Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So here in the US are the chants of "tax the rich" to pay for our utopia of welfare entitlements and higher government debts.
Well take a look at Venezuela who did declare a war against the rich and the outcome. The rich pulled a "John Galt" and left and now the country is awash in new immigrants. Venezuela is lenient on immigration and has a wealth of social programs. These new immigrants are not professionals but many say life in Venezuela is better than where they came from.
"Venezuela is in the throes of an immigration puzzle. While large numbers of the middle class head for the exits, hundreds of thousands of foreign merchants and laborers have put down stakes here in recent years, complicating the portrait of how a brain drain unfolds.
The opposing tides reflect the increasingly polarized nature of the country. The government of President Hugo Chávez, who recently declared an “economic war” against the “bourgeoisie,” has expropriated 207 private businesses this year — including banks, cattle ranches and housing developments, according to Conindustria, a Venezuelan industrial association — prompting many to seek safer havens elsewhere."
Not that I'm rich by any means.......but if this happens to America where is there to go, that is better than America. Just the thought of living in another country, is not even a concept, I want to consider.
I say we must fight to get people elected that will be for America, and the People that work every day to support their OWN families, that are not looking for a Government hand out.
Venezuela..what a "war against the rich" will produce
Compared to America that has a two decade long "war on poverty", that now seems to mean a "war on the poor" as they are the ones in poverty.
Look around here, if this place is any indication by some of the posts I've seen, most people making less than 16,000 a year should be taken out and have a bullet put in their skull for sucking the life out of America.
Of course since the people elected their President not once, not twice, but thrice, apparently the people of Venezuela believe that the rich were too influenced to foreign nations, like us for instance.
I'm sure in time we will probably topple their democracy to restore the rich to their proper place.
You got that quite wrong. I am not bitter at all, but I care a lot about justice, thus I write a lot on these topics.
I could earn much more than I do, but I don't because I don't need more money than I have and thus don't waste myself on work beyond the necessary.
Really?? Well if you care so much about social justice stop working only enough to support your means. Work overtime and also take on extra jobs so you can give to those you feel need it. Or are you hypocritical??
On the contrary, we are moving closer to being a third-world country than farther away, as a result of income inequality and distribution. If the Republicans are succesful with their plans, the middle class will continue to shrink at a faster rate, and the income of the wealthy increases. Basically, the rich become richer and the poor/middle class become poorer. It isn't about hard work alone although that is a common talking point used by Conservatives to further their agenda (keeping the rich, rich). Please read the articles that I've quoted from. People continue to vote against their interest. Income inequality/distribution is the elephant in the room (no pun intended). This is not about being bitter. I am not struggling financially and would like to keep it that way.
Quote:
From World War II until 1976, considered by many as the "golden years" for the U.S. economy, the top 10 percent of the population took home less than a third of the income generated by the private economy. But since then, according to Saez and Piketty, virtually all of the benefits of economic growth have gone to households that, in today's terms, earn more than $110,000 a year.
Even within that top "decile," the distribution is remarkably skewed. By 2007, the top 1 percent of households took home 23 percent of the national income after a 15-year run in which they captured more than half - yes, you read that right, more than half - of the country's economic growth. As Tim Noah noted recently in a wonderful series of articles in Slate, that's the kind of income distribution you'd associate with a banana republic or a sub-Saharan kleptocracy, not the world's oldest democracy and wealthiest market economy.
Quote:
There are moral and political reasons for caring about this dramatic skewing of income, which in the real world leads to a similar skewing of opportunity, social standing and political power. But there is also an important economic reason: Too much inequality, just like too little, appears to reduce global competitiveness and long-term growth, at least in developed countries like ours.
Quote:
The biggest problem with runaway inequality, however, is that it undermines the unity of purpose necessary for any firm, or any nation, to thrive. People don't work hard, take risks and make sacrifices if they think the rewards will all flow to others. Conservative Republicans use this argument all the time in trying to justify lower tax rates for wealthy earners and investors, but they chose to ignore it when it comes to the incomes of everyone else.
It's no coincidence that polarization of income distribution in the United States coincides with a polarization of the political process. Just as income inequality has eroded any sense that we are all in this together, it has also eroded the political consensus necessary for effective government. There can be no better proof of that proposition than the current election cycle, in which the last of the moderates are being driven from the political process and the most likely prospect is for years of ideological warfare and political gridlock.
Political candidates may not be talking about income inequality during this election, but it is the unspoken issue that underlies all the others. Without a sense of shared prosperity, there can be no prosperity. And given the realities of global capitalism, with its booms and busts and winner-take-all dynamic, that will require more government involvement in the economy, not less.
Under Republican administrations, real income growth for the lower- and middle-classes has consistently lagged well behind the income growth rate for the rich—and well behind the income growth rate for the lower and middle classes themselves under Democratic administrations.
So here in the US are the chants of "tax the rich" to pay for our utopia of welfare entitlements and higher government debts.
Well take a look at Venezuela who did declare a war against the rich and the outcome. The rich pulled a "John Galt" and left and now the country is awash in new immigrants. Venezuela is lenient on immigration and has a wealth of social programs. These new immigrants are not professionals but many say life in Venezuela is better than where they came from.
"Venezuela is in the throes of an immigration puzzle. While large numbers of the middle class head for the exits, hundreds of thousands of foreign merchants and laborers have put down stakes here in recent years, complicating the portrait of how a brain drain unfolds.
The opposing tides reflect the increasingly polarized nature of the country. The government of President Hugo Chávez, who recently declared an “economic war” against the “bourgeoisie,” has expropriated 207 private businesses this year — including banks, cattle ranches and housing developments, according to Conindustria, a Venezuelan industrial association — prompting many to seek safer havens elsewhere."
You think not renewing an unpaid-for 3% tax cut for the rich is equivalent to expropriating private businesses?
Debt crisis. Well, that's one area the US can compete in Germany doesn't bail out troubled EU countries because those expect it, but because it has to due to the common currency and other dependencies.
You don't know what the word justice means. If a justice is not just, it cannot be called justice to begin with.
The people, i.e. Europeans, who went to South America centuries ago simply took and/or stole the land. Why should the masses of people in Brazil and elsewhere pay large sums of money now to buy land from the descendants of the thieves?
Brazil's new president is hard to label. She is also capitalist at the same time, willing to sell out her country to big corporations. Quite similar to Lula actually.
Shareholders are definitely not people like me. I don't like interest. I told my bank to cancel the savings account that they had opened without asking me. Why? Because I reject interest payments.
Really?? Well if you care so much about social justice stop working only enough to support your means. Work overtime and also take on extra jobs so you can give to those you feel need it. Or are you hypocritical??
What kind of logic is that? By not working twice as much as I could, I leave more work for others in my profession.
I don't think so. And what's wrong with it anyway? What's better? One person working a whole lot, earning more than he needs while someone else is unemployed, or two people working normal or less, both earning enough to make a living?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No Other Country Greater Than America
Germany doesn't bail out troubled EU countries because those expect it, but because it has to due to the common currency and other dependencies. 
