Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-26-2011, 07:33 AM
 
Location: San Diego California
6,795 posts, read 7,291,785 times
Reputation: 5194

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo View Post
What system are you talking about?

If you are talking about socialist system I will say this. Socialist systems give the perception of helping the people. It will help alright, for a while. Eventually, it will bust.
Margaret Thatcher said that the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of money.
Look at Social Security. It has grown to an insatiable monster. More and more people want more and more beneifts. Who is going to pay? Those that need to work harder to support it. That is why we are starting to see the results.
Canada? Many people love their socialiced medical system but now they are starting to see the results and it is getting to expensive.
Look at France and some other European countries, oh!, Greece. People are revolting because the government is cutting so many programs because they cannot afford them and now that the people are used to so many freebies they do not want to let them go.

What you are seeing now is the results around the world of people not wanting to let go a the freebies others have been paying for. The upper class greed? Maybe so, but for the sake of argument make a calculation of what would happen if the top let us say 10% taxes are out and see how much money the free ride people would keep getting in benefits.

It is time for ALL to roll their sleeves and start contributing more to the system and suppor themselves.

By the way you go to the 70s. Interesting because Carter handled the part of the 70s and see what happened. He only lasted one term because he screwed it up worse after people like Johnson instituted so many social programs that became and still are overburdening the system. Carter started the Community Reinvestment Act. Have you read on it and what in caused? It took over 20 or about 30 years to see the result in the housing bubble. I have cited this to you before. Have you read on it yet?

You address the greedy, OK. I got it. I address the people that is abusing the system and demanding more and more from others. Take care.
The system was that of taxing the upper classes at a much higher level and putting the burden of supporting government on the ones who could afford it most.
This system freed up more money among the lower classes to spend on consumption acting as an engine to drive the economy and enabling higher prices and wages for all.
Without some form of socialism the wealthy are free to run sweat shops and to keep the lower classes in a form of wage slavery as we saw at the turn of the 20th century, and caused the need of that socialism known as anti trust legislation.
Yes, I know all about the Community Reinvestment Act, who do you think lobbied for it?
I agree all should roll up their sleeves and work for a living, but in order for that to happen you need jobs, and you need a system where people are rewarded for work and not just allowed to survive.
The world is run by the wealthy, not by the poor. The poor do not write the laws, they do not bribe the politicians, and they do not start the wars.
The wealthy benefit from poverty, death, and destruction and do what ever they can to increase it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-26-2011, 08:19 AM
 
20,728 posts, read 19,374,196 times
Reputation: 8293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
I think income from capital gains and wages should be taxed the same amount. I don't consider that punishment.
Both of them should be taxed less than asset inflation in real estate. Not only would it tax the do nothings, it would have also prevented the housing bubble in the first place. At least the housing bubble made it blatantly obvious that feeding the rentier class does not produce wealth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2011, 08:26 AM
 
3,457 posts, read 3,624,868 times
Reputation: 1544
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
Both of them should be taxed less than asset inflation in real estate. Not only would it tax the do nothings, it would have also prevented the housing bubble in the first place. At least the housing bubble made it blatantly obvious that feeding the rentier class does not produce wealth.
Blatantly obvious to some, yes. Unfortunately, supply side economics is still common in our politics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2011, 08:45 AM
 
Location: San Diego California
6,795 posts, read 7,291,785 times
Reputation: 5194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Congratulations. You have mistakenly conflated wealth with earnings. They are not the same thing. The vast majority of millionaires are millionaires on paper only. They do not have millions of dollars in cash, rather they have millions of dollars in assets. Cash is an asset, but not all assets are cash. Their wealth is derived from their asset holdings, which would include real estate, stocks, bonds, precious metals and other tangibles and intangibles.

I know a millionaire. What did she do? Absolutely nothing.

Her father died and left her (an only child) 140 acres of land in Colerain Township. At the time, land sold for $1,800 per acre. About 12 years later the land was selling for $22,400 an acre. The land was worth $3,136,000 which made her a multimillionaire.

So, you would punish her for her evilness, and her brutality against the working man.

And what did she do? Nothing. She didn't wave a magic wand and chant a spell to make the land worth that much, nor did she bribe members of Congress, instead you made it worth that much. The oppressed Middle Class and its infantile desire to own 4,400 sq ft McMansions. That's what drove up the price of the land. The oppressed Middle Class did it, not her.



Okay, then the proper solution is to set up and establish proper controls and mechanism to prevent abuses, not engage in mass punishment and punish the vast majority who do not engage in such abuses.



No, absolutely not. What you are seeing is merely mass protests, not revolutions. Revolution means "change."

If a fox is preying on your hens, the correct course of action is to erect a fence, a barrier, around your hens, not go to the fox's lair and chant "Kum-ba-ya" for hours on end.



Yes, there is. The fact that you are unable or unwilling to justify it doesn't mean that it cannot be justified.

If one person saved the Earth from an asteroid impact, and total annihilation, how much are their efforts worth to you?

It would be worth at least as much money as you made the rest of your life, and all of the assets you acquired, since you would not have been able to earn anything or acquire any assets unless that person saved the Earth.



I just disproved your thesis.



No, they are paying their employees enough.

You're only looking that $17/hour the average American gets as "pay." You aren't looking at the $28/hour the average American gets as "compensation." Based on the information from BLS, the total pay and compensation for the average American hourly worker is $48/hour.

The real question is, how much will you earn over the course of your life-time, and how many assets will you acquire precisely because that CEO gets $50 Million per year?

You could replace the $50 Million CEO with a $3 Million CEO, but then you might lose your job and your home would be foreclosed upon, and your credit rating damaged, your life-style impeded and degraded.

How much is that worth to you?



That's an absurd proposition.

In the first place, "fair" is highly subjective. There is no way to quantify or qualify "fair" because it is subjective. That which is "fair" is entirely dependent upon the knower, and for 100 people you would have 100 different views of what "fair" is and never be able to reach a consensus.

You also display an incredible ignorance of basic economics.

I might manufacture a product, and no matter what, no one on Earth will pay more than $5 for that product.

Because that is true, it places an inherent limitation on the amount of compensation for my employees.

I would like to pay you $75/hour to come into my fields and pick Bell Peppers, but I can't, because wholesalers will only pay me $1 for each Bell Pepper, because consumers will only pay between $1.49 to $1.99 for Bell Peppers.

And the peppers you pick aren't magically transported to the wholesalers, I have to pay truck drivers to take them to the wholesalers. And the more money I pay you, the more money I have to pay to Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, worker's compensation insurance, your holiday pay and your vacation pay. So $75/hour ends up costing me almost $180/hour.



No, it's just stupidity. Anyone who believes they deserve more in compensation is totally and completely free to seek such compensation, but that requires courage and the vast majority just don't have what it takes.



But it did happen. You had several recessions because of it and as a result, Kennedy lowered the tax rate from 91% to 70% and government revenues increased, jobs increased, the GDP increased and so on.

And you cannot make such a comparison because the tax code was structured differently.

You are unaware of the number of deductibles from adjusted gross income and tax credits. Earnings taxes paid to cities and counties was deductible, so was State income taxes, city, county and State sales taxes, property taxes, the federal excise tax on tires, the State and federal excise taxes on gasoline, the interest you paid on credit cards, the interest you paid on loans, the interest you paid on mortgages, losses of capital gains, and the number of items that could be counted as a "business expense" were absolutely ridiculous.

So while the paper tax rate was 91%, the real tax rate was closer to 30%-45%, depending on the skill of your accountant and your exact circumstances.

Even after Kennedy lowered the tax rate to 70% and made a few minor adjustments to the tax code, the real tax rate was still 35%-45%.

If you're going to compare tax rates then and now, then you must also compare tax codes.



Okay, then again the correct solution is to erect barriers to prevent them from doing so, not punish everyone, even those who do not abuse their power.



The vast majority of poor are poor because they make very unsound and unwise financial decisions their entire lives, and because they also make very bad life choices on a repeated basis.

Many also lack motivation. The highlight of their life is to punch the time-clock, go burn a blunt, down a 6-pack and watch Big Time Wrestling or surf the web for porno.

You're not going to gain wealth or advance doing that.



A Flat Tax is fundamentally unfair.

A lot of you seem to have extreme difficulty grasping a basic reality and truth, and that is that the cost of living and purchasing power parity in the United States is not uniform. It varies from city to city and State to State.

If this would be Luxembourg with 497,000 people and the cost of living and purchasing power parity were uniform through the entire gigantic country of Luxembourg, then you could levy a Flat Tax.

If this would be Denmark population 5.5 Million you could levy a Flat Tax because the cost of living and purchasing power parity are uniform. The same would be true in many other countries.

But this the United States.

You can rent a double-wide trailer on 4 acres of land for $200/month in Boseman, Montana.

Can you rent a double-wide on 4 acres of land in New York City for $200/month?

No, you cannot. Why not? Because the cost of living and purchasing power parity are not the same.

Wow, what a concept.

Someone earning $150,000 in Ohio is wealthier than someone earning $250,000 in New Jersey. How can that possibly be? Cost of living and purchasing power parity. While the poor fool in New Jersey earning $250,000 and living paycheck-to-paycheck, the person in Ohio earning $150,000 has more disposable income and is not living paycheck-to-paycheck and has a better, richer, fuller life-style than the poor slob in New Jersey could ever dream of.

It's funny how credit card banks rate cities/regions as High COL/Low PPP, High COL/High PPP, Low COL, Low PPP and Low COL/High PPP but the federal government is too stupid to see that.

A Flat Tax would be grotesquely unfair to those living in areas that have an high cost of living, because they already have very little precious discretionary disposable income, and a Flat Tax would take what little they have away from them.



That's because you are making a nonsensical comparison.

I and many others have repeatedly explained that the IRS Tax Code in the 1950s was vastly different that it is now.

It has been repeatedly shown that even though the theoretical tax rate was 91%, the real tax rate was 30%-45%, largely due to the extraordinary amount of deductions and credits one could take against adjusted gross income and assessed tax.

Houses in the 1950s were 1,200 to 1,600 sq ft. Today they are 4,000+ sq ft, so who has the higher standard of living?

America did not become a 2-car family until 1974, yet today many families have 3-5 cars, so who has the higher standard of living?

Again you display your ignorance of economics. The US did not fully complete industrialization until the 1960s. Prior to that time, your wages doubling about every 10 years or so would be expected. However, now that you are a post-Industrialized Nation, your wages will no longer double every 10 years. That, in addition to the fact that you have a global economy whether you like it or not, whether you want it or not, or whether you admit it or not, will result in a decline of wages, and there is nothing you can do about it.



And that was before you had Medicare, and Medicaid, and a Department of Housing and Urban Development with a Section 8 Program, and before Food Stamps, and before you had a Department of Education, and before you had an EPA and before you had an OSHA and before you had a Department of Energy and before you had a Department of Health and Human Services, and before you had a Department of Veteran's Affairs and before you had a lot of spending programs that exist now but did not exist at the time.

You keep ignoring those "minor" details.



Yes, you did have obscenely wealthy people.

No doubt you live in a fantasy world. In 1976, Pete Rose was the highest paid baseball player earning $660,000 per year.


That is 43 times more than $15,300, which was what, the average salary of the American worker? No, sorry, wrong. $15,300 was the maximum cap on Social Security wages, meaning once you reached $15,300 you no longer paid the Social Security tax. According to SSA, the average wage in 1976 was $9,226.48

In 1955, the average wages was $3,301.44 per year and Social Security capped at $4,200 per year. There were people earning $500,000 to $1 Million in 1955 and minimum wage was $0.75/hour.



Yet without the stock broker or real estate broker, neither the jet engine mechanic nor the linesman would have jobs.



Let's see. Sisters of Mercy own Mercy Hospital. Sisters of Mercy own Bethesda North Hospital. Sisters of Mercy own Bethesda East Hospital. Sisters of Mercy own Saint Luke East Hospital, and Sisters of Mercy own Saint Luke West Hospital.

Those are five full-service hospitals in the 3 Million population MSA that I live in now.

Sounds like competition to me (not - gag me with a freaking fork).



What the hell does Capitalism have to do with it?

Capitalism is a property theory, and nothing more. Capitalism is not an economic system, nor could it ever be, since it is merely a property theory.

Capitalism has no bearing whatsoever on Supply & Demand, except to the extent that the government or others interfere and create impediments or restrictions that reduce either Supply or Demand.

Capitalism does not set or determine the prices of goods and services. That is determined by the economic system (Free Market, Command or Traditional) and by Supply & Demand.

Capitalism does not set or determine wages/salaries. Wages/salaries are a function of Supply & Demand for a particular skill-set and education level, and by the price consumers are willing to pay for a particular service or product.



No, wrong.

Ever heard of the Soviet Union? The Eastern Territory (officially recognized as the Democratic Republic of Germany - DDR - in 1974 after the Soviets blockaded Berlin)? Romania? Czechoslovakia? Albania? Greece? The list is long and distinguished.



That is not just Capitalism. It includes many other factors, such as government interference or the lack of, the geography of the country, the geology of the country, the attitude of its people, the intelligence level of the people, etc, etc, etc.

A "Capitalist country" with stupid consumers and an apathetic stupid electorate is going to fail.

You want proof?

I give you the United States of America.



Gosh, I don't know.

Let's see. Proctor & Gamble. One facility. Then P&G opens and second and third manufacturing plant, all in Cincinnati, Ohio. Then P&G opens another and another, like the Kansas City Soap Plant.

More than 100 years after P&G opened their first facility, they have several hundred manufacturing facilities and offices in 37 different countries on 6 different continents employing literally an army of people.

All of those international laws, FNCs, treaties, tax laws, trade agreements, tariffs, duties, shipping across vast oceans, other legalities like the complexities of local tax laws (as opposed to the country's tax laws), and oh, all the customs and manners of a particular country or people.

Orchestrating this entire thing, this huge international scheme so that it runs efficiently and smoothly and makes profits for share-holders, so they can retire comfortably.

That's gotta be worth at least $8.35/hour right?

I mean anyone can do it. We're all born understanding international laws and FNCs, it's like inherent to our being or something.





Let us close our eyes;
outside their lives go on much faster.
Oh, we won't give in,
we'll keep living in the past.


-- Jethro Tull



The Middle and Lower Classes don't have the common sense to live within their means either.

They have destroyed themselves, and they have no one to blame but themeselves.
Wow what a nonsensical rant! I hope you feel better, but don't count on too many people actually reading all that.
Your argument, that the problem is a result of spending and not of earning, is wrong and here is proof.
Look at the chart in this link..Data on income gains support 99ers and tell me if you think this trend is sustainable.

If you do, you are delusional. This chart shows clearly the need for change and a system that is fair to the majority.
In addition, to answer your earlier question, what is fair, it is what the MAJORITY decides. That is democracy.
A class war has begun. It is small now, and the 1% thinks it will not grow and never affect them.

They are wrong.

The economic collapse they have set in motion with their greed and corruption is now beyond their control, and will continue to wreak havoc on the lives of millions of people.
Those people's anger will continue to grow and fester until the wealthy will become their target not just in peaceful protests, but in violent and decisive action.
The die is now cast. You belief or disbelief in reality matters little to its outcome.
The hatred of the rich will grow and is well deserved. They will soon reap what they have sown.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2011, 08:47 AM
 
1,568 posts, read 1,552,495 times
Reputation: 414
Oh, is it time for the communists to kill millions of people again, so we can be left with the poor people who are all equal?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2011, 09:02 AM
 
Location: San Diego California
6,795 posts, read 7,291,785 times
Reputation: 5194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Kim View Post
Oh, is it time for the communists to kill millions of people again, so we can be left with the poor people who are all equal?

Was the American Revolution a bunch of communists? Was the French Revolution a bunch of communists?

When you refer to the killing of millions of people, are you talking about the crony alliance between banker’s corporations who kill hundreds of millions of people in wars for profit?

Poor people are constantly having war thrust upon them.
It is always the poor who die in wars begun by the rich.

They seldom have the opportunity to fight for their own justice and future.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2011, 09:03 AM
 
1,568 posts, read 1,552,495 times
Reputation: 414
No, I was referring to the recurent theme of genocide in the name of false promises of egalitarianism throughout history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2011, 10:25 AM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
3,493 posts, read 4,555,737 times
Reputation: 3026
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
No, wrong.

Ever heard of the Soviet Union? The Eastern Territory (officially recognized as the Democratic Republic of Germany - DDR - in 1974 after the Soviets blockaded Berlin)? Romania? Czechoslovakia? Albania? Greece? The list is long and distinguished.



That is not just Capitalism. It includes many other factors, such as government interference or the lack of, the geography of the country, the geology of the country, the attitude of its people, the intelligence level of the people, etc, etc, etc.

A "Capitalist country" with stupid consumers and an apathetic stupid electorate is going to fail.

You want proof?

I give you the United States of America.
Here we go again. Capitalism is an economic system. Granted, there may be differing views whether it is or not. Look at a dictionary as I just did at it says "an economic system in which most of the means for the production of goods and services are privately owned". I got the feeling you feel as an expert and say the dictionary is wrong and also the the wikipedia and other business administration college courses that discribe it as such also. You may be correct but at this point I agree to sources as such than someone that I do not know and/or see any solid credentials to make such argument and agree with.

As far as wrong about abuses in a capitalist system. Well, keep your head buried in the ground. In ANY system someone will find ways to abuse or cheat a system. Your examples of the Soviet Union and company are also true. Hint? Human nature.
Also, I do not know what list of countries and the history of countries that have embraced capitalism. I am not claiming any country has pure capitalism. I am saying the the most a country has embraced capitalist principles the more prosperous that country has been. I am aware that circumstances, histroy, culture, geography can be factors. The can be factors in the sense that capitalism may be easier to apply and prosper.

I will tell you what can be a problem with capitalism, to much prosperity. People can get used to to much. Look at Rome and other powers in history when there was prosperity in some form whether in power, economics, etc. Usually, powerful nations had actually imploded and destroyed themselves. The U.S. can be no different. Take care.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2011, 10:29 AM
 
20,728 posts, read 19,374,196 times
Reputation: 8293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
Blatantly obvious to some, yes. Unfortunately, supply side economics is still common in our politics.
Actually supply side wound be an improvement. The basic idea is to create capital equipment cheaply. When you have high inflation ,its actually a good idea since inflation implies a productive bottleneck. Now of course it means encouraging business to expand the empty movie theater. Supply side is on the wrong side of the equation these days, but at least its the right equation.

See that's the problem. Supply side and demand side all address the productive goods and services economy. Sometimes you need to increase the use of capital that is the instinct of a good democrat, and sometime you need to create more capital which is the instinct of a good republican. However its secret option number 3, bad republocrats.

The issue is the FIRE economy, and how it masquerades its operations as capital. The race to the top is not building the better mouse trap. Its king of the real estate hill. The best way to make any money is to leverage real estate and pump money into the economy. Supply side, demand side, back side and sideways don't matter. The FIRE economy creates money, not capital.


Real estate has given supply and capital a bad name. Those that profit from it are just like the old class of nobles who owned land, sat around and did nothing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2011, 10:32 AM
 
Location: Willow Spring and Mocksville
275 posts, read 397,090 times
Reputation: 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post

The Middle and Lower Classes don't have the common sense to live within their means either.

They have destroyed themselves, and they have no one to blame but themeselves.
If the whole problem is simply the spending habits of the middle and lower classes, why do the Corporate Bigwigs need to spend millions of dollars lobbying to get Congress to pass laws that benefit them? Can't they manage on their own superior intellect and phenomenal business sense without manipulating the system?

Apparently not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top