Taxes and the GOP walkout of debt ceiling negotiations.

[ScottL]

There's clearly been a redistribution of wealth in the country over the last 30 years.

In 1980, the top 1% earned 8.46% of the total AGI, and the bottom 50% earned 17.68%.
In 2002, the top 1% earned 16.17% of the total AGI, and the bottom 50% earned 14.23%.
In 2008, the top 1% earned 20.00% of the total AGI, and the bottom 50% earned 12.75%.

This means the top 1% saw their share of total AGI grow by 136% while the bottom 50% saw their share decline by 29% between 1980 and 2008. That sure looks like income redistribution to me.

What this means is that the top 1% are pretty much the sole beneficiaries of the growth in the American economy over the past 30 years, and that the people who do the real work of economic growth, the engineers, the workers, the educators, and so on, have not benefited equitably from their contribution.

This kind of ties back into this topic here:
viewtopic.php?t=3171

Why hide what you earn? Are you concerned or feel guilty about it? [rhetorical questions]

[Diogenes]

If this is the case, why would I make more money on welfare than I do at my $16/hr job? Hell ... my (apartment) rent has doubled in the last four years, but in the last two years my health "insurance" costs have increased five-fold and are now MORE than my current rent payment (about 40% of my take home pay is eaten by health insurance that I have to have, just in case myself, my wife or son get sick/injured).

Welfare - $800/month (based on 1997 rate for 4 kids)
If you aren't making more than that with 16/hr, then you aren't working 40/hrs a week.

Taxes - By all means vote for persons looking out for your interests, but be aware of all the options. Republicans want to lower taxes across the board, Democrats want to lower taxes for those under $250,000/year, so for you krenshala, it sounds like it'd be the same.

Yeah, that $250,000.00 includes business income for small business, which attacks a major component of America's entire economy. Democrats love employees but hate employers.

[Diogenes]

If I recall correctly, the problem started during Nixon with his wage and price controls. Companies wanted to offer good workers more compensation, but were unable to do so because of prohibitive federal regulations during the Nixon era.

Your story is correct but the timing is off. That is what FDR did during the W&P controls of WWII, no? It may have been exacerbated by the Nixon W&P controls.

Now that you mention it, I believe you are correct and I am wrong. It WAS earlier than Nixon.

[Diogenes]

There's clearly been a redistribution of wealth in the country over the last 30 years.

In 1980, the top 1% earned 8.46% of the total AGI, and the bottom 50% earned 17.68%.
In 2002, the top 1% earned 16.17% of the total AGI, and the bottom 50% earned 14.23%.
In 2008, the top 1% earned 20.00% of the total AGI, and the bottom 50% earned 12.75%.

This means the top 1% saw their share of total AGI grow by 136% while the bottom 50% saw their share decline by 29% between 1980 and 2008. That sure looks like income redistribution to me.

Two points.
1. Where do you get these numbers?
2. When you have money, it is easier to make money. You can fund your own capital investments.

[ScottL]

Two points.
1. Where do you get these numbers?
2. When you have money, it is easier to make money. You can fund your own capital investments.

1. http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/
2. Completely agree! Those that have, get more, those that have not struggle more.

[ScottL]

Yeah, that $250,000.00 includes business income for small business, which attacks a major component of America's entire economy. Democrats love employees but hate employers.

Would you change your view if they exempted small businesses?

[Diogenes]

Two points.
1. Where do you get these numbers?
2. When you have money, it is easier to make money. You can fund your own capital investments.

1. http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/

Would it not be possible to get a more specific link? Looking through that is like searching the library of congress for a specific limerick.

2. Completely agree! Those that have, get more, those that have not struggle more.

But that is not overtly unfair or unjust, it is the nature of a system that allows people to keep the fruits of their own labor and cleverness. (and that of their parents.) One might just as well say it's not fair that others are smarter or more beautiful.

Now if you argue that our society should make an effort to insure that people should be guaranteed some minimal level of survival, then I would have to agree. Those who cannot (not will not) take care of themselves ought to be provided for, and the burden should be spread on the rest of us who are capable. But I do not envision the current system as acting in either their best interests or that of the citizens who carry the burden.

[Diogenes]

Yeah, that $250,000.00 includes business income for small business, which attacks a major component of America's entire economy. Democrats love employees but hate employers.

Would you change your view if they exempted small businesses?

I would be less objectionable to it, but it still is inconsistent with my philosophy, and indeed the 14th amendment which requires equal application of the law. How can different percentages of tax be considered equal?

Since we are on this subject I have to say I very much dislike the fact that there are those who make money without lifting a finger. That also seems unfair, but I do not know how to correct this situation without making things worse.

[ScottL]

Diogenes, I think I understand where you're coming from now. As for the site, it was a hassle to search down the first bit of information, not looking forward to doing it again, but I'll glance through again soon.

I agree with your last 2 posts. Unfortunately I think too many inherit their economic position and that many are not privilidged either by race, gender or economic status to attaining that position or not so within their lifetime. The root of many programs has been to attempt to balance this inequity, but as some have noted, there are those that abuse the system.

[choff]

One thing I've noticed is that health care costs as a percentage of GDP have climbed to 17% going on 19% since the reform package was passed. Compare this rate to what any other western country spends on health care as a percentage of GDP.

If the reform package had reduced cost just like in any other western country it would have been fine and good, but only in the US has the cost gone up!

If the cost of health care could be brought in line with the rest of the world it would save a lot of money that could be used to pay down the debt without raising taxes.

[ScottL]

One thing I've noticed is that health care costs as a percentage of GDP have climbed to 17% going on 19% since the reform package was passed. Compare this rate to what any other western country spends on health care as a percentage of GDP.

If the reform package had reduced cost just like in any other western country it would have been fine and good, but only in the US has the cost gone up!

If the cost of health care could be brought in line with the rest of the world it would save a lot of money that could be used to pay down the debt without raising taxes.

Mind you, most of the U.S. Health care package has not gone into effect yet. I know there is a timely roll-out with I believe most of it becoming effective 2014. Until then we don't know the cost as it hasn't really cost us yet.

[KitemanSA]

What this means is that the top 1% are pretty much the sole beneficiaries of the growth in the American economy over the past 30 years, and that the people who do the real work of economic growth, the engineers, the workers, the educators, and so on, have not benefited equitably from their contribution.

Actually, it means that the wealthy have the wherewithall to avoid the governmnet chicanery better than the middle class. Reduce government, even it out, and the middle class survives. Keep doing the "progressive" thing and we will move progressively toward a two class system, the totally rich and the rest of us welfare proles.

[Diogenes]

I agree with your last 2 posts. Unfortunately I think too many inherit their economic position and that many are not privilidged either by race, gender or economic status to attaining that position or not so within their lifetime. The root of many programs has been to attempt to balance this inequity, but as some have noted, there are those that abuse the system.

From both sides of it. From the Distributing side (by politicians who use it to bribe voters and bureaucrats who oversee the actual money) to the Recipient side. (Those who can work but would rather collect, those who seek out DUMB checks, and those falsely declaring themselves disabled.)

I am personally familiar with people on both sides of this wickedness.

[Diogenes]

One thing I've noticed is that health care costs as a percentage of GDP have climbed to 17% going on 19% since the reform package was passed. Compare this rate to what any other western country spends on health care as a percentage of GDP.

If the reform package had reduced cost just like in any other western country it would have been fine and good, but only in the US has the cost gone up!

If the cost of health care could be brought in line with the rest of the world it would save a lot of money that could be used to pay down the debt without raising taxes.

It has long been my belief that certain costs in other countries are the result of American consumers indirectly subsidizing those other nation's health systems. Not to pick on Canada, but Canada has managed to force Pharmaceutical companies to provide them with medicines far cheaper than are available in the United States where the Companies exist and where they develop most of their drugs. (They did it by threatening to revoke those companies patents and allow Canadian companies to produce those exact drugs without paying any royalties. Dirty pool that.)

Since the United States patients are still paying the higher prices, it becomes apparent to me that US Patients are primarily paying for the research and Development costs, while other nations are reaping more benefits than they are paying for.

[Diogenes]

What this means is that the top 1% are pretty much the sole beneficiaries of the growth in the American economy over the past 30 years, and that the people who do the real work of economic growth, the engineers, the workers, the educators, and so on, have not benefited equitably from their contribution.

Actually, it means that the wealthy have the wherewithall to avoid the governmnet chicanery better than the middle class. Reduce government, even it out, and the middle class survives. Keep doing the "progressive" thing and we will move progressively toward a two class system, the totally rich and the rest of us welfare proles.

A couple of months ago I read an article which argues that the American War of Independence was a revocation of the till then, status quo. For the first time in Human History, people threw off the yoke of Royalty and Nobility and created a government that was of the people, by the people and for the people. The Article argued, that since 1776, those that consider themselves to be the cream of humanity have tried to reimpose a Nobility dominated system on the rest of us, though they are often careful to hide this fact.

Communism for example, created a Premier with the powers of any King, and a party apparatus with the powers of any Nobility. The rest of the population took the role of peasants.

I now regard Progressive politics and socialism in general as nothing more than attempts to re-establish a rule over the people by those who consider themselves to be their betters. They talk as though the people need someone to take care of them and keep them from making bad decisions. They attempt to dictate all manners of decisions in people's daily lives, ostensibly for their own good. This is the same argument that Southerners used to justify Slavery, and it is for the same reason. To put a saddle on others and ride them at the whim, and for the benefit of, their "betters."

Their bitterest enemy is the middle class. That group of people who are neither poor nor rich, but those who by their own efforts have managed to raise themselves up to a better standard of living, and unknowingly to the "nobility class" act as a protective buffer between the rich and the poor.

Should the Limousine Liberal socialists become successful in their efforts to eradicate the uppity middle class, they will then find themselves facing their newly created peasantry without the benefit of the buffer which had protected them previously. Throughout most of history this unstable state of affairs has usually been resolved in only one way.

Revolution.