quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

Nobody misses that this all started right after Reaganomics changed our tax structure. Can you see which people's wealth has shot up like a rocket (with a minimal setback halfway up) and whose wealth has flatlined (and definitely not due to lessened productivity)?

How does anyone even begin to argue that this is a good thing for the people of the United States of America?


Thumbnail Image

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

Nobody misses that this all started right after Reaganomics changed our tax structure. Can you see which people's wealth has shot up like a rocket (with a minimal setback halfway up) and whose wealth has flatlined (and definitely not due to lessened productivity)?

How does anyone even begin to argue that this is a good thing for the people of the United States of America?


Thumbnail Image

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

We had some of the greatest economies in the history of the US with the 1% paying 90% on their top tier of income. What Reagan set up did not work. It stagnated middle income and started the process of eroding the middle class and accelerated the flow of money up hill. The country got set on the path of deficit spending and massive debt. Don't try to tell me it works.

The top 1% never paid 90% of their income. They are not stupid, they just put it into tax shelters, municipal funds and the like. What you had back them was stratified wealth. It was hard to get rich, and if you were rich, you just managed your principal and tried to reduce the amount of money that would be taxed.

The top marginal income tax rate was 91% until 1964 when it was dropped to 77%. It stayed at 70% or 77% until the Reagan revolution dropped it to 50% and continued to drop to 28% under HW Bush, before Clinton restored it to 39.6%.

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-highest-marginal-income-tax-rates

Manufacturing jobs started leaving in the 1970's, but what accelerated the decline of the middle class was Reaganomics. The proven failed experiment whereby you further power the wealthy with massive tax cuts, deregulation and corporate welfare. Out of the goodness of their hearts the people at the top of the heap were supposed to created good paying jobs and sustained strong economy. The net result was that senior executives went from making 50 times the median salary of there employees to making 300 times that median salary. The rules were also changed to allow top executives to be paid the bulk of their lucrative compensation in the form of stock options, which could then be cashed in at a 13% capital gains tax instead of paying income tax. In the mean time the ironically named "right to work laws" were enacted to restrict the ability to collectively bargain, which took away leverage and flattened middle class income to where the lower end of the middle class went below the poverty line.

Call talking about the 1% political all you want. Trying to omit them as a factor is just flat out denial.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

Nobody misses that this all started right after Reaganomics changed our tax structure. Can you see which people's wealth has shot up like a rocket (with a minimal setback halfway up) and whose wealth has flatlined (and definitely not due to lessened productivity)?

How does anyone even begin to argue that this is a good thing for the people of the United States of America?


Thumbnail Image

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

The argument that we shut down and we can't afford to do it again is false. We didn't shut down while fully complying with universal infection control practices at the public health level; we've been uneven, sporadic, and incomplete from Day 1, and as long as we continue that path, our economy will continue to die the death of a thousand cuts. "I couldn't afford to make that necessary repair" turns into an exponentially more expensive necessary repair down the road that leads to other expensive repairs, compounding the problem.

We don't necessarily have to go all McMurphy at this point, but we need to go more there than where we are right now, or we will eventually have to go all McMurphy and maybe beyond eventually. Epidemiology is a complex discipline but getting it wrong leads to a simple outcome: the problem in its current form never goes away.

It is not false and you have not certainly not presented any evidence to this effect whatsoever.

Not that any of this even matters, because what you or McMurfy want won't happen.

The reality is that you are extremists in the same way some of the idiot Trumpers are extremists. You want all or nothing. Whether it is not wearing masks as a sort of constitutional right or shutting everything down as a panacea, these are both wrong headed and both will cost us so much in unneeded loss of life or economic resources.

Should Trump have done a better job in March and April? Sure, but he failed, and will likely be voted out of office because of it.

But, we do not need to be extreme. We can take smart moderate action. Any Governor in a state with a big COVID HAS TO take action on stuff like masks and shutting down obvious infectious activities. If he or she does not, the President should step in. He won't, but he should.

We can get this problem manageable, but we do not need a death from a thousand cuts or one big death blow; we need smart, prolonged, moderate action and we will have cases drop and we will not get the eventual backlash of loss of freedom you see from heavy handed government action.

Evidence: Current case levels.
Evidence: Worsening economic crisis.
Current economic czar: the virus.
Choices: take measures sufficient to tamp down transmission, test thoroughly and quickly, and contact trace, or, at best, continue on our current path with "smart, moderate action."
Current path: Out of control health crisis, deepening economic crisis.

How come Italy and Spain are on a completely different path than us right now?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jbusse

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

Nobody misses that this all started right after Reaganomics changed our tax structure. Can you see which people's wealth has shot up like a rocket (with a minimal setback halfway up) and whose wealth has flatlined (and definitely not due to lessened productivity)?

How does anyone even begin to argue that this is a good thing for the people of the United States of America?


Thumbnail Image

I can't quite make out the x axis on the plot, but if your plot ends before mid-2008, the red line essentially represents stock market gains captured by the top 1%, with the large drop representing the bursting of the dot com bubble. If you have an issue with increases in stock market wealth (the top 1% hold far more financial assets than most), then your issue lies more with the policies of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank than with anything related to tax rates.

Since the financial crisis of 2008-2009, the Fed has purchased trillions of dollars worth of financial assets, bailing out Wall Street and others who took on excessive risk. Those Fed purchases have pushed the stock market to the nose-bleed levels that we see today, to the great benefit of the top 1%.

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

I guess all I had to do was say ‘mega wealthy’ instead of top 1% and the entire argument could have shifted. Sarcasm. Eye roll.

I have no problem with some people being mega wealthy and I don't think we should be imposing ridiculously high taxes on them.

They control over 75% of the wealth and bear less than half the tax burden. I think they're okay, but I'm sure they appreciate people who are worried about the plight of the wealthy.

Wealth is a bogus stat in relation to income taxes. They don't have 75% or even 50% of the income. We have an income based tax so if they are under 50% of the income they should be bearing less than half of the tax burden.
I'm not worried about the plight of the wealthy I just think fair is fair. I'm not political, but when Obama was running for president all I ever heard was let's take the money away from the wealthy and give it to other people. That sounds like theft to me. He didn't encourage people to earn money. He was all about hand outs. To me this makes people reliant on the government. Now in this pandemic/crisis we are just printing money with nothing behind it and handing it out. I get that people need help, but there has to be consequences to this. Unlike Unome and David F I'm not a financial whiz, but I'm guessing the results of this could be catastrophic.

In 2016 the top 20% in the USA had over 80% of the wealth and over 60% of the income. This gap has been and continues to trend larger and larger. It's dangerous, unsustainable, and unethical.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jbusse

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

Nobody misses that this all started right after Reaganomics changed our tax structure. Can you see which people's wealth has shot up like a rocket (with a minimal setback halfway up) and whose wealth has flatlined (and definitely not due to lessened productivity)?

How does anyone even begin to argue that this is a good thing for the people of the United States of America?


Thumbnail Image

I can't quite make out the x axis on the plot, but if your plot ends before mid-2008, the red line essentially represents stock market gains captured by the top 1%, with the large drop representing the bursting of the dot com bubble. If you have an issue with increases in stock market wealth (the top 1% hold far more financial assets than most), then your issue lies more with the policies of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank than with anything related to tax rates.

Since the financial crisis of 2008-2009, the Fed has purchased trillions of dollars worth of financial assets, bailing out Wall Street and others who took on excessive risk. Those Fed purchases have pushed the stock market to the nose-bleed levels that we see today, to the great benefit of the top 1%.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

quote:

ORIGINAL: jbusse

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

Nobody misses that this all started right after Reaganomics changed our tax structure. Can you see which people's wealth has shot up like a rocket (with a minimal setback halfway up) and whose wealth has flatlined (and definitely not due to lessened productivity)?

How does anyone even begin to argue that this is a good thing for the people of the United States of America?


Thumbnail Image

I can't quite make out the x axis on the plot, but if your plot ends before mid-2008, the red line essentially represents stock market gains captured by the top 1%, with the large drop representing the bursting of the dot com bubble. If you have an issue with increases in stock market wealth (the top 1% hold far more financial assets than most), then your issue lies more with the policies of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank than with anything related to tax rates.

Since the financial crisis of 2008-2009, the Fed has purchased trillions of dollars worth of financial assets, bailing out Wall Street and others who took on excessive risk. Those Fed purchases have pushed the stock market to the nose-bleed levels that we see today, to the great benefit of the top 1%.

What is really crazy is that when people like Bush 2 wanted to start letting people invest Social Security dollars into the stock market, the almost all Democrats were opposed despite the fact that FDR originally wanted Social Security funded like a regular pension plan.

There is a way for the 99% to have a much bigger slice of the pie and that is to become owners. The best way for the middle class to become owners is to allow them to invest their retirement money into ownership. If all of us had all owned significant portions of the stocks and bonds of American businesses, we would have all benefited greatly from the same trends that David, Lynn and Sweens now lament.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

quote:

ORIGINAL: jbusse

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

Nobody misses that this all started right after Reaganomics changed our tax structure. Can you see which people's wealth has shot up like a rocket (with a minimal setback halfway up) and whose wealth has flatlined (and definitely not due to lessened productivity)?

How does anyone even begin to argue that this is a good thing for the people of the United States of America?


Thumbnail Image

I can't quite make out the x axis on the plot, but if your plot ends before mid-2008, the red line essentially represents stock market gains captured by the top 1%, with the large drop representing the bursting of the dot com bubble. If you have an issue with increases in stock market wealth (the top 1% hold far more financial assets than most), then your issue lies more with the policies of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank than with anything related to tax rates.

Since the financial crisis of 2008-2009, the Fed has purchased trillions of dollars worth of financial assets, bailing out Wall Street and others who took on excessive risk. Those Fed purchases have pushed the stock market to the nose-bleed levels that we see today, to the great benefit of the top 1%.

What is really crazy is that when people like Bush 2 wanted to start letting people invest Social Security dollars into the stock market, the almost all Democrats were opposed despite the fact that FDR originally wanted Social Security funded like a regular pension plan.

There is a way for the 99% to have a much bigger slice of the pie and that is to become owners. The best way for the middle class to become owners is to allow them to invest their retirement money into ownership. If all of us had all owned significant portions of the stocks and bonds of American businesses, we would have all benefited greatly from the same trends that David, Lynn and Sweens now lament.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

Do you recall what I was saying when I came out of the ventilator? There are two sides and we aren't listening to each other. We need to work more together for a higher purpose. A nation divided can not stand. I realize this is the opposite of Communism which says that progress comes by conflict. The radical Left thinks that way. They say the violence will continue until progress is made, but I say they will never be satisfied. It's like an addictive drug. I do believe that there are good people who are Democrats, but it freaks me that no one is saying violence is misdirected The cause may be just, but the ends don't justify the means.

This is clear to me, but I do believe that we do need each other. Somehow we have to overcome our hatred for each other.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

I guess all I had to do was say ‘mega wealthy’ instead of top 1% and the entire argument could have shifted. Sarcasm. Eye roll.

I have no problem with some people being mega wealthy and I don't think we should be imposing ridiculously high taxes on them.

They control over 75% of the wealth and bear less than half the tax burden. I think they're okay, but I'm sure they appreciate people who are worried about the plight of the wealthy.

Wealth is a bogus stat in relation to income taxes. They don't have 75% or even 50% of the income. We have an income based tax so if they are under 50% of the income they should be bearing less than half of the tax burden.
I'm not worried about the plight of the wealthy I just think fair is fair. I'm not political, but when Obama was running for president all I ever heard was let's take the money away from the wealthy and give it to other people. That sounds like theft to me. He didn't encourage people to earn money. He was all about hand outs. To me this makes people reliant on the government. Now in this pandemic/crisis we are just printing money with nothing behind it and handing it out. I get that people need help, but there has to be consequences to this. Unlike Unome and David F I'm not a financial whiz, but I'm guessing the results of this could be catastrophic.

In 2016 the top 20% in the USA had over 80% of the wealth and over 60% of the income. This gap has been and continues to trend larger and larger. It's dangerous, unsustainable, and unethical.

This only matters if you think, as you said you do, that wealth is static. If the size of the pie is unchangeable, then every penny the top 20% make is stolen from the other 80%. But that is not even sort of how things work in reality.

The reality is the top 20% earn most of the extra pie that existed because they helped grow the pie. Now, I guess you can complain about them keeping most of the extra pie that they grew, but then again, if they did not grow that pie, no one would have gotten any of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

An interdependence where everyone shares in the economy.

Next would be mutual prosperity with governance that all people can participate in.

Lastly, we need universally shared values such as the virtue of living for the sake of others, recognizing that every person is precious regardless of race, etc., and true love is where we are only happy when the other person is happy too. These values will only work absolutely when they are practiced by everyone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

I guess all I had to do was say ‘mega wealthy’ instead of top 1% and the entire argument could have shifted. Sarcasm. Eye roll.

I have no problem with some people being mega wealthy and I don't think we should be imposing ridiculously high taxes on them.

They control over 75% of the wealth and bear less than half the tax burden. I think they're okay, but I'm sure they appreciate people who are worried about the plight of the wealthy.

Wealth is a bogus stat in relation to income taxes. They don't have 75% or even 50% of the income. We have an income based tax so if they are under 50% of the income they should be bearing less than half of the tax burden.
I'm not worried about the plight of the wealthy I just think fair is fair. I'm not political, but when Obama was running for president all I ever heard was let's take the money away from the wealthy and give it to other people. That sounds like theft to me. He didn't encourage people to earn money. He was all about hand outs. To me this makes people reliant on the government. Now in this pandemic/crisis we are just printing money with nothing behind it and handing it out. I get that people need help, but there has to be consequences to this. Unlike Unome and David F I'm not a financial whiz, but I'm guessing the results of this could be catastrophic.

In 2016 the top 20% in the USA had over 80% of the wealth and over 60% of the income. This gap has been and continues to trend larger and larger. It's dangerous, unsustainable, and unethical.

This only matters if you think, as you said you do, that wealth is static. If the size of the pie is unchangeable, then every penny the top 20% make is stolen from the other 80%. But that is not even sort of how things work in reality.

The reality is the top 20% earn most of the extra pie that existed because they helped grow the pie. Now, I guess you can complain about them keeping most of the extra pie that they grew, but then again, if they did not grow that pie, no one would have gotten any of it.

The majority of wealth in USA is either inherited or gained through speculation. Humans have basic needs and rights that should be met before we start to justify unimaginable wealth hoarding.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jbusse

Interesting, I didn't remember that. I'm not a big fan of GWB, with his brutal foreign policy record, but if his social security reform had passed, it might have been his most important accomplishment. The way things are, the wealth gap just keeps getting wider and wider.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

I guess all I had to do was say ‘mega wealthy’ instead of top 1% and the entire argument could have shifted. Sarcasm. Eye roll.

I have no problem with some people being mega wealthy and I don't think we should be imposing ridiculously high taxes on them.

They control over 75% of the wealth and bear less than half the tax burden. I think they're okay, but I'm sure they appreciate people who are worried about the plight of the wealthy.

Wealth is a bogus stat in relation to income taxes. They don't have 75% or even 50% of the income. We have an income based tax so if they are under 50% of the income they should be bearing less than half of the tax burden.
I'm not worried about the plight of the wealthy I just think fair is fair. I'm not political, but when Obama was running for president all I ever heard was let's take the money away from the wealthy and give it to other people. That sounds like theft to me. He didn't encourage people to earn money. He was all about hand outs. To me this makes people reliant on the government. Now in this pandemic/crisis we are just printing money with nothing behind it and handing it out. I get that people need help, but there has to be consequences to this. Unlike Unome and David F I'm not a financial whiz, but I'm guessing the results of this could be catastrophic.

In 2016 the top 20% in the USA had over 80% of the wealth and over 60% of the income. This gap has been and continues to trend larger and larger. It's dangerous, unsustainable, and unethical.

This only matters if you think, as you said you do, that wealth is static. If the size of the pie is unchangeable, then every penny the top 20% make is stolen from the other 80%. But that is not even sort of how things work in reality.

The reality is the top 20% earn most of the extra pie that existed because they helped grow the pie. Now, I guess you can complain about them keeping most of the extra pie that they grew, but then again, if they did not grow that pie, no one would have gotten any of it.

The majority of wealth in USA is either inherited or gained through speculation. Humans have basic needs and rights that should be met before we start to justify unimaginable wealth hoarding.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/10/wealthx-billionaire-census-majority-of-worlds-billionaires-self-made.html

I am not sure what "speculation" means to you, but I am also positive that you have no idea how wealth is created or why wealth, even other people's wealth, helps us all.

As for helping with the basic needs, the wealthy are doing this already:

The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent).
The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 26.9 percent individual income tax rate, which is more than seven times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.7 percent).

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2018-update/


And that is not even counting charity:

https://givingpledge.org/About.aspx

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

I guess all I had to do was say ‘mega wealthy’ instead of top 1% and the entire argument could have shifted. Sarcasm. Eye roll.

I have no problem with some people being mega wealthy and I don't think we should be imposing ridiculously high taxes on them.

They control over 75% of the wealth and bear less than half the tax burden. I think they're okay, but I'm sure they appreciate people who are worried about the plight of the wealthy.

Wealth is a bogus stat in relation to income taxes. They don't have 75% or even 50% of the income. We have an income based tax so if they are under 50% of the income they should be bearing less than half of the tax burden.
I'm not worried about the plight of the wealthy I just think fair is fair. I'm not political, but when Obama was running for president all I ever heard was let's take the money away from the wealthy and give it to other people. That sounds like theft to me. He didn't encourage people to earn money. He was all about hand outs. To me this makes people reliant on the government. Now in this pandemic/crisis we are just printing money with nothing behind it and handing it out. I get that people need help, but there has to be consequences to this. Unlike Unome and David F I'm not a financial whiz, but I'm guessing the results of this could be catastrophic.

In 2016 the top 20% in the USA had over 80% of the wealth and over 60% of the income. This gap has been and continues to trend larger and larger. It's dangerous, unsustainable, and unethical.

This only matters if you think, as you said you do, that wealth is static. If the size of the pie is unchangeable, then every penny the top 20% make is stolen from the other 80%. But that is not even sort of how things work in reality.

The reality is the top 20% earn most of the extra pie that existed because they helped grow the pie. Now, I guess you can complain about them keeping most of the extra pie that they grew, but then again, if they did not grow that pie, no one would have gotten any of it.

The majority of wealth in USA is either inherited or gained through speculation. Humans have basic needs and rights that should be met before we start to justify unimaginable wealth hoarding.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/10/wealthx-billionaire-census-majority-of-worlds-billionaires-self-made.html

I am not sure what "speculation" means to you, but I am also positive that you have no idea how wealth is created or why wealth, even other people's wealth, helps us all.

As for helping with the basic needs, the wealthy are doing this already:

The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent).
The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 26.9 percent individual income tax rate, which is more than seven times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.7 percent).

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2018-update/


And that is not even counting charity:

https://givingpledge.org/About.aspx

I never said that people’s wealth can’t or doesn’t help. I said the inequality of how it’s spread is dangerous, unsustainable, and unethical. Spare me the bootlicking you give the wealthy because they are so noble as to share some of their unfathomable wealth that their grandkids’ grandkids couldn’t spend all of if they tried Also, no shit the top 1% (whoops! Be careful - using the term top 1% is an indication of not understanding economics according to you) pay so much of the share of taxes. They own damn near everything. When a guy making $15 an hour can’t even buy the human necessities how should he also pay a bigger share of the tax?

You go ahead and put seven or eight consecutive posts and keep spinning.

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

I never said that people’s wealth can’t or doesn’t help. I said the inequality of how it’s spread is dangerous, unsustainable, and unethical. Spare me the bootlicking you give the wealthy because they are so noble as to share some of their unfathomable wealth that their grandkids’ grandkids couldn’t spend all of if they tried Also, no shit the top 1% (whoops! Be careful - using the term top 1% is an indication of not understanding economics according to you) pay so much of the share of taxes. They own damn near everything. When a guy making $15 an hour can’t even buy the human necessities how should he also pay a bigger share of the tax?

You go ahead and put seven or eight consecutive posts and keep spinning.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

quote:

ORIGINAL: jbusse

Interesting, I didn't remember that. I'm not a big fan of GWB, with his brutal foreign policy record, but if his social security reform had passed, it might have been his most important accomplishment. The way things are, the wealth gap just keeps getting wider and wider.

Many people have wanted to do this for years. I do not really understand why anyone is against this. If you do not trust the stock market, you could always just buy government bonds so no one would be forced to invest.

The cynic in me thinks that some politicians like the us v them of class warfare. And I suppose it is hard to demonize corporations, Wall Street, banks and capitalism and then pass laws that helps enfranchise the middle and working classes and even the poor to become owners of corporations, Wall Street, banks and capitalism.

The left should be the biggest supporters of this idea. Everyday people could own enough of corporations where could then put pressure on corporations RE environmental standards, racial equality/social justice, executive competition and so on.

I may seem like I am defending the wealthy, but I only want America to keep growing because then everyone wins. And I do not want a guy to buy his third Bentley, I want average Americans to do well and live the American Dream. We have the biggest economy in the world and owning a nice chunk of it would make everyday people much wealthier over time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

Wealth that is created by others voluntarily paying for products and services is good. Wealth that is created by force is not good.