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.
Guarnateed income for nothig is what frove Grece to where they are now and is driving this sountry right behind. The notion that one isw entitled to a certai income and does not have to contribute to wealth, Too many are consumer of wealth created by fewer and fewer.The it gotten to theoint that thery creat debt that they expect others to pay.That is sign of a filig sysstem beyond individual failure.That is what has been coming and we are seeig now.
Some people cannot be reasoned with. We've seen it before. We need to tax the rich more. It's pretty simple. While services for the poor and the middle classes are being cut, the rich are seeing their taxes lowered as well. Clearly, part of the reason is because we subsidize the rich. We shoot ourselves in the foot in order for the rich to become richer.
We also support ridiculous anti-union bills. Unions are mostly for the workers interest. My dad was a teacher. If it weren't for the union, we would not be able to afford a middle income lifestyle in California.
You think that taxes are out of control when they are have been steadily decreasing over the past half century, particularly for the wealthiest citizens. I don't think there's much more to discuss with you.
Some people cannot be reasoned with. We've seen it before. We need to tax the rich more. It's pretty simple. While services for the poor and the middle classes are being cut, the rich are seeing their taxes lowered as well. Clearly, part of the reason is because we subsidize the rich. We shoot ourselves in the foot in order for the rich to become richer.
We also support ridiculous anti-union bills. Unions are mostly for the workers interest. My dad was a teacher. If it weren't for the union, we would not be able to afford a middle income lifestyle in California.
But unions, when too big and too influential, can be very harmful for an economy. Look at the automobile industry and UAW...
In America, wealth is power. When the wealthy make the rules, they are able to mold the system in a way which protects their position and makes it harder for everyone else to increase their station, effective negating the ideal of opportunity many of us here believe in.
Those with money have always have the most power. That will never change and has always been the rule. It doesn't matter if the top 1% has 30% of the wealth or 70%.
We should focus on the equality of opportunity. Not equality of outcomes.
Americans today have an unlimited opportunity and millions have succeeded in improving their financial position and taking care of themselves. And the amount of money Al Gore has will not change most people's opportunity.
You think that taxes are out of control when they are have been steadily decreasing over the past half century, particularly for the wealthiest citizens. I don't think there's much more to discuss with you.
That's fine. Yes, taxes are totally out of control.
Our federal government is bloated, wasteful and should be drastically cut.
Interesting how you always choose to bring up celebrities and athletes, as opposed to the corporate and financial elite, who exist in far greater numbers and exert far greater control over the economy and the interests of Washington. Who is more powerful, Dirk Nowitzki or Mark Cuban? Tom Cruise or Jeffrey Bewkes?
The tax code doesnt discriminate between the corporate elite, and athletes.. They both pay the same tax rates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunks_galore
you think that taxes are out of control when they are have been steadily decreasing over the past half century, particularly for the wealthiest citizens. I don't think there's much more to discuss with you.
Boy that sounded good, except for the fast its just plain wrong...
All your article does is throw out a bunch of numbers without explaining anything.
So how does this work? How does income disparity lead to depression?
And on the same thought - does equality of income lead to prosperity for all? If so, what would that income be and how do we get there?
How does this work? How does income disparity lead to depression? Well, income disparity is an observation that the wealth of society or its capital is being concentrated in fewer hands. The capitalist system is kind of like NCAA March madness which starts out with a field of 64 teams from schools of various size and abilities and compettition eliminates all but 4 teams that get to play for the NCAA championship. The odds of any particular team being in the Final 4 is small, the average player usually ends up at home watching the Final 4 play at home just like the rest of us.
The American ecomony is like the NCAA basketball tourneiment, How many American companies used to make cars or passenger airplanes, where are the Studebackers, Packards, Mercurys, Plymouths, Pontiacs, Oldsmobiles? What about Douglas, Lockheed or Convair passenger planes? Ever wonder what happened to all those people who used to work at these once famous American firms? The concentration of wealth in fewer hands is a symptom of there being fewer large firms with less owners and frankly the fact that there are fewer firms means there is less opportunity to share in the wealth generated by American industry. We are told that small business generate the jobs but what we are not told is most of the wealth is generated by the large well capitalized companies. So more and more American workers are being forced to subsist on a smaller share of the nations wealth. Also we are starting to see the creation of a surplus labor pool. The need of business to increase the amount of capital and the saturation of our market place means that there is an increasing number of unnecessary workers. Hiring them would lead to a greater supply of products that would sit in inventories and depress markets reducing prices (deflation). This explains why businesses are still laying off and not hiring if they can help it. The problem in our construction industry is illustrative. Unemployment is over 16% but our residential and comercial real estate markets are choaked with foreclosures and unsold properties. The last thing this nation needs is to build more housing or retail developments. In fact it might be wise to torch some of the properties to get these properties off the market. So I hope I have answered the question of how the evolution of a capitallist ecomony can lead to a depressed economy for a majority of its participants and why it might be an inherent flaw in the system. The last time we were in this sort of economic bind it took a global confligration that eliminated a lot of America's competitors, was a reason for the mother of all stimulous and deficit spending totaling more 200% of the American GNP and stimulated the development of whole new technologies and industries. Igniting a World War would be a lot more dangerous today than in 1940-1, Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, Hitler or Hirohito didn't have nuclear weapons we and our rivals do.
How does this work? How does income disparity lead to depression? Well, income disparity is an observation that the wealth of society or its capital is being concentrated in fewer hands.
Government spending on welfare programs is driving that outcome. The dependent class is outbreeding those who are forced to pay taxes to support them by a rate of 3 to 1. Such an exponential increase in the dependent class causes the proportion of those who are 'wealthy' to appear much smaller in comparison, making it 'appear' that wealth is being concentrated in fewer hands. The reality is that the growth of the dependent class, fueled by government freebie handouts, is exponentially outpacing the growth of the 'wealthy' class.
Quote:
"The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) gave states greater flexibility to formulate and implement initiatives to reduce welfare dependency and encourage employment for members of low-income families with children. For the nation, in 2006, 10 years after passage of the Act, the birth rate for women 15 to 50 years old receiving public assistance income in the last 12 months was 155 births per 1,000 women, about three times the rate for women not receiving public assistance (53 births per 1,000 women)."
Some people cannot be reasoned with. We've seen it before. We need to tax the rich more. It's pretty simple. While services for the poor and the middle classes are being cut, the rich are seeing their taxes lowered as well. Clearly, part of the reason is because we subsidize the rich. We shoot ourselves in the foot in order for the rich to become richer.
.
Some people cannot be reasoned with. We've seen it before. We need to make huge reductions in government spending. It's pretty simple.
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.
