T1B

Killian wrote: But they likely didn't attend a directional college, either.

Dinsdale wrote:Anyone who thinks it's a revenue problem rather than a spending problem should probably just STFU, since it's a clear indication of stupidity.

Goober McTuber wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:Anyone who thinks it's a revenue problem rather than a spending problem should probably just STFU, since it's a clear indication of stupidity.

Anyone who doesn't think that it's both might want to put a cork in it.

Goober McTuber wrote:So do you feel that it’s in the best interests of this country that our wealth is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a very small minority?

Dinsdale wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:Anyone who thinks it's a revenue problem rather than a spending problem should probably just STFU, since it's a clear indication of stupidity.

Anyone who doesn't think that it's both might want to put a cork in it.

^^^ Clear indication of stupidity.

What part of "taxing corporations and the highest income earners at 100% doesn't even dent the deficit" did you not understand?

Federal revenues are extremely high.

As I've very clearly shown, raising revenues isn't going to do jack fucking shit. There isn't enough money around to tax to make up for the outrageous spending.

You could liquidate every asset of every billionaire and throw it in the federal coffers, and guess what? It still doesn't cover one year's deficit.

All these proposed revenue-increasing measures bandied about have been a nice ploy by the idiots on the Hill to create a smokescreen to continue the class warfare and mask the real problem, which is SPENDING. Since the revenue increases they're talking about add up to... absolutely nothing in the overall picture.

It ain't rocket surgery, it's some pretty freaking basic math... but for some reason, a lot of idiots seem to be lapping their drivel up like good little Sheeple.

War Wagon wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:So do you feel that it’s in the best interests of this country that our wealth is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a very small minority?

"our wealth" ??? You speak of wealth like it was community property like sunshine.

Was "our wealth" left lying about where some lucky folks could just walk away with it?

Or is it more likely than you'd like to redistribute "our wealth" by whatever means necessary?

Goober McTuber wrote:

War Wagon wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:So do you feel that it’s in the best interests of this country that our wealth is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a very small minority?

"our wealth" ??? You speak of wealth like it was community property like sunshine.

Was "our wealth" left lying about where some lucky folks could just walk away with it?

Or is it more likely than you'd like to redistribute "our wealth" by whatever means necessary?

You do realize that as you squeeze more and more out of the middle and lower classes and siphon it into the bank accounts of the rich, the people getting squeezed have less and less to spend on the goods the rich people are producing. Also, it’s been pretty well established that when you let the wealthy keep more of their money, they don’t create more jobs. They create larger bank accounts.

Killian wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

War Wagon wrote:"our wealth" ??? You speak of wealth like it was community property like sunshine.

Was "our wealth" left lying about where some lucky folks could just walk away with it?

Or is it more likely than you'd like to redistribute "our wealth" by whatever means necessary?

You do realize that as you squeeze more and more out of the middle and lower classes and siphon it into the bank accounts of the rich, the people getting squeezed have less and less to spend on the goods the rich people are producing. Also, it’s been pretty well established that when you let the wealthy keep more of their money, they don’t create more jobs. They create larger bank accounts.

Wait a second, so the taxes that are being "squeezed" out of the middle and lower classes are going to "siphon into the bank accounts of the rich?"

Dinsdale wrote:
Federal revenues are extremely high.

Increasing inequality in the United States has long been attributed to unstoppable market forces. In fact, as Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson show, it is the direct result of congressional policies that have consciously -- and sometimes inadvertently -- skewed the playing field toward the rich.

The U.S. economy appears to be coming apart at the seams. Unemployment remains at nearly ten percent, the highest level in almost 30 years; foreclosures have forced millions of Americans out of their homes; and real incomes have fallen faster and further than at any time since the Great Depression. Many of those laid off fear that the jobs they have lost -- the secure, often unionized, industrial jobs that provided wealth, security, and opportunity -- will never return. They are probably right.

And yet a curious thing has happened in the midst of all this misery. The wealthiest Americans, among them presumably the very titans of global finance whose misadventures brought about the financial meltdown, got richer. And not just a little bit richer; a lot richer. In 2009, the average income of the top five percent of earners went up, while on average everyone else's income went down. This was not an anomaly but rather a continuation of a 40-year trend of ballooning incomes at the very top and stagnant incomes in the middle and at the bottom. The share of total income going to the top one percent has increased from roughly eight percent in the 1960s to more than 20 percent today.

This is what the political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson call the "winner-take-all economy." It is not a picture of a healthy society. Such a level of economic inequality, not seen in the United States since the eve of the Great Depression, bespeaks a political economy in which the financial rewards are increasingly concentrated among a tiny elite and whose risks are borne by an increasingly exposed and unprotected middle class. Income inequality in the United States is higher than in any other advanced industrial democracy and by conventional measures comparable to that in countries such as Ghana, Nicaragua, and Turkmenistan. It breeds political polarization, mistrust, and resentment between the haves and the have-nots and tends to distort the workings of a democratic political system in which money increasingly confers political voice and power.

It is generally presumed that economic forces alone are responsible for this astonishing concentration of wealth. Technological changes, particularly the information revolution, have transformed the economy, making workers more productive and placing a premium on intellectual, rather than manual, labor. Simultaneously, the rise of global markets -- itself accelerated by information technology -- has hollowed out the once dominant U.S. manufacturing sector and reoriented the U.S. economy toward the service sector. The service economy also rewards the educated, with high-paying professional jobs in finance, health care, and information technology. At the low end, however, jobs in the service economy are concentrated in retail sales and entertainment, where salaries are low, unions are weak, and workers are expendable.
Champions of globalization portray these developments as the natural consequences of market forces, which they believe are not only benevolent (because they increase aggregate wealth through trade and make all kinds of goods cheaper to consume) but also unstoppable. Skeptics of globalization, on the other hand, emphasize the distributional consequences of these trends, which tend to confer tremendous benefits on a highly educated and highly skilled elite while leaving other workers behind. But neither side in this debate has bothered to question Washington's primary role in creating the growing inequality in the United States.

IT'S THE GOVERNMENT, STUPID

Hacker and Pierson refreshingly break free from the conceit that skyrocketing inequality is a natural consequence of market forces and argue instead that it is the result of public policies that have concentrated and amplified the effects of the economic transformation and directed its gains exclusively toward the wealthy. Since the late 1970s, a number of important policy changes have tilted the economic playing field toward the rich. Congress has cut tax rates on high incomes repeatedly and has relaxed the tax treatment of capital gains and other investment income, resulting in windfall profits for the wealthiest Americans.

Labor policies have made it harder for unions to organize workers and provide a countervailing force to the growing power of business; corporate governance policies have enabled corporations to lavish extravagant pay on their top executives regardless of their companies' performance; and the deregulation of financial markets has allowed banks and other financial institutions to create ever more Byzantine financial instruments that further enrich wealthy managers and investors while exposing homeowners and pensioners to ruinous risks.

In some cases, these policy changes originated on Capitol Hill: the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush tax cuts, for example, and the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, a repeal that dismantled the firewall between banks and investment companies and allowed the creation of powerful and reckless financial behemoths such as Citigroup, were approved by Congress, generally with bipartisan support. However, other policy shifts occurred gradually and imperceptibly.

Killian wrote:I'm asking you for your opinion

88 wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:There's more here:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ ... ing-richer

Here is some more from your article, which you forgot to C&P:

The article in your link describing the work of two douchebags who have no answer other than WORKERS UNITE!!!! wrote:Like many social critics, Hacker and Pierson are long on diagnosis and rather short on treatment. Not surprisingly, they emphasize rebuilding the organizational capacity of the middle and working classes as the place to start repairing the infrastructure of American politics, neither a terribly precise prescription nor a route to a quick cure.

Goober McTuber wrote:

Killian wrote:I'm asking you for your opinion

In my opinion, you are just being obtuse. So are you disputing the fact that over the past 20 years middle class income has stagnated while the wealthiest have gotten an even larger piece of the pie? You have never answered that question.

88 wrote: sixty-year period during which the general economy of the United States has been stagnant?

Go Coogs' wrote: My wife represents today's government.

Go Coogs' wrote:I think Killian and Dins hit it on the head.

Taxing 50% of the wealthy won't keep them from hiding their money through loopholes and subsidies. Like Killian said, they're wealthy for a reason.

And taxing more or making sure the wealthy pay what they're supposed to pay isn't really addressing the source of the problem.

For example, at my job we have a pump that conituously cavitates because the temperature of the sour water running through that pump is causing the organics to flash off. Operators have put some cooling jackets and running water on the pump head to cool it down, but that is just to keep the sour water from flashing off at the pump. The source of the high temperature is coming from an inefficient cooling fan (condenser). It's way too small and doesn't cool enough; therefore, a long term fix is to install a bigger and more efficient condenser.

Taxing more represents the running water to cool the pump, whereas the inefficient condenser represents our irresponsible government, domestic policies, and uncontrolled spending. Has anyone here ever received a huge bump in pay (like 50-100%), but at the same time your spending went up and you didn't save as much as you thought you were going to? Yeah, that happens A LOT. My wife represents today's government.

Mikey wrote:So, what you're saying is that if you double the size of the government there should be enough cooling available to keep the economy running without cavitation?

BTW, maybe you should find a way to increase the suction pressure at the pump, or maybe put a VFD on it and slow it down.

Go Coogs' wrote: Increasing the suction/head pressure means increasing the vessel pressure which would...

Killian wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

Killian wrote:I'm asking you for your opinion

In my opinion, you are just being obtuse. So are you disputing the fact that over the past 20 years middle class income has stagnated while the wealthiest have gotten an even larger piece of the pie? You have never answered that question.

So you've resorted to IKYABWAI?

Goober McTuber wrote: I remember IMing you about something you linked from a law office website several years ago. I thought that you worked at that law office and was trying to give you a heads up, but now that I look back at the IMs, I see that you mentioned you weren’t an attorney and that wasn’t your website.

88 wrote:Personally, I think all federal income taxes should be abolished. No federal income tax was levied in this country until 1861 (by the way, the first income tax in the United States was a flat tax). And it took the Sixteenth Amendment (ratified in 1913) to get us pointed toward the tax toilet we are swirling in now.

I think a consumption tax would be much fairer, especially one that exempts those who live below or near the poverty line from paying any taxes on the goods/services they consume. There is a plan out there called The Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer), which uses prebates to assure that those with low incomes do not pay any taxes. This plan would be progressive. Those who consume the most goods/services would pay the most taxes (and you would presume the wealthiest 1% would consume the most goods/services). And those who consume the least goods/services would pay the least taxes (and the prebate would assure that the poorest pay no taxes). No more loopholes or deductions. No more tax returns to file. But hey, that is just me.

Goober McTuber wrote:.

Who is this Justin Bieber?

88 wrote:The other thing I would say is if you are concerned about Americans cheating the system insofar as The Fair Tax is concerned, you also should be concerned about those same Americans cheating the IRS under the current system. Something to think about.

Killian wrote:So again, in your own words, you can't give an example. You have to cite others work to back up your point? I'm asking you for your opinion, not the regurgitated article of someone you never met who is making sweeping statements while letting important details fall to the way side.

I'm assuming you would call yourself "middle class". How are you being squeezed? Stagnant income for you causing you a tough time to make ends meet? Loss of a job due to outsourcing? Costs of goods in your area have risen to the point where you can no longer purchase your need based items?