.
I do agree on most other points, coming from a blue collar, small business owning family. I busted my ass in school, busted my ass in college, and am busting ass now, but I'm still only scraping by because my field was hit hard by this recession, and I'm stuck working at Wal-Mart, fighting all the other college graduates for the supervisor/manager jobs that open up. It's the only place right now I've found where layoffs aren't liable to happen.
pwrxDec 19, 2010
Sounds like you really haven't been working as hard as many. For starters, don't expect to have much if you only put in 40 hours a week. Secondly, you've had 16 fscking years since your first job and have only been able to double your pay? You sir need to get off your ass and spend about 20 hours a week (the 20 hours the rest of us are working above and beyond the 40 you work) and develop skills that are needed.
People can whine about income disparity, but a huge chunk of that 2% busts their ass day and night. I'm all for income disparity - no way a person who actually goes home in the evening and watches TV should get some of my earned income (BTW: I'm up all night in teleconferences with AsiaPac folks, developing PPT's, working every weekend, all while being salaried). If you want to have a relaxing life, don't complain about those who go out and do.
Back to the title of this post: "When will the 98% tell the 2% enough is enough". Answer: Never, they are too fscking lazy - that would require effort and missing primetime.
kazmierczaksmDec 19, 2010
Increasing Tariffs on foreign produced products will only result in hurting the United States economy.
Warren G. Harding promoted an America First policy, and increased tariffs to encourage American industry. As a result, the rest of the world increased tariffs on all American produced products, thus the economy was hit drastically hard.
The tariffs put on foreign products by Presidents Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover were a huge contributing factor to the Wall Street crash of 1929.
I think you think you arent as smart as you think you are.
nemomarlinDec 19, 2010
sanman, I think you'd find that most people work their butt off in order just to get by in this world.
The game is rigged; the system is unfair. It favors the rich. If you play a game of chess and one guy has 3 queens, do you tell the guy with only 1 queen, "well, work harder! You can win!"?
It's like when only landowners can vote. If you live during that time you might say, "If you want to vote then work hard and buy land!" You see my point?
cosmicsurferDec 19, 2010
It is easier to make a billion if you have a billion than it is to make it without having it.
So if you believe Rand Paul, Donald Trump, and JimWalton and the rest worked hard for their money, look again.Trump got his 1st skyrise in Manhattan at age 1 as a birthday present from daddy, Paul was raised wealthy and Sam gave his millions to Jim....The Walton Family fell when Sam died since they split into thirds...Yeah they worked SO hard.
The days of Sam Walton, Sol Price and Bill Gates are long over, Making billions out of a wing and a prayer and a con and theft of ideas is not as easy these days. The games are played and owned.
Dreadp00lDec 19, 2010
Look sanman, you really need to drop this notion that you adhere too that hard work, perseverance and a sterling work ethic will ensure success. I used to believe the way you do, so let me tell you a story about why I no longer do.
10 years ago I worked in the high tech sector as a trainer and supervisor for one of the largest contract electronics manufacturers in the country. I lived and breathed dedication and work ethic. Regardless of what day of the week it was, if my production line was running, then I was not only there, but I was getting as much done as 3 typical production operators. I noticed early that production numbers were down and costs were up on days that I would schedule off, so I quit scheduling days off and trusted that in any given 2 week period we would bust out enough product that the folks in production control would give the line a break on at least one Sunday, maybe both. I was also an appointee to a couple of task forces, and I took my responsibility to these very seriously also, and this would keep me around the plant after hours but off the clock, looking over production costs for one task force, or proposed changes to training procedures for the other one. Anyway, to make a long story short, on a Friday after about 3 months of being at the factory every single day for 10+ hours every day, after the shift changeover, everybody from my shift on my line was asked by the assistant plant manager to proceed to a training classroom right next to the locker rooms. There we were all informed that the production line was officially moving to Panang, Malaysia that weekend. Actually it was already up and running there in a 'shadow factory' that was a virtual clone of my factory, and had been given the very same production orders that we had been given for months (I learned much later from a former co-worker that the fruits of the work I did for those 'so called' task forces were invaluable in getting the overseas line dialed in and up to snuff). They were just waiting for the overseas plant to post production and cost numbers that were consistently on par with the numbers that we were posting to lay us all off. So that's where dedication and hard work got me. I still haven't recovered from that. I did telemarketing for a number of years because it was the only thing I could find, and I HATE telemarketers, so I was forced to become something I hated, and I stuck with it until getting laid off. So it seems that sucking it up and doing what I considered a 'dirty job' didn't get me any closer to getting rich. 3 years ago I finished vocational school for TV/Radio broadcast engineering and passed the CBT exam. Even though only 1 other student in a class of 20 made the CBT, I still can't find work at a TV or radio station. Getting up on time, making the Dean's list, puting in extra hours, dlosing my self respect... it's all gotten me to the same place I would have been if I slept in cheated on tests, and taken the easy way out
twetteroffDec 20, 2010
one of my favorite bumper stickers:
Annoy a Liberal, Work Hard and Be Happy
miklkitDec 20, 2010
16 tons and deeper in debt
16 tons and what do I get
another day older
and deeper in debt
caramba421Dec 18, 2010
Your logic is inconsistent in that you place a moral onus only on the people who are not rich to acquire the money in a ethically viable manner.
If I rob rich person and take all his money, thus becoming rich, does the same logic apply to me? That nobody has any goddamn right to tell me what to do with the money? Once I'm rich off the money I stole, I assume that I get a free pass to protect me of any social obligations.
So how can you make a blanket statement that all the people that are rich are rich because of morally viable, or even legal, enterprises?
minimumeffortDec 19, 2010
You complain about alanocu's logic when you are trying to say equate robbery with market generated wealth? I get the problem. alanocu believes the vast majority of it is gained through government enforced contracts that were entered voluntarily by both sides, and you believe it's fraud the government is somehow letting happen. The moral onus is not just on people who are not rich but on anyone who wants to forcibly take money because they claim it was unethical. This is exactly the way it should be. Fortunately, for those people they don't need to make the argument when they can just vote other peoples money away.
Alanocu's logic is sound because he is assuming the rich earned their money. If you want to make an argument attack his assumption. It's a lot easier than coming up with logic that's worse than his.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JustSayNoPartyDec 19, 2010
Market generated wealth? You mean those stock derivitives? No, there can be logical problems on both sides. But, I say again, look at who did amazingly well in the last several decades. While a few have done remarkably well, many have not. You think that will work long term?
minimumeffortDec 20, 2010
Well done foster. My point was caramba came up with stupid logic to something he disagreed with. You are debating the assumption. From what I have read you try to use logic. It just bothers me when people don't.
The problem with the stock derivatives is nobody can be held liable. Even people that made off good may have done nothing wrong. The market destroyed much of that value because the market determined it was malinvested. If you guessed right, that it was malinvested, you made off good. If not, you were destroyed. This is what the market does. It rewards those who guess right and punishes those who don't. What I'm not going to do is persecute someone just because they did well.
JustSayNoPartyDec 20, 2010
I don't disagree on your points. However, it was the system that got us in that mess. We need to do a better job of preventing things from going crazy in the first place (as much as possible). Was it really smart to reward the upside but cushion the loss?
ferretmanDec 19, 2010
@caramba - There seem to be blanket statements from others hereabouts (such as novy) that the rich aren't ethical and didn't gain their monies via morally viable and legal enterprises.
I would agree that blanket statements on both sides are mostly likely NOT true, but let's be sure to apply indignation to both routes of discussion.
dirtyfriesDec 19, 2010
"their money" earned on the backs of laborers.
Both sides need each other. The problem is the haves are deluding themselves into thinking they don't need the have-nots.
sanmanDec 19, 2010
Ohhh, their money earned on the backs of your brilliance, huh? Hey, if you think you're as valuable as the restaurant owner because you wipe the tables, then teach him a lesson and walk out. Oh, that's not gonna make a dent in him coz he can replace you in 5 seconds? Uhh, yeah, that should tell you you're not as valuable as you'd like to think DUMBASS.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jdenzerDec 19, 2010
coz he can replace you in 5 seconds?
Yeah some cheap illegal labor.
ferretmanDec 19, 2010
And yet it's the socialists and liberals who keep wanting to let illegals in....go figure.....
jdenzerDec 19, 2010
Don't forget about the Republicans and conservatives. Capitalism loves cheap labor. Don't be so naive, if the right really wanted to get rid of illegals and secure the borders, they would have done it already. And why haven't they? B/c that means no more boogyman argument for the right to gin up their base.
"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist." - VERBAL KINT
JustSayNoPartyDec 19, 2010
You keep blathering yet still make little since. Dumbass.
sanmanDec 19, 2010
since != sense
dumbass
jdenzerDec 19, 2010
Yet you were somehow able to realize he meant 'sense'. How were you able to crack that one, Columbo? Did figure that one all by yourself? Or did you have to google it? Maybe you had to call a friend?
sanmanDec 19, 2010
I was able to, because I have sense
The guy who wrote the comment was obviously unable to, because he doesn't have enough
ruarctbDec 19, 2010
As someone who's grown up with parents who own a business: Yes, the table wiper, the floor sweeper, the waiter is every bit as valuable as the owner. They are the ones making the customer's experience enjoyable and doing the things to make money for the business.
The key to successful business isn't saying "I'm the boss and you're disposable." to the employees. It's treating them respect and recognizing that good employees are the reason YOU make money and keep your job. For them, it is vice versa. One side depends on and couldn't exist without the other.
pwrxDec 19, 2010
sanman, give up. Folks here don't understand the concept of risk vs reward.
That restaurant owner mortgaged his house to get a business loan and risked it all to open up shop. No way to make these folks understand that a waiter shouldn't make the same money as the owner.
sdunesDec 21, 2010
I think the point is that he will have to replace the worker. Maybe he doesn't need that particular worker but he needs workers. Maybe his entire staff should quit and see how well the owner does on his own.
ferretmanDec 20, 2010
@dirtyfries - I'm not aware of any "haves" who think that...cite?
laborerDec 19, 2010
No, you woke in reality. A reality where a generation of 20 and 30 somethings wont have any jobs in the near future, or any careers in their forseeable lifetime. AMERICA WILL HAVE NOTHING FOR YOU OR ANYONE ELSE IF YOU KEEP THINKING ITS OK TO BE SO IRRESPONSIBLE! What job will your child be able to do? How will they even go to school? And if they get sick? Do not be so shortsighted my friend. Industrialism needs to get out of its narcissistic immaturity and become a responsible adult among the planet and the stars.
viperiiiDec 21, 2010
So you also believe that today's unions are helpful? They have their place but pensions that outweigh operating expenses are stupid...
Basically companies have more unworking personnel than working and the Unworking folks make more money?!? WTF!?!
JustSayNoPartyDec 19, 2010
Bull s**t. It's their money because morons like you stand on the side lines and watch as so many Wall Street types, bankers, Enron, Health South, Bernie Maddoff, unscrupulus developers, etc. screw the rest. Your probably the same type of person that calls for less regulation of these idiots. Must be nice living in your dream world thinking they just 'earned' there money.
johngalt750Dec 19, 2010
Do you honestly think that every rich person got that way through graft?
And certain regulations are what got us into this mess.
JustSayNoPartyDec 19, 2010
No, galt. I think many honestly earned their money. And, I have no problem with them. And yes, regulations can go too far. If you look at other arguments here however, many seem to completely ignore the fact that many rules have been crafted to favor the wealthy. Many who are wealthy 'stepped on others' to get there. So of course, it's a mixed bag.
jdenzerDec 19, 2010
You're goddamn right, this is America. You don't "tell" anyone what they have to do.
You don't tell the poor to get jobs.
You don't tell rape victims they have to have their baby.
You don't tell gay couples they have to live their lives unmarried.
You don't tell gays they have to not bother joining the military.
You don't tell Muslims they have to build their Mosque somewhere else.
You don't tell 9/11 responders they have to stop asking for help
You don't tell transplant patients, too bad pay for it yourself.
sanmanDec 19, 2010
You don't tell the poor to get jobs?
No, we can let them figure it out for themselves. Nobody should have to tell them something so basic and obvious, just like they shouldn't have to tell them that money doesn't fall from the sky or grow on trees.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jdenzerDec 19, 2010
I knew someone like you was going to miss the point and take every line so literal. I was trying to keep them as one line each.
So as usual the small minded ones like you need a deep explanation. Here goes:
You don't tell the poor, who don't make enough money to feed their families, pay the rent, and afford health-care to just get a better job that pays more and stop complaining. And when they can't find work or a better job, you don't tell them we are not going to give you unemployment insurance that you payed for and you don't tell them tough luck, life sucks, get use to it.
Was that in-depth enough for you?
sanmanDec 19, 2010
no, you don't allow people to stupidly keep making the same mistakes generation after generation by feeding them excuses to let them wallow in self-pity rather than making changes in themselves
"Casual sex can lead to premature motherhood and limited career choices? Damn, that's a new phenomenon! If only past generations had built up some wisdom over time about this!"
"Watching too much TV or spending too much time online can be a diversion from more production pursuits and self-betterment? Damn, who'd a thunk it? No wonder I got caught in that trap!"
There are plenty of destructive behavior patterns that continue to be repeated, rather than learned from and avoided. And some people want to instead attribute any failure to imagined discrimination.
I'm dark-skinned myself, btw - darker than your precious fellow commiserator, Obama. I'd say people have to first look inside to change themselves, before whining for society to start restructuring around their deficits.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jdenzerDec 19, 2010
"no, you don't allow people to stupidly keep making the same mistakes generation after generation"
Like those who continue to smoke or have poor nutrition? Yet when we try to help people change that as a nation. We are somehow taking away their freedom or it is Big Government fault.
Spare me your double standards.
"Working 60-80 hours a week to earn millions of dollars can lead to stress, which can lead to a heart attack or stroke"
See I can play that word game too.
jdenzerDec 19, 2010
Casual sex can lead more casual sex, which can lead to sex movies. That can lead to making money and have a career as a porn star. Which can be a lucrative career.
spending too much time online such as facebook or myspace can lead to making more and more friends. Which can lead to your own reality show. Which leads to making money as a reality show star. Which can be a lucrative career.
Hey this is fun, quick gimme another!
Closed AccountDec 19, 2010
He still won't get it. Right-wing followers have been brainwashed by their leaders into thinking the poor somehow deserve it, because of course they're just too lazy to get jobs!
Then of course they refuse to support unemployment benefits, which would let people feed themselves *while* looking for jobs, they support outsourcing which takes away people's jobs, they refuse to fund education which let people get better jobs after their old ones were sent to India or China, etc. etc.
Right-wingers care about the unemployed up to the point where they have to pay a dime to help them out.
Oh, and newsflash guys: you'd get the money back, because once these people have jobs, they'll pay taxes too!
JustSayNoPartyDec 19, 2010
Let's see, he makes 10 points. You focus on one to support your bias.
nextwiggin4Dec 19, 2010
This is 2010 dude, we don't tell gays they have to not bother joining the military anymore.
I know I'm nit picking, I'm just saying.
ljseinfeldDec 19, 2010
Umm yeah, as of like, yesterday. Tool.
johngalt750Dec 19, 2010
1. No I don't tell the poor to get jobs, if they don't want to that's fine. Just drives my wages up further.
2. I don't tell anyone they have to have a baby.
3. They can get married anytime they want already.
4. Gays can join the military, and I'd never tell them not too.
5. I sure don't tell Muslims where to build their Mosques. Same as I don't tell Christians to remove their symbols.
6. Anyone can ask for anything.
7. You don't tell me I have to pay because someone felt like smoking for 40 years and not save a dime.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ferretmanDec 19, 2010
So jdenzer what you're saying is:
- You DO get to force money from the rich just because they have it.
- You DO get to force a person who doesn't believe in abortion to support it anyway.
- You DO get to force a minister who doesn't support gay marriage to perform the ceremony anyway.
- You DO get to force our military men and women into circumstances where they can be ogled in the shower by folks who find them sexually attractive.
- You DO get to force people attacked by Muslim terrorists to shove their anger way down deep and "just live with it".
- You DO get to force the Federal government to pay for 9/11 responder health issues even though that's not something you can put your finger on in the Constitution.
- You DO get to force random people on the street to pay for somebody else's medical care.
Huh.
Your solutions are all about using *force*.
Capitalism is all about using *choice*.
Which is more free?
You seek equality of outcome, NOT equality of opportunity.
jdenzerDec 19, 2010
Choice? Are you always this stupid?
Banning abortions under any circumstances.
How is that giving the woman a choice?
Telling gays the cannot marry
How is that a choice?
Telling gays they can't serve in the military
How is that a choice?
Please tell me the alternative choices.
Your are grasping at straws to spin it your way.
Remember the right always makes the same arguement when someone on talk radio makes an offensive comment. "don't like it, don't listen to the radio"
The same logic can be applied to all you points.
msbpodcastDec 19, 2010
But, but, but, that is what I hear everyday.
Listen to Rush Limbaugh. Listen to any on the talking heads. Listen to the shills and mouth pieces for the silent minority, the 2% of the people, us, who own 90% of the material wealth and get 98% of the income of this nation.
That's the part that gives me the heeby-jeebies. There is no more middle class to cause riots and string people up by their own intestines.
We all poor schmucks who wouldn't know who to shoot and couldn't afford the bullets to do so.
Do you think the rich go through this crap with the TSA? They have their own gates at their own airports and the cattle flying on the common carriers can go f*ck itself.
Don't like it? Need a transplant... (In plain English, DIE!)
jdenzerDec 19, 2010
"There is no more middle class to cause riots and string people up by their own intestines."
That's b/c they distract us w/ reality tv, cheap fast foods and goods, etc. Look at how the Europeans rise up against just changes as raising retirement age. Agree with them or not. One thing you can't say about the European people is the are more proactive than we are.
Just look at the tea baggers, so much protesting and outrage. But where is the outrage and massive Glenn Beck rallies now that the GOP has cut a deal w/ Obama over tax cuts. They have gone silent, just a low whisper from Fox. Hell even Beck has been MIA on this.
msbpodcastDec 20, 2010
Beck is a non-entity, a talking-head distraction who's part of the apathy/misdirected rage problem of the shrunken middle class in this country.
In France, they riot in the streets over their pensions getting cut.
In England, they riot over their tuition getting raised.
In the 'States ... we're all too depressed.
What a bunch of pussies.
rethreadDec 19, 2010
An 11 yr old girl in foster care here was forced to bear the child. No report of if either survived. But this is life as we know it.
theanimal123Dec 19, 2010
it's because the people aren't starving yet. when a lot of people start starving prepare to see the U.S. look like many parts of Europe and everywhere else in their histories...
Closed AccountDec 23, 2010
"You don't tell the poor to get jobs." - Correct. You allow them to starve if they are too lazy to work.
"You don't tell rape victims they have to have their baby." - Correct. You educate them to the choices they have and do not steer them into an abortion.
"You don't tell gay couples they have to live their lives unmarried." - Correct. They can either have a traditional marriage or enter into a legal union with a same sex partner.
"You don't tell gays they have to not bother joining the military." - Correct. You point out to them it's not necessarily the most appropriate vocation. But if they insist and still want to join, the rules are simply that you shouldn't make an issue of it.
"You don't tell Muslims they have to build their Mosque somewhere else." - Correct. You just tell them that of all the places in the world where it is perfectly acceptable to build a Mosque without question, next door to a place where Muslims slaughtered 3000 innocent civilians a few short years ago probably isn't an appropriate place.
"You don't tell 9/11 responders they have to stop asking for help" - Correct. But you don't use their plight as an excuse to add the cost of unnecessary baubles and bangles to their rightful assistance.
"You don't tell transplant patients, too bad pay for it yourself." - Correct. You tell them if they earn enough, to make responsible decisions and pay for health insurance BEFORE they buy the big screen T.V. And if they can't afford it, you tell them to aggressively take advantage of the many Government and Charitable agencies and funding sources already available to assist them.
Wow!! I'm impressed!! I agree with you on every point!!! :-)
jdenzerDec 23, 2010
Wow, I impressed too. It only took you 4 days to make some witty comment. I thought for sure it would have took you a whole week.
You know wit all dat book lernin and stuff, you had to do. Way to git er done, there Hoss.
But I couldn't let this one go
"You educate them to the choices they have and do not steer them into an abortion."
You must be the most stupidest ignorant assh**e in the world. No one is steering them into abortion. That's why it is called "PRO-CHOICE". Key word being 'CHOICE'
And 'Pro-life' is just that, one choice. To choose life.
You tell me one single 'Pro-Choice' organization that says a woman has to have an abortion, period? They believe in the right to choose.
Every 'pro-life' believes in telling woman they have to have the child.
You can get back to me in a week there, Hoss. Cuz of all dat fancy book lernin, you'll be doin.
Closed AccountDec 23, 2010
Two things. I just this morning got a notice on this string and when I checked it I saw your comment, realized that I, at least, thought it was so stupid and wrong I couldn't resist replying.
And all dat book lernin' and stuf taught me to write and speak without using trashy language and calling people names.
So there you go "Hoss". Merry Christmas.
jdenzerDec 23, 2010
Not big on name calling?
Here are some of you greatest hits:
"Arlen Specter was a coward . . ."
"It's telling when radical liberals are chiding . . ."
" . . .being beaten by Union Thugs. . . "
"Typical hate filled, narrow minded commentary."
And if the word 'assh**e' offends you so much. Well I am sorry you live such a sheltered life. I can't imagine being so pristine, that you can't even enjoy an R-rated movie.
Closed AccountDec 24, 2010
I just figure when you're writing, you have a few extra moments to peruse your vocabulary and come up with something other than profanity. Hey Hoss! You're the one that brought up all that thar book lernin and stuf!!
falstaffDec 19, 2010
In Jimmy Carter's 1980 (before the evil Republicans took over the world), the top 5% of wage earners paid 37% of taxes.
Now, after the Regan/Bush/Gingrich/Bush years or raping and pillaging the poor, they only pay....um....57%.
Yes, taxes have become MORE progressive in the last 30 years.
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxesComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
klasbasDec 19, 2010
That doesn't mean what you think it means. It only means that the top 5% earn more now than 30 years ago and the middle class is disappearing fast.
The wealth is more concentrated to the top so the top 5% pay more taxes because they have most of the income while the rest 95% have a lot less income than 30 years ago so they pay less taxes because they are poorer.
johngalt750Dec 19, 2010
Even if what you said is accurate, we still win by letting more people become rich so we'll have a larger pie to tax.
SweetAnnieRichDec 19, 2010
That's got to be the dumbest comment ever.
msbpodcastDec 20, 2010
And we're NOT taxing them. We're letting them skate on by.
What an idiot. Can't you read the tax code?
The top 2% are paying less now than they ever have.
Meanwhile, your kids are going to have to pay for all the borrowing we're having to do.
This will bloat the budget deficit by $700 billion. ($700,000,000,000 / 360,000,000 = $1,944.45 in an unwitting gift to people who already have money, and don't need to take out any loan, from every man woman and child in this country, who have to take out a loan to pay it, and loans have to be paid back with interest. The longer the term, the greater the interest. That $1,944.45 will probably cost YOU >$5,000.00. [And the banks are making out like bandits with this deal.])
shark72Dec 19, 2010
1980, the top marginal tax rate was 70%, vs. about 35% today. Folks in the top bracket were paying almost exactly *twice* in income taxes as they are today.
As klasbas has correctly pointed out, those top earners are collectively earning a lot more money. But they get to keep a hell of a lot more of it than they did in your 1980 reference year.
We're enjoying some of the lowest tax rates in US history.
superkendallDec 19, 2010
But we also have the highest corporate tax rates of any other country. I wonder what they know we do not...
JustSayNoPartyDec 19, 2010
That's a good point, Kendall. The corporate tax rate deserves being examined. I'm not for high corporate tax rates that only encourage jobs to be sent overseas.
msbpodcastDec 20, 2010
Ha! You don't know accounting do you? You don't know what you're being taxed on do you?
The rate can be as high as they want, the collection of $ an ANY rate depends on earnings - losses not assets.
Corporations are sitting on mountains of assets (some of these are in cash,) which aren't taxed.
Hollywood is the past master at taking a runaway movie (Avatar earned a billion $ but the studio that produced it is declaring bankruptcy.)
Any accountant worth his salt can turn your balance sheet into a work of art while turning your P&L statement into a dismal fiction.
juice15Dec 19, 2010
Bad example. In the 1980's tax rates were cut from 70% down to 28% and income tax revenue increased.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S.-income-taxes-out-of-total-taxes.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States
viperiiiDec 21, 2010
I'm still a fan of the 10% flat tax rate...
All pay equal share...
and then do away with the other crap laws and loopholes...
300 million paying 10% would be much better than the idiot system in place now... Loop holes are being created that will be exploited within 6 months... and guess who will benefit? Yup the Rich....
falstaffDec 19, 2010
Clearly neither of you managed to click the link and read the reference:
"Do the rich pay more taxes because they are earning more of the income in America?
Yes. There’s no doubt that the share of total income earned by the wealthy has increased steadily over the past 25 years. Since 1980, the share of income earned by the richest 1 percent has more than doubled, from 9 percent to 19 percent. The share of the income going to the poorest income quintile has declined. Income disparities, in absolute dollars, have grown substantially.
What is significant is that for the top 5 percent and 10 percent of earners, the ratio of taxes paid compared with income earned has risen. For example, in 1980, the top 10 percent earned 32 percent of the income and paid 44 percent of the taxes—a ratio of 1.4. In 2004, this group earned more of the income (44 percent) but paid a lot more of the taxes (68 percent)—a ratio of 1.6. In other words, progressivity—in terms of share of total taxes paid—has risen. On the other hand, for the top 1 percent of earners, progressivity has declined from a ratio of 2.2 in 1980 to 1.9 in 2004."
In other words, the tax burden has shifted from the top 1% to the next 9%, but certainly NOT the bottom 90%, who pay less, even relative to income, now than ever.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JustSayNoPartyDec 19, 2010
So, you think growing income disparity will work out well in the long run?
falstaffDec 19, 2010
Frankly, I think it's meaningless. The poor are getting richer, the richest are getting richer faster. Growing disparity, yes. But it's not a zero-sum game. Unless and until the poor are actually getting worse off on a real level, not just on a comparative scale, then things are, tautologically, getting better.
If one defines his entire well-being based on the luxuries of his neighbor, that's a pretty damn pathetic life, and it's entirely self-induced.
youaretooDec 19, 2010
Wait, since when are the poor getting richer? If that was the case, they wouldn't exactly be considered poor would they?
falstaffDec 19, 2010
"Poor" is defined as the bottom quintile of all wage earners. It is an indisputable fact that the bottom quintile of all wage earners in 2010 have more disposable income, even adjusted for inflation, and more luxuries than the same group at any time in this nation's history.
Quality of life is increasing, and the only people who say otherwise are trying to wage class warfare for their own gain.
JustSayNoPartyDec 19, 2010
My argument is that most are 'worse off' on a real level. Pensions have disappeared. Helth costs have gone way up. Housing had gone way up. It is now questionable that the next generation will be better off than the ones before them. You show incomes increasing. Unfortunately, they having kept pace with expenses. Thus, it is aggravating that one group has done vey well. Expenses going up for them is not an issue. But, for the rest, it's a huge issue. This article is fairly good at explaining this:
http://www.mybudget360.com/income-budget-game-over-for-the-american-middle-class-inflation-adjusted-wages-up-20-percent-in-last-20-years-while-housing-costs-are-up-56-percent-and-healthcare-costs-are-up-155-percent/
xslimDec 19, 2010
Holy crap. I logged on again for the first time in years to give this an thumbs up. Most logical thing said on this thread. Good for you!
ruarctbDec 19, 2010
The working poor ARE worse off. I live in a semi-rural and rural area... People are desperate for necessities at times. Health care has become a luxury.
kauthonDec 19, 2010
I define it as the ability to live ones life in an intelligent manor. The problem is the education system in the US is so horrible right now we are starting to form a cycle of intellectual poverty that will be hard to break.
letherialDec 19, 2010
Its a road that is currently on..these rich people are often head of large company's, they go to work on thinking how to save more money for the profits of the share holders and themselves; to do this they don't give as many raises, pay less benefits and move jobs to cheaper places...also looking to raise the price of there goods.
This is unsustainable as a country...it can sustain now, but if you think that this recession is bad, wait till the next one.
biotchDec 19, 2010
"I think it's meaningless."
We all always progress through time. Keeping our income brackets economically suitable for each other is essential for goods, services, capital, and money to traverse from the lower to upper classes and back down. If one class is so poor it can't compete or produce at all with those above it, our economic engine loses a cylinder. Even the theory behind trickle down couldnt possibly exist without that.
dbw04Dec 19, 2010
I guess I will be called a moron and an idiot as well, but Falstaff, that was the most brilliant and intelligent comment in this whole thread.....
fanclerksDec 20, 2010
I'm curious, how exactly do "the poor get richer" when they barely make enough to survive and live paycheck to paycheck? Most people don't have any money left over to put away in savings because they're just surviving. Also, you completely forgot that average income for the middle class has stagnated over the past 30 years and due to inflation, has actually gone down! How exactly is that helping the poor?
johngalt750Dec 19, 2010
Yes. Consider that even when there is a 100x difference in income the actual lifestyle isn't that different. In the old days being rich and being poor meant eating well vs. starving to death. These days, consider someone that makes $50K vs. someone that makes $5mil.
Regular guy will have:
A car
A house
Medical Care
More than enough food
Rich guy will have:
Many Cars
Many houses
Slightly better/more comfortable medical care
More than enough food
Is driving a ferrari substantially different than driving a honda (Honda will be much more reliable)? Is living in a mansion and having a summer house really so much better than having a regular house and the occasional vacation?
Frankly other than status what does money really buy you after ~$50k/year?
JustSayNoPartyDec 19, 2010
It depends what you mean by the 'old days'. Yes, many have done better as the country was on an upswing of economic growth. My fear is that we are now on the downside of growth. Meaning, the middle class will only shrink more. And, there are 'real' inequalities between rich and poor (partly due to the rich having power and definining the rules to their favor).
In general, workers in the 60's and 70's were in a better position than today. Many had pensions to look forward to and 'blue collar' workers could make an honest living.
Galt, with all that said, you do make many logical points. I appreciate that. I just think your not taking in to account some real and growing concerns.
negative4Dec 19, 2010
Socialism contributes to income disparity. It doesn't work like you think it does.
johngalt750Dec 19, 2010
Oh no we can't let facts get in the way of the liberal philosophy. The bouncing ball must be followed. /s
teksavyJan 10, 2011
http://www.nomoreclasswarfare.com/
Dreadp00lDec 19, 2010
I beg to differ. If someone (lets call him 'Robin Hood 2010') happened to catch someone from the 2% with their security down, either by scam, hack, or good old highway robbery at gunpoint, it quickly becomes Robin's damn money. Give it a few years, but this is how it's gonna go down... I'll try to be brief and keep it to one or two sentences: I hope I'm still alive to see the wealthy 2% try to stay safe from the 98% who can't feed, clothe or shelter their families because all the manufacturing and productions jobs have been sent overseas and medicare/social security collapses because nobody is paying into FICA anymore, either because nobody has a paycheck for FICA to be taken from, or the Republicans and tea-baggers have seen to it that anyone who still has an income (Corporations and members of the 2%) don't have to pay in either, so no more Social Security, and so all the folks who had been working in the health care field (the majority of whom do home health care for the elderly and disabled) are out of work and all the retirees and disabled folks lucky enough to still be alive because they do not have their life depending on their care giver and/or their medicare coverage are out on the street also because they couldn't pay their rent or mortgage without their Social Security checks and their Social Security is all they have because sometime toward the end of the last century it became fashionable for American corporations to quit offering retirement packages to employees and instead have their employees have 401k plans, which gets its value from the state of the stock market, rather than cold, hard retirement cash paid directly from the employer. For those who suffered through the poor grammar and sentence structure of that last sentence (I said I'd be done in only one or two, so I didn't lie!) and are still with me... do the math real quick. In my vision of the future, what percent of the American population is now without a means of feeding, sheltering, or clothing themselves? Survey says 98%. That's approximately 294 MILLION hungry, disenfranchised, and really pissed off folks (and there are anywhere between 3 and 10 firearms in this country for every single man woman and child depending on where you get your data). There is such a thing as the people rising up against intolerable abuses of power. America was created that way if anyone cares to remember their history.
withearsDec 20, 2010
The rich appreciate your defense. Now get your ass back to work and quit f**king around the internet all day. The toilet isn't going to clean itself!
riotdroneDec 20, 2010
Since when did the rich have the right to tell the poor what to do?
martoqDec 20, 2010
You can when they stack the f**king deck in their favor.
miklkitDec 18, 2010
Recruitment for the armed forces are down, so the trans national elites like the Carlyle Group are turning the screws on the economy once again in an effort to get more desperate kids to join up and be cannon fodder for their wars for corporate profit.
It is no coincidence that Halliburton moved their headquarters to Dubai, which has no extradition treaty with America.
Closed AccountDec 18, 2010
98% want something for nothing. 98% lack the ability to get rich so they decide they can just take it from the rich by force.
Atlas will shrugg and the 98% will starve.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
biotchDec 18, 2010
The main push for this tax hike has nothing to do with wanting something for nothing. It has to do with people wanting what is best for their nation. When you have an income disparity such as we have today, the economy can not maximize its productive potential because a large portion of the populous lacks the funding or wealth for basic necessities to be productive, ie: health care, loans, education, transportation etc... The income gap has been getting worse for 30 years now. At the cost of the upper-middle to lower income brackets. The less money these lower income brackets have, the less they can produce. This limits our entire country's production. The rich can have all the money in the world but they wont invest in anything or hire anyone who cant return a profit on that investment.
Closed AccountDec 18, 2010
"98% lack the ability"
Or opportunity....
Closed AccountDec 18, 2010
98% lack the ambition and drive.
I have started and grown business to reasonable success with as little as $100 and a whole lot of hard work. (Actually less if you don't include credit and borrowing, sometimes stealing.) I'm not sure if I could do the same now but mostly because of Government Regulation and interference. But it CAN be done.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rcook18Dec 18, 2010
Last I heard, you were busy laying people off.
Closed AccountDec 19, 2010
If you're talking to me, in some 35 years + of owning and/or managing my own business, I do not recall laying a single person off. I had to fire several from time to time but I avoided that if at all possible.
JustSayNoPartyDec 19, 2010
Lack ambition and drive in general? Or lack ambition and drive to start businesses. I think you may be underestimating 98% of this country.
oltimegaDec 19, 2010
I understand that some people do lack ambition and drive, but it is ridiculous to say that everyone could start a successful business.
laborerDec 19, 2010
Agreed. If this generation doesnt do something, there will be nothing here. This recession will be a high point among the years ahead if people let history slip past their fingers.
laborerDec 19, 2010
Atlas was fed however by the world. Every piece of nutrient was provided by the mother earth and the father sol. Who are they to say who gets to divide it up and how?? A few above a far more substantial many. Sounds like despotism to me.
bcronosDec 19, 2010
The rich worked smarter, harder and longer than than you, or their parents did or their grandparents did. I know 3 millionaires quite well. They all started with nothing, had successes and failures, and ended up rich. They didn't steal anything from anybody. People willingly gave them money for the products and services they offered.
If YOU want to steal their money, at least be honest about it and get a mask and a gun...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
oltimegaDec 19, 2010
I understand that hard work should be rewarded, but won't the rich eventually become so rich that they prevent others from succeeding and eventually they decide how the finances in the country are spent and then eventually how the country is run and ultimately a monarchy is born?
laborerDec 19, 2010
You never met a single millionaire in your life you miserable liar. You dont think I can see you? Your words paint a picture more clear than any digital camera. You realize you will never amount to anything. You realize, no one you ever met will amount to anything. This gets you down. Cheer up. If you stop supporting the very system that f**ked your parents in the first place in the 1980's, you can circumvent this problem. America doesnt have to represent corporate interest my friend. Make government your tool. It is no sin. In fact, you are righteous. The future well being of humanity lies in science and planned logistics (at the least). It lies in technology, and the idea that capitalism can only ever respond to a problem within itself only after it is too late.
Closed AccountDec 20, 2010
And THAT, my friends, n a nutshell, is precisely what is wrong in America.i
laborerDec 20, 2010
Hello, Hank Reardon. No one gives a f**k who John Gault is because he is an imaginary who is ten times more guilty of what the right says is the fault of communism, which is to say that it is naive as human nature is very flawed. People become greedy and corrupt. A few men in charge of the resources of humanity being called the best form of freedom is a farce.
Closed AccountDec 18, 2010
Well...if it is fair to say on the one hand that the rich can afford higher taxes, that they won't miss the money, isn't it equally if not more fair to say that an additional $3000 a year to the poor would be even more significant in the good it does for them? It's not all about those stinking, selfish wealthy. An additional $3000 a year to people on tight budgets is huge.
"Breaks next year to average $3,000, more for families"
http://bit.ly/e6ZC63
rcook18Dec 18, 2010
From the article:
"Most of the tax cuts have been around since early in the decade. The new law will prevent them from expiring Jan. 1. Others are new, such as the decrease in the Social Security payroll tax."
So , you think defunding Social Security is good economics for families on tight budgets?
imurphsDec 19, 2010
Um... Social Security is for retired people. If they had kids, the majority of them, if not all of them, would be out of the house (and on there way to having their own kids)... so how is that statement relevant?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
imurphsDec 19, 2010
I'm still trying to figure out how the whole digg thing works.... I point out a mistake someone makes, w/o taking any sides, and I get dugg down.... Curious... either people don't like being told they're wrong, or people refuse to accept that they believe lies? or mis-information?
Closed AccountDec 19, 2010
Among these and other considerations, the reduction in S.S. withholding is temporary.
http://bit.ly/gdK3zb
taiyoryuDec 19, 2010
Do you mean as temporary as the tax cuts that are now extended but were supposed to expire at the end of this year and will be debated again when they are about to expire again?
Closed AccountDec 19, 2010
Yeah...when WILL the 98% say "Enough is enough! Stop supporting our welfare!"
laborerDec 19, 2010
You must be one rich bitch to think thats how it works. Wasnt it just no more than 2 months ago that an article came across here showing how left states actually put out more than they took in, in federal money, whereas hard working red states were actually welfare sinks. Must suck that your entire existence is a sham, and everything that you think as truth will be seen as an ugly reality of our time in the future. Humanity will not die before it reaches prosperity and the stars for the likes of you sir.
laborerDec 19, 2010
The war between those who have power and those to whom it should belong begins. Information is always the first part of any war. Those who can expose the corruption among us will not be tolerated by Bank of America, or any corporation for that matter. Or let alone the US government!, which is very much a corporate tool, useful due to its power of legitimacy in the world. All peoples must not allow "just one more" trespass of freedom. Dont ask me what to do, as I dont know. But whatever you think might help, I say it might be wise to do, for your own sake. For your sake, for your childrens sake, and their descendants! 500 GENERATIONS DOWN! This is a turning point in human history, a culture shift if you will. Let us finish the industrial awakening that started in this country 200 years ago. it is time for the US, and the world, to enter into an era of unmatched prosperity. Of just government, and a healthy, educated society. The utopic vision created by enlightenment era forseeers can only now come into fruition, by using humanity's greatest tools, science and advanced technology. The combined wealth of the world, if cared for properly, can grow, not unlike a well maintained farm. The waste of one year becomes the nutrients of the next. Now however, I bring you to the hard part again. Say something. Say something! SAY ANYTHING! Just say it to people! Get it out there that something IMPORTANT is happening. Do you want your generation to really live like this for the rest of their lives??? Something has to give! This country has nothing for you!! NOTHING! All her wealth was STOLEN! By the ones who claimed to be so virtuous. And by that virtue, greed, was our undoing. I beseech anyone who has lasted with me this far, please, for me, for everyone, maybe your 6 month old kid, think about what kind of US will be left for us and them if nothing is done. This is not a recession. It is the new norm. Believe it. Say something.
sanmanDec 19, 2010
2% of the class get A's, while 98% don't even hand in their homework.
How dare those evil 2% work harder than the noble 98%
Those grades should be shared democratically, and not just horded by the elite 2% that try harder
So say the losers on Digg, who don't want to have to move out of their parents' basements.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JustSayNoPartyDec 19, 2010
Actually the only loser I see is you. You believe those top 2% worked oh so hard for their money? You do realize Paris Hilton is in that top 2%. Do you have proof those top 2% worked harder than the bottom 98%? Yes, they got their by good old hard work while the vast majority of the country lazed around.
sanmanDec 19, 2010
If Paris Hilton's parents want to leave her that money, it's their own damn business. It's their f**king money, not yours. If some baby's parents want to buy 2 strollers for their kid instead of just 1, or if they want to spring for deluxe pampers instead of regular, it's their own damn business. Who the f**k are you to tell them not to? You've got a better recipient in mind, huh - yourself?
Freedom of choice includes freedom of how much of one's own money to spend, and who or what to spend it on.
If I win the lottery and want to spend the rest of my life sitting on the f**king beach, I don't have to ask for your approval to do that. If I want to spend it all at the strip club, I don't need your permission. If I want to sit around and waste time on Digg, then I don't need anybody's permission for that either. Ultimately, I have to be the one to live with the consequences of my decisions, regardless of whether they're acceptable to you or not.
Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness. Dumbass.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
manicpedanticDec 19, 2010
I think it's great that your two examples of becoming extremely wealthy are (1) inherit the money from your extremely wealthy parents and (2) win the lottery...
JustSayNoPartyDec 19, 2010
It irks me that these people could care less how the money was obtained. I need to start screwing people over. F' em.
sanmanDec 19, 2010
inheriting money or winning the lottery amounts to screwing people over?? how the f**k do you figure that? if you don't have money in your pocket and somebody else does, then that automatically means they somehow screwed you over? way to turn off your brain, dummy
my point in citing those 2 examples is that ownership of private property/assets, whether monetary or otherwise, should be respected.
if I have a famous painting on my wall that grandpa left me in his will, then that's my f**king business - it's not for you to demand a cut of that for yourself by declaring yourself a charity that can't be refused
jasonwheelerDec 19, 2010
Why do people judge one another based on their income or wealth? What ever happened to a person's character and integrity?
sanmanDec 19, 2010
exactly - it's called Class Warfare - detesting somebody, or being prejudiced against them, just because of their income level or their financial means
JustSayNoPartyDec 19, 2010
What a simplistic world you live in. And no, not Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness at all costs, dumbass. Amazing how all you talk about is 'its there money'. Enron, Health South, Madoff, and all the others who screwed over most of America? You could care less. Enjoy your dream world.
bcronosDec 19, 2010
"You do realize Paris Hilton is in that top 2%. Do you have proof those top 2% worked harder than the bottom 98%?" -
LOL! Paris Hilton worked SMART, not HARD! She created a mystique that has people giving her $100k just to walk around a party for a few hours! Capitalism at it's best!
JustSayNoPartyDec 19, 2010
Yes, I'm hoping that's not the type of activity that truly earns most their money now days. If so, we really are in trouble.
sanmanDec 19, 2010
fine, we can all see Paris Hilton's "skills" as a waste of time that neither you nor I would pay for. But if there's somebody out there who wants to pay to have her in a movie, or to promote their products, that's their own business.
All your f**king Left-Wing Democrat-Supporting Hollywood elite are making use of similar "skills" but I never saw your friend Clinton turning down photo-ops or whitehouse dinners with them
JustSayNoPartyDec 19, 2010
See, you mistake me for a democrat. I'm fine with Paris making money if people want to see her (fine in terms of that is her right). I'm also all for people owning businesses and keeping most of the fruit of their labors. It's those that step on others and implement unethical pracitices for whom I have an issue. And I maintain that your seeming lack of concern that most of the country is slipping (middle class is in trouble) is short-sighted. Without a strong middle class, the whole country is in trouble.
bcronosDec 19, 2010
What do you have against the free exchange of goods and services?
JustSayNoPartyDec 19, 2010
I love the free exchange of goods and services. It that told the whold story, I'd be pleased. But, sadly, it does not.
anub1sDec 19, 2010
They don't hand in their homework because they're too busy doing the work of the 2% to do so. The 2% get good grades in this instance, because the other 98% are a part of their workforce. In order to even make this a somewhat passable comparison, one would need to claim that the class is graded on an average. The 2% brings up the average of the class to where the next 18% are deemed "passing", and the bottom 80% are STILL failing.
Want to drive up the average of the class? You need to distribute the credit more evenly. The health of the nation takes into account the wealth of the wealthy and the wealth of the poor. If the poor are getting poorer, while the rich become richer, the nation as a whole is not doing well. What needs to happen is a means of the poor to get more of this credit to bring the average of the nation up. Make sense?
If 2% of people make up 50% of the grade, your average grade is going to be quite low. No teacher would be allowed to teach for very long with a 20% passing rate either.
addiktionDec 19, 2010
Nice way to conform to the status quo sanman. You obviously don't seem to know that the rich don't have to do anything to stay rich. They can live off the interest of there money inherited, or not. The system is designed to favor the rich. That is the reason why a private corporation puts a nation into debt at the top level, and it also trickles down to you and me who pay interest for that money. Anything you earn is a printed out dollar that is owed back to the Federal Reserve (the private corporation I was talking about). Rich people don't have to pay interest on anything if they can purchase it outright.
Heres a good video series I watched yesterday which explains the situation fairly well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l37RhdFGVsM&feature=related
Sask_WebDesignDec 19, 2010
not soon enough.
DF68Dec 19, 2010
"When Will The 98% Tell The 2%, Enough Is Enough?"
When Walmart starts selling guillotines for $9.99.
sanmanDec 19, 2010
as if socialist revolutions haven't happened before, with all the attendant looting and pillaging. Then after that runs out, then they're facing slow deterioration and famine.
DF68Dec 19, 2010
Well you got to wind down the party somehow. ;0)
woodenkimonoDec 19, 2010
Maybe when we quit electing the top 2 percent into office
whoppersauceDec 19, 2010
Inb4 huge blocks of tex.... oh wait nevermind
missinglinkDec 19, 2010
Are we talking about wealth distribution or gang rape? The argument works for both...
JustSayNoPartyDec 19, 2010
"When Will The 98% Tell The 2%, Enough Is Enough?"
As soon as all the idiots living in their Trailer Parks realize that having the backs of the top 2% makes no sense. As you can see from so many posts here, there are actually people that think the top 2% got their money working hard. Well, in actuallity, it's much more of a dark picture. Many of them got thier lying and cheating. Many are wall street types who screwed the country over the last decade. Many of these are CEO's making far more money (compared to the average worker) than any other corporate leader on the planet. Many got their money through downsizing and offshoring.
So yes, the 2% can keep screwing the 98% as long as idiots are around thinking they must watch the backs of the Wealthy.
rhawk187Dec 19, 2010
When they stop working for them?
clearmanDec 19, 2010
Let me lend a little perspective, courtesy of IRS: The Top 3.1% of taxpayers pay 52% of the income taxes (and have 30% of total gross income). The Top 12.8% of taxpayers pay 74% of the income taxes (on 52% of total gross income). Finally, it appears that 50% of taxpayers pay ZERO of the income taxes.
I ask you: When will the top 3.1% tell the 50% enough is enough?
Look it up. It's based on IRS 2008 statistics at irs.gov
laborerDec 19, 2010
You know this isnt accurate data as well as I do. I support anyone reading this to do just as the above says, AND ACTUALLY CHECK IT OUT! They dont believe you'll follow up. Go beyond what he chooses to present. Yes, the rich of this country may pay that percentage of the taxes, but what is the total amount taken in in proportion to what is actually necessary to run this nation on budget. The income of the top 10% of the nation has risen year after year, to something to the tune of 250% of the average worker I believe, but it may be higher. A lot higher. So how about the people just get the wealth actually deserved from their labors, in the form of higher wages in relation to the price of goods, and in the form of more jobs and industry.
clearmanDec 19, 2010
It is too factual. Pulled directly off IRS site. How do you respond to the fact that 50% of taxpayers are not paying income tax. Who is the one here being disingenuous?
anub1sDec 19, 2010
If a group holds 50% of the wealth, how does it not make sense for them to pay 50% of the taxes?
clearmanDec 19, 2010
How does it make sense for 50% not to pay any taxes? Tell me this.
anub1sDec 19, 2010
If that 50% is not able to make a livable wage, how does it make sense for them to pay taxes? You want the poor to live on less and less while prices continue to get higher and higher? Get that 50% a livable wage and then we can start to talk about taxing them.
blitz718Dec 19, 2010
Probably never
laborerDec 19, 2010
The war between those who have power and those to whom it should belong begins. Information is always the first part of any war. Those who can expose the corruption among us will not be tolerated by Bank of America, or any corporation for that matter. Or let alone the US government!, which is very much a corporate tool, useful due to its power of legitimacy in the world. All peoples must not allow "just one more" trespass of freedom. Dont ask me what to do, as I dont know. But whatever you think might help, I say it might be wise to do, for your own sake. For your sake, for your childrens sake, and their descendants! 500 GENERATIONS DOWN! This is a turning point in human history, a culture shift if you will. Let us finish the industrial awakening that started in this country 200 years ago. it is time for the US, and the world, to enter into an era of unmatched prosperity. Of just government, and a healthy, educated society. The utopic vision created by enlightenment era forseeers can only now come into fruition, by using humanity's greatest tools, science and advanced technology. The combined wealth of the world, if cared for properly, can grow, not unlike a well maintained farm. The waste of one year becomes the nutrients of the next. Now however, I bring you to the hard part again. Say something. Say something! SAY ANYTHING! Just say it to people! Get it out there that something IMPORTANT is happening. Do you want your generation to really live like this for the rest of their lives??? Something has to give! This country has nothing for you!! NOTHING! All her wealth was STOLEN! By the ones who claimed to be so virtuous. And by that virtue, greed, was our undoing. I beseech anyone who has lasted with me this far, please, for me, for everyone, maybe your 6 month old kid, think about what kind of US will be left for us and them if nothing is done. This is not a recession. It is the new norm. Believe it. Say something.
laborerDec 19, 2010
And I want to make something clear before someone pegs me as something Im not. First off, if you think my writing sucks, you should know I have a bad tendency to not give even a slight f**k, believe it or not.
Whether you are a Ron Paul staunch, or fuzzy universal health care, anti-war hippies, you both want the SAME THING! Well I guess its not exactly the same. BUT HEY, THATS DEMOCRACY!! Or I should say, it would be if those were even legitimate ideas within our political structure. This cannot stand. Argue about HOW you want government to be ran, but damnit, at least agree that it needs to be JUST. It needs to not sell itself like some whore to sleazy corporate interest. it is the voice of a powerful majority, and a protected minority. Or at least it should be, eh?
ingxiaDec 19, 2010
Why would Obama be doing this for a few fat cats? He probably thinks this will reduce unemployment somehow, because that's the number one thing from keeping him from being re-elected.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mizuhochanDec 19, 2010
Tax should just depend on how much you earn. Earn 10k - 20k? A low(ish) amount. 20k - 30k, higher, 30k - 40k, even higher, etc.
darkmatter911Dec 19, 2010
Bulls**t. Taxes should be even in this country. Everyone should pay a flat percentage with no deductions.
laborerDec 19, 2010
Yes, because those who own business, despite the fact that their business' use the infrastructure and resources of the nation more than any individual group , should pay the EXACT same as the man who only ever rides his bike to work. You are everything that will lead to the death of this country. You think backwards, while the rest of the world thinks in the fore. That is why countries who used the most sate spending in infrastructure and education are performing very well in this recession while the US sinks. It is obvious. Capitalism is blind. You can only react at the speed of the market, and by then it is too late. A plan is always better for matters of national import, like police, health, fire, military, nasa. Capitalism should stay for industries like consumer electronics and other such goods not needed for human life. After all, profit versus human well being is a conflict of interest best stayed away from.
darkmatter911Dec 19, 2010
When will the 1/2 of this country that pay taxes tell the 1/2 that does not that enough is enough?
laborerDec 19, 2010
The war between those who have power and those to whom it should belong begins. Information is always the first part of any war. Those who can expose the corruption among us will not be tolerated by Bank of America, or any corporation for that matter. Or let alone the US government!, which is very much a corporate tool, useful due to its power of legitimacy in the world. All peoples must not allow "just one more" trespass of freedom. Dont ask me what to do, as I dont know. But whatever you think might help, I say it might be wise to do, for your own sake. For your sake, for your childrens sake, and their descendants! 500 GENERATIONS DOWN! This is a turning point in human history, a culture shift if you will. Let us finish the industrial awakening that started in this country 200 years ago. it is time for the US, and the world, to enter into an era of unmatched prosperity. Of just government, and a healthy, educated society. The utopic vision created by enlightenment era forseeers can only now come into fruition, by using humanity's greatest tools, science and advanced technology. The combined wealth of the world, if cared for properly, can grow, not unlike a well maintained farm. The waste of one year becomes the nutrients of the next. Now however, I bring you to the hard part again. Say something. Say something! SAY ANYTHING! Just say it to people! Get it out there that something IMPORTANT is happening. Do you want your generation to really live like this for the rest of their lives??? Something has to give! This country has nothing for you!! NOTHING! All her wealth was STOLEN! By the ones who claimed to be so virtuous. And by that virtue, greed, was our undoing. I beseech anyone who has lasted with me this far, please, for me, for everyone, maybe your 6 month old kid, think about what kind of US will be left for us and them if nothing is done. This is not a recession. It is the new norm. Believe it. Say something.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
laborerDec 19, 2010
And I want to make something clear before someone pegs me as something Im not. First off, if you think my writing sucks, you should know I have a bad tendency to not give even a slight f**k, believe it or not.
Whether you are a Ron Paul staunch, or fuzzy universal health care, anti-war hippies, you both want the SAME THING! Well I guess its not exactly the same. BUT HEY, THATS DEMOCRACY!! Or I should say, it would be if those were even legitimate ideas within our political structure. This cannot stand. Argue about HOW you want government to be ran, but damnit, at least agree that it needs to be JUST. It needs to not sell itself like some whore to sleazy corporate interest. it is the voice of a powerful majority, and a protected minority. Or at least it should be, eh?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Fred_WDec 19, 2010
Ok, this is funny because the Republicans didn't lower the taxes that the top 1% earners paid.
The top 1% of taxpayers accounted for 34% of all income tax revenues at the outset the Bush presidency, while the bottom 95% paid 42%. During the Bush presidency, the top 1% paid a greater and greater share of the tax burden, while the bottom 95% paid a smaller and smaller share. In 2007, the top 1% actually paid more in federal income tax (just over 40% of total income taxes paid) than the bottom 95% (just under 40%). Thus, the truth is the exact opposite of that which this story espouses to be true.
Not only this but 70% of the top 2% of earners make more than $250,000 but less than half a million dollars a year. Your local restaurants, and small businesses make up these people. People who work very hard for their money. Only 0.2% of the top 2% earn money in the millions.
danwgreDec 19, 2010
To average person on this site, if you can afford to move out of your parents basement, then you are rich enough to pay more taxes.
patrickhenryiiDec 19, 2010
The vote was not about tax cuts, but tax rates. For years, tax cuts have "expired" and tax increases are permanent. That way class warfare can continue to be waged... and the reason for that warfare? Power.
Go read Orwell's Animal farm. Then read this: http://fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/. We're in a mess until we learn that LIMITED government is the only viable option. Repeal the 16th & 17th amendments. Term limit all elected officials through the ballot box.
Limited taxation for those things that benefit all is moral. Taxation for redistributing wealth (to individuals, unions or companies) is immoral.
mrnaturalDec 19, 2010
I thought Pelosi was going to "drain the swamp" and Obama was going to eliminate the lobbyist's revolving door and influence on capitol hill. A lot of those 98 percenters should be pissed about broken campaign promises. What about eliminating earmarks?
Elect no incumbents. It's starting to work but we have a long way to go.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
alajoeDec 19, 2010
The answer is simple. When we quit electing people that are part of the 2%. I do not see that happening though because you have to be wealthy to run for office and have a chance of winning.
armedrebelDec 19, 2010
This isn't a government/politician problem, it's a Republican problem. Do not blame the Democrats for the thuggery of the Republican party.
mrnaturalDec 19, 2010
You need to open your eyes. There is not $3 trillion difference between them.
danwgreDec 19, 2010
If you want to rid the world of rich people (which I don't); taxing income will never do a damn thing. The filthy rich are that way because of assets NOT income. Bill Gates isn't one of the richest people in the world because of his salary at Microsoft. He is a multi-billionaire because of his ownership of Microsoft and it's subsequent exponential increase in value.
Whine all you want about class warfare, but income tax is a s**tty tool for equalizing wealth.
Closed AccountDec 19, 2010
thats not really what this is about
its about the bush tax cuts were to expire and the lower classes arent stable enough to have that so they need to be extended for them
then you have the republican party and a lot of people with s**t for brains who fight to also extend the cuts for people who have bounced back or never even saw a hit.
do they honestly think pro atheletes, movie stars, top models, people who are celebs making big bucks for no reason cause of it and assorted fox news hosts need to keep their taxes from going back up another 2% to what it used to be when they were making a lot less profit?
your first $250,000 woulve been exempt... so if you made $300,000, you only pay the 2% extra on the extra $50K jobs wouldnt have been lost from that
its all mindless scare tactics and false propoganda that, for some reason or another(money), was heavily promoted by fox news and other rupert murdoch media (funny how they bash george soros for not being born in america when neither was rupert murdoch)
danwgreDec 19, 2010
It IS about wealth redistribution; that is why is it progressive taxation.
ubermannDec 19, 2010
Ahh the Corporate States of America - what a dickdance.
xay90Dec 19, 2010
It's unfortunate, but I don't believe it will happen. Too much control is invested in the top brass of our political system. Plus, we have the problem of the 98% in vast consensus following what is bad for the i.e. The Tea Party Groups
phpldDec 19, 2010
So often people are conned into voting on something that actually makes it worse for the middle class. Judgement day will come. It always does. It is just a matter of when.
craigreedDec 19, 2010
Or in the case of the middle class, falling for the smear ads that make them vote for the people who make those votes in congress.
jefftsDec 19, 2010
If the Bush tax rates had been allowed to expire, all Americans would have had to pay more come January 1. That would include a 5% tax INCREASE for those in the bottom tax bracket of 10% which would have ceased to exist.
A summary of 2008 federal individual income tax data shows that the top 1% paid 38.02% of total federal income taxes, the top 5% paid 58.72% of total federal income taxes, the top 10% paid 69.94% of total federal income taxes, the top 25% paid 86.34% of total federal income taxes, the top 50% paid 97.30% of total federal income taxes and the bottom 50% only paid 2.70% of total federal income taxes.
So, how much is enough? When the top 50% are already paying almost the entire federal income tax, how much is really enough?
What most of the people on here fail to realize is that if you were to take even more from the rich (lets say 90% has novenator keeps pushing), along with costing jobs, there is a good chance that it would essentially put an end to most private charities. You know, the charities that actually do a lot more good and spend money far more wisely than our federal government.
If you hate the rich so much and if you are so for taxing them into poverty, then I challenge you to start with those within your own ideology. Hollywood is filled with the rich and they are traditionally on the left of the political spectrum. And they seem to be in agreement with the idea of higher taxes. They do exactly the same as "the rich" that you hate so much: they donate to charity to avoid paying taxes and they find other loopholes. Warren Buffet is another good example of someone on the left who is for higher taxes and who has admitted that his secretary paid more in income taxes then him. How? Because he donated to charities and because his accountant found loopholes. He chose to allow that to happen by his actions. So, petition them. Demand that they write an extra check to the government to prove that they'll put their money where their mouth is.
yibbutkeenDec 19, 2010
In a cliche' nutshell: The poor work for their money, the rich make their money work for them. I spent the first decade of my full time working career busting my butt, working the equivalent of 70 - 80 hours a week. My social life sucked (probably even worse that the stereotypical digger), but I was making a ton of money and not spending it. I invested nearly everything I was making, and it snowballed into a rather tidy sum. Now I make far more from that investment than I do working. That money also provides jobs and opportunities for many others. But the welfare class seem to think that I ought to be carrying them as well. While I was working long hours, I watched others work for a few months, and then go home and party until every last penny was gone, then they'd go back to work. Why should I be taxed more to help someone like that who has wasted all they have earned, while I saved and invested instead. I have no problem helping someone who has fallen down and needs a hand back up, that is what charity is for. But damned if I'm going to carry along some deadbeat who thinks I owe them a living because I succeeded by working hard.
zakkubinDec 19, 2010
Utter Garbage.
1- It is morally wrong to steal something from one group to give to another no matter how “good” you think the cause.
2- The media and ridiculous articles like this one write as though some additional benefit was given to just the rich and all of a sudden we have charged our credit card with an expense. In reality this extension just keeps in place the existing tax code. Which is progressive meaning the “rich” pay much much more taxes than the middle class or poor.
3- Why doesn’t anyone look at the existing data? Nearly half (49%)of the United States pays ZERO or even Collects money through federal taxes.
The top 10% pays 73% of Federal taxes! The bottom 40% actually make a profit. So we have a transfer of money from one group to another. ( Theft )
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/taxdistribution.cfm
4- It’s a economic disaster to tax the segment of society who provide the jobs. Just imagine you are one of the evil rich people and your taxes raise significantly. You are going to react in ways to minimize losses. Fire workers, stop investing, and raise prices, etc.
5- How can anyone agree with a death tax much less a 50% one!? This money has already been taxed. Imagine you save up your entire life fortune and pass it on to your kids but the government steals half. Disgusting.
6-This entire debate is a distraction. Keeping existing ( already too high ) tax brackets is NOT creating the deficit. It’s out of control spending by BOTH parties. We should look to the UK who is attempting to actually balance their budget.
The problem with Obama and perhaps democratic governments in general is Economic decisions are only made in the short term. We do what gives immediate results ( Stimulus ) we can see without thinking about the unseen negative consequences and we certainly don’t plan past a few months in the future. All that matters is what gets votes now.
For Example, cash for clunkers.
What we see:
Auto industry gets to sell more cars meaning we save a few jobs.
What we don’t see:
-People are encouraged to purchase something they don’t need and go thousands of dollars into debt.
-The vehicles that were traded in were destroyed by law. The result is the lower class( who we are trying to help? ) is disproportionately punished. They are the ones who are in the market for a < $5,000 car that is now destroyed.
- Mis-Allocation of resources is rewarded. Companies that made gas guzzlers still sold their product where they otherwise would not have. This is NOT capitalism. Some companies must be allowed to fail while others succeed.
The true "change" we as Americans should desire is drastic cuts in federal spending. I would suggest starting starting with a pull out of Afghanistan/Iraq. As far as taxes go we should strive for a truly fair system such as a Flat tax of 15% with no deductions or a national sales tax. Either would be exponentially better than our existing system.
user500Dec 19, 2010
you cant tell the 2% anything. that's why they have the guards and gates to keep you from telling them anything.
itsderek4realDec 19, 2010
98% can overwhelm any gate, if we were properly motivated. Again, the question becomes, HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE for us to become properly motivated? I am fed up enough and ready for a overthrowing of those greedy fatcats. Working for your money is fine, but stealing it from the poor is just bulls**t.
ferretmanDec 20, 2010
This is *really* what you are advocating---violence against others? Taking what you "feel" ought to be yours?
Wow.
doctornkulDec 19, 2010
Well part of the 2% actually includes hard-working Americans who are not businessmen, like my parents who are a doctor and an engineer that immigrated from India and are living the American Dream. I'm pretty sure their 4 bedroom house doesn't have a guard or a gate. If you are mad at them, I'm sure it would be quite easy to tell them to pay more taxes earned after decades of education and 10-12 hour work days.
f00gazziDec 19, 2010
Thanks for bringing up another important subject: Healthcare driven profit.
There is no socially responsible (or any other) moral ground for anybody to claim wealth in or make an industry out of health deprived citizens!
The word business and healing should never ever go in the same sentence, no matter how free you think your society is or is ought to be. A decade of education and 10-12 hour work days should in no case grant you financial profits that will put your profession into question come tax time.
How do you raise the question? Well, just look for the Aston Martin in front of the 4-bed house.
zhuieDec 20, 2010
Amen. My father came from a lower-middle class family, went to college and medical school, and now encompasses that 2% everyone on here seems to hate.
Also, I believe that a good portion of that 2% simply feels there are better, more efficient ways to give our money than to simply hand it over to the cesspool we call the federal government. The waste is enormous.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
f00gazziDec 20, 2010
You're missing the point. Nobody hates the 2% per se. However, there are quite a lot of people who dislike the way some get to the 2%, and rightfully so.
If you are making a fortune on the account off sick people you shouldn't really be surprised if you get called a "slime-bag" e.g.
NOTE: This coming from somebody who has been raised by an MD.
There was a time when a doctor was a respectable profession. Not anymore, courtesy of the healthcare deviants.
zhuieDec 20, 2010
Calling doctors "slime-bags" because of a select few would be like calling those on medicaid and food stamps "free loaders". You can't identify an entire group because of a select few.
Also, describe "fortune". enough to barely get you in the top tax bracket, or pulling in millions upon millions? Big difference. Being a doctor is still a very respectable profession, but at the end of the day, hospitals are still a business, and doctors, nurses, techs, etc. are all pieces to that business.
f00gazziDec 21, 2010
I'm not going to disagree with you with the first part of your reply for it is only logical.
However, I am going to disagree with a statement that being a doctor is a respectable profession. At least it isn't in the USA. Because of the fact that healthcare in this country is a business like any other. Therein exist many factors that simply don't comply with the moral law. It is a well documented non-secret that healthcare in USA is a profit driven industry, with doctoral profession particularly being driven by quota rather than merit.
This is only one of the inherited problems. The industry in whole (I hate having to apply the word) is as corrupt as they come, BECAUSE it is profit driven. All you have to do is look elsewhere, where things are done differently, and the realization is clear.
As a matter of fact you don't even have to go that far; as I've said earlier, just look for the Aston Martin/Benz/yougetthepicture come tax time.
laborerDec 19, 2010
!!?!! WHY DO WE FIGHT !!?!! WHETHER IT IS THROUGH MORE OR LESS GOVERNMENT, WE AT LEAST AGREE THAT EXTREME CHANGE NEEDS TO BE MADE. PLEASE LET ALL ALTERNATIVE POLITICAL VIEWS JOIN UP TO OPPOSE THE CURRENT PLATFORM. SOCIALIST, OR ANARCHO CAPITALIST, EMBRACE TO GAIN REAL CHOICE.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ethanleducDec 19, 2010
Don't type in goddamn all-caps.
Thank you.
laborerDec 19, 2010
DO NOT SQUABBLE, LEFT AND RIGHT. BATTLE ALONGSIDE ONE ANOTHER FOR THE FATE OF FREEDOM AND HUMANITY.
ferretmanDec 20, 2010
I think I saw that in a video game, didn't I?
laborerDec 20, 2010
Too bad you did not see it in reality.
yaosioDec 19, 2010
When will the 2% tell the 98% enough is enough? They earned it without anybodies help, they should keep it. In fact, the other 98% should pay more taxes because they are the ones getting all the benefits.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountDec 19, 2010
Heh, without anybody's help huh? So I suppose all the employees who do the majority of the work that makes these people their money are just lazy?
Look at someone like Steve Jobs. Yeah, he had a dynamite idea marketing personal computers to the masses. But without Steve Wozniak to design the thing itself, the factory employees to build it, the people who ship the products, and every other employee involved in the process, Steve Jobs would be just another guy.
bluefloggerDec 20, 2010
and where would those employees be without Steve Jobs?
Closed AccountDec 20, 2010
Working elsewhere.
bluefloggerDec 20, 2010
they could be working elsewhere now, right?
Closed AccountDec 20, 2010
Sure. So you agree that there's nothing special about Steve Jobs that means he "deserves" billions of dollars?
kurisitaruDec 23, 2010
The other 98% should pay more taxes because they are the ones getting all the benefits....
You've got to be kidding me with that statement...
A lot of the 98% get their paychecks cut tremendously so, yet when we apply for help we are turned down because somehow we don't make the "poor enough" category even though we can't afford something simple like health insurance. Then I'm told by laws to get it or pay a fine and I have to warp in a second job on top of the fact I'm attempting to go to school which I barely have help paying for and had to borrow money that is on an intense interest rate compounded monthly all in hopes to do what... become part of a middle class that doesn't even exist anymore? I might be lucky to scrape by and pay off the loans and NOT eat and hope the government allows me to collect food stamps which will be denied because I haven't had a child and I pull too much income with my job. Never mind the fact all the income is going to overpriced rent, bills, gas, taxes, and loans.
dotaroundDec 19, 2010
oh, it is
wkrausmannDec 19, 2010
We don't have a system where there is no upward mobility. If a person wanted to, they can climb to the top and thrive. The system in medieval Europe was one that if you were born into a class, you lived in that class. You never climbed out of it. If you were born poor, you died poor.
Not in the United States.
You can be born poor and earn a fortune and become a very wealthy person. Nothing our founders have created says that you have to live the lot you were born into.
Look at the creator of Twitter. The site has yet to become profitable, but the damn thing is worth nearly 4 BILLION DOLLARS. For creating a micro blogging website. He had nothing and can cash out and never worry about a damn thing for the rest of his life. THAT is what you can have in the United States.
No one is keeping you down. There is nothing that is keeping a person in this country in a position where they can't attain anything.
Enough is never enough. There is no such thing in the United States as too much wealth. If you earned it, it's yours. If you put a cap on what a person can earn, there is no longer any incentive to earn it. The wealthy already pay more than their fair share of the taxes in this country.
Closed AccountDec 19, 2010
"You can be born poor and earn a fortune and become a very wealthy person." - this is true, technically. Doesn't mean it happens often. Check this graph here: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515_CLASS_GRAPHIC/index_03.html
Despite your claim, only a tiny fraction of the bottom fifth reach the top fifth. You could claim everyone else just didn't want it badly enough or didn't work hard enough, but that would be simply insulting. The truth is getting to the very top requires, more than anything, very good luck.
What incentive is there to earn more money when you're a billionaire? If you have a couple billion there's not much you can't buy. Earning more money just satisfies an inflated ego, at the expense of others. Do you really want to encourage that?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
wildcat69410Dec 19, 2010
First off, upward mobility doesn't mean moving from the bottom fifth to the top fifth. Upward mobility simply means improving quality of life. The process isn't instantaneous, nor is it accurately represented by that NYTimes graph. Poorest fifths and richest fifths are relative terms. A better analysis might involve what constituted the poorest fifth of society in 1988 versus 1998.
Furthermore, upward mobility exists more as a generational phenomenon rather than an individual one. Your life should be better than your parents' lives, as their lives were before theirs, and so on. Not that you can instantly vault yourself from the bottom rung to the top rung. There's a lot more than hard work involved, but it's not mere "luck". It's education, technology, new job markets, etc.
Examples involving billionaires are straw man arguments. Not every wealthy person hit by higher taxes live on endless sums of money. And since when did earning more money come at the expense of others? In earning more, you tend to spend more. More money spent pays for more goods, more jobs, more wages. It's not as if these people earn money by taking it away from the poor.
Even if they didn't spend as much as someone might in a lower class, that doesn't give the government the right to redistribute income based solely on economic utility. Property rights are valuable in any democratic republic, and must be carefully guarded. Economic utility, while important, should never be the final arbiter in any discussion on taxes.
Closed AccountDec 19, 2010
"First off, upward mobility doesn't mean moving from the bottom fifth to the top fifth."
I was specifically responding to this quote: "You can be born poor and earn a fortune and become a very wealthy person." Many people do labor under the false assumption that a pauper can (literally) become a millionaire in this country if they want it badly enough, which just isn't true for the vast majority of people.
"Upward mobility simply means improving quality of life." Actually economic mobility refers specifically to income and social class. And income level has a great impact on one's quality of life. These people's real income hasn't gone up in decades, and the prices of essentials such as food, transportation, and education haven't gone down, so unless you don't see those affecting one's quality of life then no, the poor aren't seeing their lives get much better.
That graph shows that no one except the top fifth has as many people stay in their own group, and except for the highest group (which can't move up), and the second-highest group, more people move up than go down. Clearly when you're at the bottom, it's much harder to move up than when you start off.
"since when did earning more money come at the expense of others?" Since forever, really. The minimum wage has always been less than the cost of living, requiring poor people to overwork themselves. If the minimum wage were higher we'd all be earning less in terms of real income, because everything would be more expensive.
"Not every wealthy person hit by higher taxes live on endless sums of money." Not saying they are, which is why tax rates should be reasonable. I believe the truly ultra-rich should have a much higher tax rate, like they do in Europe. (millionaires and billionaires pay over 50% in some countries)
" In earning more, you tend to spend more. More money spent pays for more goods, more jobs, more wages." High earners tend to save more than low earners. Low earners spend almost every dollar they earn, which is better for the economy. Giving a thousand dollars to a low earner is better for the economy than giving the same amount to a high earner.
"Property rights are valuable in any democratic republic, and must be carefully guarded." Democratic governments ignore property rights for the greater good all the time. Eminent domain is used constantly to improve areas or build roads. The civil rights act says you can't forbid certain people from entering your place of business. City codes require you to keep your property looking nice, etc. Society is perfectly ok with violating property rights for the greater good, to a reasonable extent.
wildcat69410Dec 19, 2010
"I was specifically responding to this quote: "You can be born poor and earn a fortune and become a very wealthy person." Many people do labor under the false assumption that a pauper can (literally) become a millionaire in this country if they want it badly enough, which just isn't true for the vast majority of people."
Few, if any, Americans actually believe that if they work hard they'll become a millionaire. That's an exaggeration. Americans do believe that if they work hard, their quality of life (or the quality of life of their children) will improve. Data generally supports that claim.
"Actually economic mobility refers specifically to income and social class. And income level has a great impact on one's quality of life. These people's real income hasn't gone up in decades, and the prices of essentials such as food, transportation, and education haven't gone down, so unless you don't see those affecting one's quality of life then no, the poor aren't seeing their lives get much better."
What information supports your claim that "real income hasn't gone up in decades"? Of course it has. Median income growth over the past 40 years has far outstripped inflation in the same time period. A growth in real wages means food, transportation, and education have all become less expensive. Education, in particular, has become more attainable through an expansion of financial aid programs at colleges and universities around the country.
"That graph shows that no one except the top fifth has as many people stay in their own group, and except for the highest group (which can't move up), and the second-highest group, more people move up than go down. Clearly when you're at the bottom, it's much harder to move up than when you start off."
No one ever said that socioeconomic mobility was easy. Of course some classes will have more trouble than others, but note how in every fifth, the majority of people either stay where they are or advance. The people who fail to maintain the status quo or advance are the minority, not the majority. Upward mobility exists.
"Since forever, really. The minimum wage has always been less than the cost of living, requiring poor people to overwork themselves. If the minimum wage were higher we'd all be earning less in terms of real income, because everything would be more expensive."
You miss my point. Yes, artificially raising wages (as the minimum wage does) hurts everybody via inflation. But, people earning more money through natural market mechanisms (by increasing their productivity) hurt no one.
"Not saying they are, which is why tax rates should be reasonable. I believe the truly ultra-rich should have a much higher tax rate, like they do in Europe. (millionaires and billionaires pay over 50% in some countries)"
Reasonable tax levels certainly do exist. I'm not sure if 50% is fair, even for the super rich, but on a basic level a progressive tax is a workable system. At some level though, that progressive tax become punitive and hurts economic growth. Where is that line?
"High earners tend to save more than low earners. Low earners spend almost every dollar they earn, which is better for the economy. Giving a thousand dollars to a low earner is better for the economy than giving the same amount to a high earner."
First off, saving is vital for any functioning economy. The more people save, the more deposits banks have to loan out, and the more credit can be extended to private businesses. In some way, almost all savings eventually becomes investment or consumption spending through our banking system. Secondly, just because I might spend more money than you do doesn't mean I'm entitled to the money YOU make. Greater economic utility is a poor justification for aggressive wealth redistribution. Besides, outside of the "ultra rich" category, excessive redistribution hurts economic productivity (there's less of an incentive to work after a certain point).
"Democratic governments ignore property rights for the greater good all the time. Eminent domain is used constantly to improve areas or build roads. The civil rights act says you can't forbid certain people from entering your place of business. City codes require you to keep your property looking nice, etc. Society is perfectly ok with violating property rights for the greater good, to a reasonable extent."
To a reasonable extent is a very important qualifier. Eminent domain, in particular, has been challenged in recent years in America's court system for unfairly violating individual property rights. Taking money from one individual and giving it to another based solely on the principle of redistributive wealth isn't a great enough good to offset its costs. Especially when the greater public good seems conspicuously limited to the people receiving the redistributed wealth.
f00gazziDec 19, 2010
Now back to real life. There are a lot of issues keeping people down every day, just ask black people or anybody who has been wronged by corrupt society.
Also, there are more important "phenomenons" out there than money that drive people, and a silly salary cap won't stop them either. By making it all money driven you create an environment where it is OK to compromise your rather unadulterated self and step over dead bodies to climb to the top, which it really isn't.
Remember, money is not real; all America ever wanted is fair game. And it's not socialism either, call it accountabilityism.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
slevit1Dec 20, 2010
Did you seriously just bring race into this? Black people were wronged by a corrupt society? No, they most certainly were not. If many of them spent as long looking for a job as they did looking for handouts, they wouldn't be in poverty. Reverse discrimination is rampant and opportunities for minority (many of them being unfair opportunities) are all over the place. If they remain in poverty, it's their own damn fault.
f00gazziDec 20, 2010
Wow, that's a lot of pent up racial rage there buddy.
Having said: "Black people were wronged by a corrupt society? No, they most certainly were not", and furthermore describing 400 years of slavery as "looking for handouts" you have no place in any argument involving a sane person.
As one white guy to another, all I can say to you is - go f00ck yourself you god damn bigot. And have some fries with it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountDec 19, 2010
When you're ultra-rich the marginal utility of each dollar approaches zero. Meaning if you have a six billion dollars, having another billion dollars doesn't improve your lifestyle at all. More money is just a larger number on a sheet of paper at that point.
However if that billion was spread among a million low-income people, it could really help them out. An extra thousand dollars to a poor person is better for them than an extra billion dollars is for a billionaire.
Higher taxes on the rich isn't "punishing" them for being successful, because punishments usually involve actually harming someone. By taking a little more money from the rich you're not hurting them at all, not in any tangible way.
You might argue that it's "just wrong" to take someone's money against their will. But for these ultra-rich to sit on a mountain of wealth they could never hope to spend, while millions in this country are worried about losing their homes (or already have!), strikes me as downright villainous.
slevit1Dec 20, 2010
First off, you're missing the point entirely. If someone has 6 billion dollars, it's THEIR 6 billion dollars. You don't get to have some of it just because you don't think they need it. People like you, who think that other people's money should just be given to them, are part of what's making this country suck. If you want more money, get a better job. But you most certainly are not entitled to just be given anyone else's money, no matter how much they have or how little you have.
Second, the "rich" people they're talking about are not really rich people at all. The people making billions or millions a year are a very small minority. Somehow, people making over $250,000 have been termed "rich," when they most certainly are not. If you take another 10% away from them, it can make a substantial difference in the way they live.
juliochavezDec 20, 2010
Nobody is taking anybody's money. Income for rich people consists of interest on very low risk financial instruments. They are not "working hard" to earn their money, or "rising above". They are making 2% interest on ridiculous sums. This is not wealth creation. It is further expanding and weakening the fragile, upside down pyramid.
Nobody wants to take the rich people's money, whether they worked for it or not. We just want them to benefit slightly less by letting their money sit in the bank. It would benefit the nation greatly but in some douchebag's minds, that's not the American way.
Closed AccountDec 20, 2010
So logically there should be no taxes at all, right?
Graduated taxes are all about paying your fair share. The poor pay less of their income because they can't afford to lose much. The rich pay more because losing a big chunk of their income has less of an impact on their quality of life.
sw0rdzDec 19, 2010
Its **** like this that makes me want to take my college degree and get the **** out of this country!! If my government isn't willing to help me out, why should I help the nation they govern out?! I'm so glad I didn't join the military, because I would regret fighting for government that does this ****! I really hope that another civil movement breaks out! I don't think the government is going to learn till something big happens! If it doesn't, our government is going to kill America. The very reason America was founded may be the reason it dies. People, including myself, may just move to nation that doesn't have this political biased ****!
ferretmanDec 20, 2010
Why should the government help you? If it's not in the Constitution; they shouldn't be doing it.
Want it different? Change the Constitution.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sw0rdzDec 20, 2010
I guess you're right! Why are they helping the 2% with tax breaks?! They're pretty much ****ing the 98%. What is happening to the U.S Government now? I've lost all and any patriotism for the U.S.....