Stimulating the rich

[REDWAVE]

Educate yourselves

Sorry, I've done enough educating of rednecks and morons for one day. The facts are out there. Look them up yourselves. There has been a massive INCREASE in inequality in the U.S. in recent years. That's a fact. If you're ignorant of it, it's not my problem.

 

[Don K Dyck]

Subsidies for the Rich? Surely not!

Hey . . . I've missed a good debate . . . bother!! . . . but reading page 10 only . . .

In Oz we have had double taxation on dividends removed for about 10 years . . . it stimulated interest in tax free dividend stocks, until the executives decided that they wanted that part of the profit line as well . . . our problem, like the rest of the free enterprise world, is that there must be legislative reform of the corporations law to control executive remuneration and make executives responsible to the shareholders rather than themselves.

Oz had a mixed economy, but government policy has biased spending to support the rich who can afford taxation advice on legally minimising their taxation bill . . . and international investors hoodwinked successive Treasurers into allowing movement of capital and dividends out of Oz without paying tax . . . a blatantly stupid policy . . .

Ishmael appears to believe that the "pure" capitalist system works . . . but that is just too simplistic . . . and has created the Enrons, Haliburtons etc that stand as stark silent sentinels to corporate executive greed . . . capitalism without controls will eventually force the U$ into the same situation as the Weimar Republic . . . printing money without the asset or gold backing backing necessary to give it any credible value . . . add the cost of an unnecessary war and the stark slippery road to economic ruin is getting closer to reality . . . the Dubyah Shrub War for Control of Undeveloped Middle East Oil Reserves has the potential of ruining the U$ economy, just as Vietnam did when the U$ was forced off the gold standard in 1971 (?)

Good post, Armyjim, but sadly the rich will just not allow the legislature to make laws restricting their governemnt subsidies . . . one large example is the U$ Farm Act subsidies to allow corporations to own vast tracts of once productive agricultural land and harvest a financial return without actually risking any capital on crops or labour . . . a sort of "thank yu' gift to loyal supporters of the Republican Party . . . but as Redwave concedes, the rich would not know what to do if they had to actually work for a living . . .

Ham . . . I think that the new "defence" expenditure post 9/11 may just have destroyed your statistics . . . the U$ will not be able to have a "balanced budget" during the Bush Dynasty, but as required by legislation . . . so until after Jeb gets his turn 2008-2016 at standing in for his megalomaniac father . . . America was a great country under Clinton . . .

Good work, Redwave . . . the main function of government has always been to subsidise the rich . . . after all, the poor would only spend their money on silly things like food and clothing . . . just as happened in the early 90s when the Oz government made an ex-gratia payment to dole recipients, and stimulated regional economies for a brief moment . . .

 

[Ham Murabi]

Re: Tungwagger

Apologists for the rich often say that, but I notice they also fight tooth and nail against any attempt to redistribute the wealth, and put that theory to the test. They must not have much faith in its validity . . .

Redrave, assuming you had any wealth you had earned, would you fight tooth and nail to keep it rather than have it taken from you and redistributed?
Do you believe people are greedy for wanting to keep what they earn?
Or is the government greedy for wanting to keep more and more of what they earn?
Wealth redistribution to the extreme doesn't work, and there's plenty of proof of that elsewhere on the globe. And the wealth redistribution here might put this economy to the point where it becomes stagnant, much as it is in Western Europe, where social programs much like those supported by you have stifled economic growth.

 

[teddybear4play]

Re: Tungwagger

Apologists for the rich often say that, but I notice they also fight tooth and nail against any attempt to redistribute the wealth, and put that theory to the test. They must not have much faith in its validity . . .

In fact, since 1980 there has been a massive redistribution of wealth in the U.S. Vast amounts have been looted from the working class and the poor, and transferred to the rich.

The GOP-- the party of reverse Robin Hoods. They steal from the poor, and give to the rich!

I was waiting for someone to make this argument. Democrats use the "Robin Hood in reverse" line all the time against Republicans. It's interesting to note that the reason why Robin Hood began his crusade was because the taxes were so high that only the rich could pay them. The dreamscape of the left.

I don't remember the poor ever being "looted." In fact, during the '80s, the rich got richer, but the poor didn't get poorer; they just didn't get as rich as fast as the rich did. Just because there was more of a disparity between "rich" and "poor" doesn't mean that the rich got rich at the expense of the poor.

And as for your moronic blather about campaign contributions, the 2002 election set a record because the contributions were almost $1 billion (80% of which comes from individuals, but don't let that stop anything). A billion dollars sounds like a lot, except America spends $500 million on pork rinds per year. You'd think that by the way REDWAVE talked, political spending would be more than twice as much as pork rinds. But it's not. In fact, Americans spend more on flowers and diapers than they do on politics. Too bad the campaign finance "reform" bills making the rounds promise the former but will deliver a loaded bunch of the latter.

TB4p

 

[Aquila]

Re: Educate yourselves

Sorry, I've done enough educating of rednecks and morons for one day. The facts are out there. Look them up yourselves. There has been a massive INCREASE in inequality in the U.S. in recent years. That's a fact. If you're ignorant of it, it's not my problem.

Its also a fact more people are dropping out of high school, choosing not to attend college, and getting expelled from college.

I have no sympathy for the lazy bastards that don't want school interfereing with their social life.

 

[Tungwagger]

Re: Educate yourselves

Sorry, I've done enough educating of rednecks and morons for one day. The facts are out there. Look them up yourselves. There has been a massive INCREASE in inequality in the U.S. in recent years. That's a fact. If you're ignorant of it, it's not my problem.

Loosely translated:

RedRider doesn't have the facts......Just a blanket statement espousing some strong held political beliefs...

But that's ok....this is still America, and I will forever defend your right to be a moron Redwing...

 

[Tungwagger]

One more thing Redwave...assuming you are being truthful about living in Vegas....

Where would your own personal economy be if it weren't for the producers..(that would be those that work for a living) flying into your fair city and dumping their hard earned cash gambling in an attempt to maybe win a few bucks, shoring up YOUR local economy, and creating a tax base that makes your life more bearable?

Talk about biting the hand that feeds them....Hehehe...

I'm having fun now....

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

There are many kinds of taxes. If we're only talking income taxes, then the cutoff levels that have been described above are fairly accurate.

For medical and SSN, they are "services" and SSN has a "finite" return for what you put in. They are paid by all working people. (though the cost for this program is very high now and working people will see little return or negative return on it...but that's another story.

There are usage taxes too. Look at your phone bill. Take a look at the "real" cost of gas and what you pay for it, more than half is tax. The high cost of fuel in Europe is because they're taxed even more per unit that we are.

Of course there's sales taxes too. Those are usually tacked on top of the "price" of a good or service. They usually go to local government to pay for schools, local roads, etc.

One of the biggest taxes that you don't see is corporate taxes. You pay these taxes with every purchase you make. It is integrated into the "price" that you pay (before the sales tax). For many products, this is a large part of the price....cigarettes for example. Alcohol is another case...alcohol is very inexpensive to produce, the major component of the price that you pay is tax. All other products have similar taxes built into them too.

All in all, everyone pays lots of taxes, more than 20% the nations "Effort" is used to pay taxes, and that doesn't include state and local taxes. Add those taxes in and we're way above 20%. And, by the way, the % of the GDP ("effort") was the highest in history after Bill Clinton's tax increases...it's coming down a little now, but even these $600B tax cuts over time is a very small % of the overall tax bill, a small fraction of 1%.

Taking all taxes into consideration, Red and some of the others are correct in saying low-wage earners pay a larger % of their "effort" into taxes, though they typically don't pay much in income tax. Ironically, Red and the others are also often arguing against any drop in "corporate taxes".....Kinda like "kick me".."no, don't kick me"..."kick me".

But you won't see corporate taxes eliminated even though they're expensive, complex and make our products a little less competitive in the World Market. If you got rid of corporate taxes, then the whole effort of classifying expenses would go away and that causes a whole other bunch of changes.

Reduce them some, simplify them a lot, stop going after "foriegn" earnings so that companies don't have to relocate to the Caymens or the Bahama's to remain competitive, but don't eliminate them.

 

[Ishmael]

Damn, how stupid can I be?

Look at REDWAVES AV.!!!!!!!!!!!!

THAT'S what he meant by "Stimulating the Rich".

Shit, we've been had folks.

Ishmael

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Damn, how stupid can I be?

Look at REDWAVES AV.!!!!!!!!!!!!

THAT'S what he meant by "Stimulating the Rich".

Shit, we've been had folks.

Ishmael

LOL.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Where's Red tonight, I feel like arguing.

 

[70/30]

In fact, during the '80s, the rich got richer, but the poor didn't get poorer; they just didn't get as rich as fast as the rich did. Just because there was more of a disparity between "rich" and "poor" doesn't mean that the rich got rich at the expense of the poor.
TB4p

Wrong you are-Nader on Crossfire today said the minimum wage would have to be $8.00 to be comparable to the rate of 1968 (you aren't worth the time for me to look it up). People making $5.15 an hour, especially in expensive areas such as the PAC coast and NE is ridiculous.

***********************

to talk about something compelling---today I watched the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee have its hearing on Global Warming. McCain is the Chairman, absolutely hilarous. The stooge from Commerce Dept/NOAA even got a hard time from Sununu. McCain is pissed at the "administration" acting like an ostrich instead of an eagle---Lieberman leading the legislation is funny. Top DEM Ron Wyden (ORE) was cracking jokes with McCain the whole time. Bill Nelson (DEM-FLA) asked McCain "didn't the EPA get an invite", evidently they wouldn't answer the phone. Conrad Burns (R-Mont) was tough on the administration. Ensign (R-Nev) had harsh words. I wonder what Snowe and Chafee are thinking.

Good news---Bush is hosting an environmental conference for world leaders this summer, expect even more laughs.

 

[miles]

Re: Educate yourselves

Sorry, I've done enough educating of rednecks and morons for one day. The facts are out there. Look them up yourselves. There has been a massive INCREASE in inequality in the U.S. in recent years. That's a fact. If you're ignorant of it, it's not my problem.

Every single time someone asks you for factual information to back up your posts they become a redneck/moron.

Can you be any more transparent?

You're a waste of skin.

 

[70/30]

Debs, Hayden, Malcolm, Rangel, Sharpton, etc have a point---why should the poor fight in wars to protect the interests of the rich. The rich have a lot to lose from borders that aren't secure and from conflicts they create. The poor folk aren't why 90% of Turks hate America. The upper income folk cause international problems---if they want to protect their interests and investments the way it currently is done (400billion a year in defense spending) they can pay for it. They can also pay for cleaning up the pollution they create. That's why I don't buy into a flat tax.

Formerly republicans wanted to make a constitutional amendment saying the budget had to balance---makes me think Chafee, McCain and a rapidly uniting democratic party will neuter GWB's ideological tax break. And rightly so---Reagan had his shot and fucked it up 3trillion times with numerous paramilitary schemes. Actually the social security fund is predicted to pay most of this break since its stimulating effect is phantom-like. So someone making 20,000 maybe should get more than $27 since someone happened to mention Robin Hood.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Debs, Hayden, Malcolm, Rangel, Sharpton, etc have a point---why should the poor fight in wars to protect the interests of the rich. The rich have a lot to lose from borders that aren't secure and from conflicts they create. The poor folk aren't why 90% of Turks hate America. The upper income folk cause international problems---if they want to protect their interests and investments the way it currently is done (400billion a year in defense spending) they can pay for it. They can also pay for cleaning up the pollution they create. That's why I don't buy into a flat tax.

Formerly republicans wanted to make a constitutional amendment saying the budget had to balance---makes me think Chafee, McCain and a rapidly uniting democratic party will neuter GWB's ideological tax break. And rightly so---Reagan had his shot and fucked it up 3trillion times with numerous paramilitary schemes. Actually the social security fund is predicted to pay most of this break since its stimulating effect is phantom-like. So someone making 20,000 maybe should get more than $27 since someone happened to mention Robin Hood.

Können Sie das auf englisch wieder schreiben?

 

[Don K Dyck]

The World Needs Kyoto . . .

Wrong you are-Nader on Crossfire today said the minimum wage would have to be $8.00 to be comparable to the rate of 1968 (you aren't worth the time for me to look it up). People making $5.15 an hour, especially in expensive areas such as the PAC coast and NE is ridiculous.

***********************

to talk about something compelling---today I watched the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee have its hearing on Global Warming. McCain is the Chairman, absolutely hilarous. The stooge from Commerce Dept/NOAA even got a hard time from Sununu. McCain is pissed at the "administration" acting like an ostrich instead of an eagle---Lieberman leading the legislation is funny. Top DEM Ron Wyden (ORE) was cracking jokes with McCain the whole time. Bill Nelson (DEM-FLA) asked McCain "didn't the EPA get an invite", evidently they wouldn't answer the phone. Conrad Burns (R-Mont) was tough on the administration. Ensign (R-Nev) had harsh words. I wonder what Snowe and Chafee are thinking.

Good news---Bush is hosting an environmental conference for world leaders this summer, expect even more laughs.

Hi LTGR . . . sadly, another jabber party . . . until the U$ bites the bullet and implements the Kyoto Agreement there will be no real progress on environmental issues.

 

[70/30]

I don't speak German but maybe they'd have instituted a minimum wage higher than 5.15 (also I'm white--I also have blond hair and blue eyes). Lost Cause likes to tell us they were a brand of neo-Environmentalists maybe they wouldn't appoint representatives of the lead industry to recommend lead poisoning standards. Since global warming is caused by human activity (20billion in research over 11years to prove the obvious) maybe that administration wouldn't propose waiting an additional 10years to research how to best approach the problem. It ain't all roses for the working poor of America--the rich have an investments to protect--insurance is expensive. I say "tough shit Mister Buffett, you gotta pay for service" just as Uncle Bill says the same to the poor that can't afford health care.

 

[REDWAVE]

I'm back!

Evening, Roses. You don't need me around to argue with you when you have such fine young men as Don & 70/30 around. Their views are not as extreme as mine, either-- they're both actually a little to the right of me.

 

[Thin Man]

Median income is 26,000?

Hell, if thats true, I feel good that at least I am in the top 50%.

Kids gone, house paid for, I just want a deduction!

 

[70/30]

On my recent trips to Barnes&Noble I've been picking up "Thirty Years of Treason" compiled by Eric Bentley http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...v=glance&s=books&vi=reader&img=23#reader-link .

It is selected transcripts (1000pages) from the HUAC hearings (House Committee on UnAmerican Activities, non-commies and non-fascists might not know the proper name). They spanned from 1938-1968. Really, I was amazed that they officially lasted so long in an overt setting, the latter 1968 ones are pretty funny. The Pro-Peace movement became too big to condemn---without looking nazi-esque. Afterward, Hoover found a better way to conduct operations, COINTELPRO.

Bush has gone old skool-- Woody Wilson and FDR style by detaining over 1000 to this day with no representation. Also using Poindexter, Carnivore, denying airline access for peace demonstrators, and the Patriot Act as domestic dissent enders. Curiously he also utilises the prospect of multiple wars as an excuse to ignore mounting deficits---all while lining his cabinet's pockets with the tax breaks. People fall for it---not sure if it makes him a genius or the followers extremely moronic.

 

[REDWAVE]

Neither

He's no genius, and they're not morons. They're a little slow, but eventually they catch on to what's going on, especially when it's as obvious as this. Bush's political strategy of reckless adventurism, both here and abroad, causes him to lurch from one crisis to another and forces him to employ increasingly reckless means.

 

[Ham Murabi]

Wrong you are-Nader on Crossfire today said the minimum wage would have to be $8.00 to be comparable to the rate of 1968 (you aren't worth the time for me to look it up). People making $5.15 an hour, especially in expensive areas such as the PAC coast and NE is ridiculous.

Wow, if Nader said it, then it must be true. I know you can't be bothered to look it up, but how many people living in expensive areas such as the Pacific Coast and the Northeast survive and support a family on minimum wage.

 

[ullr]

Originally posted by Johnny Mayberry
And, I don't mean to be rude to rich people(because they can buy me or have me dumped into a shallow grave if they want), but I don't have any sympathy for them. I don't mean a farmer who is worth 4 million dollars, I mean some corporate guy who is worth $100 million or more. That guy should shut up and pay whatever he is asked to by the government, and be happy about it. A 2%increase in that guy's taxes is nothing that will ever affect his day-to-day existance. Asking someone who makes $20,000 a year to pay an extra 2% means maybe he can't afford to make a rent or car payment.

There's just so much wrong with that statement that I don't know where to start.

How about:"Tell me--just When--and how does one-on-one theft become legit when a majority (or their reps) votes for it?

Orson

 

[ullr]

Re: Educate yourselves-take this stat adjustment!##$$@

Sorry, I've done enough educating of rednecks and morons for one day. The facts are out there. Look them up yourselves. There has been a massive INCREASE in inequality in the U.S. in recent years. That's a fact. If you're ignorant of it, it's not my problem.

Wrong.
(I've looked it up.)
Simply adjust the census bureau or DOC figures (or whatever source your using) for the fact that that demographic bulge called "the [post-WWII] baby boom" is in its top wage-earning prime-of-life years (i.e., there are currently a disproportionate number of these people--normally, there aren't), and income ineqaulity's about where it's long been through the last century.
(So much for the "leveling" effects of prog tax rates!)
In other words, the observed "disproportionality" is really an artifact of the coincidence of life-cycle income generation and a demographic anomaly.

NEXT question, bozo...?

--Orson

 

[ullr]

And then there are other considerations of the data...

as was noted in Reason magazine Janauary 2000:
(Michael W. Lynch)

You've heard the complaint:... there is far too much income inequality in America. This gripe is grounded in data from the U.S. Census Bureau's annual report on income, the latest version of which was released in September. According to those data, the 20 percent of Americans with the lowest incomes earn a mere 3.6 percent of all wages paid, while the top 20 percent take home 49 percent of the loot. Translated into money terms, that means for every $1 earned by someone in the bottom quintile, a top quintile person earns more than $13.

Not true, says a recent report...identifies three significant sources of bias in the Census Bureau figures.

[1] First, the quintiles are not really quintiles. The top quintile actually has 24.3 percent of all income earners, while the bottom contains only 14.8 percent. That's because the bureau counts households, rather than individuals, and high-earner households are more likely to be composed of married couples with multiple earners than are low-income households.

[2] Second, the bureau leaves out some forms of income, including government benefits such as food stamps, and fails to adjust for the significantly higher taxes paid by high earners.

[3]Third, the bureau doesn't account for the fact that ***those in the top quintile work nearly twice as many hours as those in the bottom.***

***After these adjustments...the spread is reduced to $3.08 for every $1 earned. Which sounds almost European.***

[***emphasis mine***

--Orson]