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.
BTW, I am an economic "tweener" - according to every measure I have found I am above the range considered middle class but I do not feel rich. It is largely because I have a big family and the kids are just getting into adulthood and not yet paying their own way (but driving cars and going to college). I should be able to enjoy a decent but not stellar retirement. It makes me wonder how anyone at a lower income (which is most of the population) is doing it.
I think Petch is trying to tell you to worry about yourself also. This stuff as you age can become real expensive and if you don't qualify you have to break yourself or low cost and quality if at all. I am at the point of pricing it and it ain't cheap.
Petch is now making a point that you realize is accurate but you go back to another point of the discussion.
There is not enough money to be redistributed to do all folks are promising without taxing the middle class to pay for it. So why don't you guys determine what income range each considers middle class.
Hey those over 30 million don't have the earned income to be taxed to pay for it all and in a bad market year capital gains taxes will pay for what? So would redistribution stop in those years?
Exactly. People want to believe that taxing the rich will solve the problem. If I remember correctly wasn't that the rhetoric that was put out there with the last tax increase? So what happened? It didn't work then and won't work now.
I also say never cheer when the government is taking from the other guy because they will always want more and the grab will trickle down to you. At first they'll be sneaky about it (it's easy to do since it's hard to understand 72,000 page tax code).
I am not torn at all. I am fully aware and have been for close to a century what the issues are. It is the core nature we all share and the learned nurture that is different from person to person. I used the term melt down hoping folks would take a step back and realize the common ground and not the different ground and build from there. Petch is now making a point that you realize is accurate but you go back to another point of the discussion. There is not enough money to be redistributed to do all folks are promising without taxing the middle class to pay for it. So why don't you guys determine what income range each considers middle class. Hey those over 30 million don't have the earned income to be taxed to pay for it all and in a bad market year capital gains taxes will pay for what? So would redistribution stop in those years?
I bolded that because that is a bone of contention. I think there is enough money, but the huge caveat to that statement is that it is really more like there would have been enough if we had not eased the regulations years ago. We have an ongoing experiment and even with 40 years of results we don't want to admit what is so painfully obvious to everyone else: The "trickle down theory" is dead wrong - Jun. 15, 2015
Quote:
That's not Senator Elizabeth Warren talking. That's the latest conclusion of new research from the International Monetary Fund.
In fact, researchers found that when the top earners in society make more money, it actually slows down economic growth. On the other hand, when poorer people earn more, society as a whole benefits.
Note the emphasis - "researchers found" - people looking at hard data, not bickering economists with a different theory. It did not work. But they top earners don't want it to change and they seem to have convinced a large swath of the population that the course we are on is best.
I bolded that because that is a bone of contention. I think there is enough money, but the huge caveat to that statement is that it is really more like there would have been enough if we had not eased the regulations years ago. We have an ongoing experiment and even with 40 years of results we don't want to admit what is so painfully obvious to everyone else: The "trickle down theory" is dead wrong - Jun. 15, 2015Note the emphasis - "researchers found" - people looking at hard data, not bickering economists with a different theory. It did not work. But they top earners don't want it to change and they seem to have convinced a large swath of the population that the course we are on is best.
Ummmm, hmmmm, ummm. The International Monetary Fund is a left wing oriented organization headed by a clone of Elizabeth Warren. They do not have our best interest in mind under their current director and are focused on the redistribution of wealth world wide. That includes going from here to poor countries world wide. Christine Legard is a leftie in the Bernie Sanders mold. Christine Lagarde, Eleventh Managing Director of IMF -- Biographical Information
The IMF is very much against our Federal Reserve raising rates because of a possible negative impact on developing countries ability to borrow. Hmmm what about American Seniors ability to save?
A word of caution about research and public tax policy. Ask your self are the researchers assuming compliance or avoidance? We already know they have different consequences for policy out comes. Sorta like the impact of raising taxes in Illinois only to have the wealthy move along with employers etc. Also face it a federal lawyer and accountant making 125-150K a year is probably no match for the rich folks 5 million dollar guys figuring out how to avoid it. Sorta like SS benefits having been written in previous years and applied differently by the affluent/educated v others.
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
There is not enough money to be redistributed to do all folks are promising without taxing the middle class to pay for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReachTheBeach
I think there is enough money
Ok everyone, don't save or invest.... spend all your money... ReachTheBeach believes that government can tax the rich enough to pay for all of us.
Ok everyone, don't save or invest.... spend all your money... ReachTheBeach believes that government can tax the rich enough to pay for ALL OF US.
Have fun!
Dang, Petch, why do you insist on assuming that everyone will drop out if we assure them that we will make sure they have a place to sleep, food and basic services? I think most people want more than that and will work to get it. Maybe that is the difference between us. I believe that you don't believe me when I say that we could do this and people like us could still have all that we have from working harder. You are not lying because you don't believe me and you truly believe what you are saying is correct. But I also believe what I say. I think a big part of our disagreement is that facts are too easy to come by these days. There used to be just one set; now there are a bunch. I am not 100% sure of anything anymore because I am aware of this. It also means the people I am most wary of are those who proclaim they have facts without backing them up and without any willingness to consider other sources of information. I am chewing on the IMF info that TuborgP gave me and looking into it, not just discarding it out of hand because it doesn't fit my world view.
Last edited by ReachTheBeach; 05-22-2016 at 11:58 AM..
The "trickle down theory" is dead wrong - Jun. 15, 2015Note the emphasis - "researchers found" - people looking at hard data, not bickering economists with a different theory. It did not work. But they top earners don't want it to change and they seem to have convinced a large swath of the population that the course we are on is best.
It's still biased conjecture. If Economists and "researchers" were right about everything, they'd all be multi-millionaires sitting on the beach drinking umbrella drinks.
The 2016 economic reality is that the combination of automation and global competition has dramatically diminished the value of unskilled and and semi-skilled labor. It also provides tremendous leverage for the people with the capital who invest in automation. We have a huge glut of unskilled labor. The enormous wave of legal and illegal immigration is only making the problem worse. We face an enormous social problem as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I have my opinion about how to cope with it just like everyone else has one.
The reality in the United States is that the middle class pays absurdly low Federal income taxes compared to the rest of the first world. The median household pays a single digit effective Federal income tax rate. Social Security and Medicare are broad-based programs It's only fair that the median household pay their fair share instead of immediately soaking the wealthy. They're already paying for pretty much everything else.
You can do it, I got my own future to worry about. Will anyone else also be sending more of your money to the government because you believe you could support yourselves and support the poor too?
It's still biased conjecture. If Economists and "researchers" were right about everything, they'd all be multi-millionaires sitting on the beach drinking umbrella drinks.
The 2016 economic reality is that the combination of automation and global competition has dramatically diminished the value of unskilled and and semi-skilled labor. It also provides tremendous leverage for the people with the capital who invest in automation. We have a huge glut of unskilled labor. The enormous wave of legal and illegal immigration is only making the problem worse. We face an enormous social problem as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I have my opinion about how to cope with it just like everyone else has one.
The reality in the United States is that the middle class pays absurdly low Federal income taxes compared to the rest of the first world. The median household pays a single digit effective Federal income tax rate. Social Security and Medicare are broad-based programs It's only fair that the median household pay their fair share instead of immediately soaking the wealthy. They're already paying for pretty much everything else.
Economists don't retire rich? Stop bursting my bubbles...
I do want to push you a little about the median household - roughly 2.5 people living on 52k per year so a little over 20k per person. How much of that do you think they should pay in taxes? Poverty level for one person is around 12k and for 3 under the same roof its about 18k (total). But that is pretty much destitute. Anyway, where are you headed with the median household paying their share idea?
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.
