Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[georgephillip]

Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?

A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?

Ready for the best part?

Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.

"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.

"The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."

"Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world’s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.

"In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown, increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."

When I look at the definition of "democracy", and look at your statement about three rich people and combined GDP of some countries........ what the heck does one have to do with the other? Nothing.

Further, who care what percentage of the assets whatever % of the people have? What difference does that make?

Yes, Capitalism does ensure that there will be inequality, but who said equality was good, or that inequality was bad? Who said you deserve anything? Does your existence on this planet promise you jack? Why? What have you done to earn what you have? Sucking air? Pooping?

The OECD is completely bonkers wrong. Inequality did not first start in the 1970s. For heaven sakes, what are you people smoking? Seriously? Did you ever read the massive difference between the Rich and the Poor, back in the 1920s? Or back in the 1800s even? Or even all the way back to the 1700s when this country was founded?

And here's the other side. What alternative do you propose? Socialism? Are you crazy?

Socialism is even more unequal. Have you read about the Soviet Union? Did you read about the private Communist party shops, that were stocked full of goods, while the citizens shops were empty? Have you read about the shops around Red Square, where the shop owners hid their goods in the back of the store behind curtains, so that common people wouldn't see the goods that Communist leaders had access to, that they did not? Or about the multi-floor villas reserved only for Communist officials. Or the yachts, available year around for Communist party members.

Here's the deal... there is no system on the face of this planet, or throughout all human history, in which there has been equality. Even in tribal peoples living in the forest.... the guy at the top of the tribe, had the bigger mud hut, and had more women to sleep with, had more food to eat, and more water to drink, and worked less than the rest of the people in the tribe.

This is universally true. All claims of an equal society somewhere are all myths, and lies.

The difference between Socialism, and Capitalism, is that the inequality in socialism is enforced by the states, and the inequality of Capitalism, is based on the individuals providing goods and services to the market.

I read the story of a man from Egypt. In Egypt past, you are born lower class, you live lower class, and you die lower class. You can't move up, no matter what you do, because there is a class system, and that's your fate. This man left Egypt, and moved to the US, where he started working as a janitor for a hospital. 10 years later, he had worked his way up, and earned promotion after promotion, until he was director of maintenance over several hospitals. That's Capitalism. He went from minimum wage, to well over six-figure income, while being an immigrant from another country, where the class system would have left him a low-wage low-class worker until he died.

So, I'll take inequality, over socialistic 'equality' any day.

Your words:

"When I look at the definition of "democracy", and look at your statement about three rich people and combined GDP of some countries........ what the heck does one have to do with the other? Nothing.

"Further, who care what percentage of the assets whatever % of the people have? What difference does that make?"

Tell me if you accept the following definition of...

"...DEMOCRACY

1
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2
: a political unit that has a democratic government
3
capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts>
4
: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5
: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges"

When incomes of 1% of the population increase 31% while the incomes of the other 99% rise 0.4% between 2009 -2012 that should tell you the common people are having their political choices vetted by the richest 1% long before election day. That, in turn, dilutes the political authority of the majority.

Hereditary and arbitrary class distinctions guarantee the sort of economic inequality we've seen since 2008, and their consequence will only become worse.

When three individuals control more wealth than the combined GDP of the last 47 countries, you're living in a world where oligarchy and not democracy controls the political processes of the major nation states.

You may console yourself with the false dichotomy of capitalism or socialism, others aren't so ignorant.

Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Andylusion]

Then why does the top 20% get 50% of the overall tax breaks?

Well... is seems rather logical to me that when the bottom 47% don't even pay tax, that more tax breaks likely benefit those who actually pay tax, than those who don't.

Equally, the people who gain more differing types of income, would also likely be able to use tax breaks designed for those types of income.

For example, if there is a tax break for getting stock options.

While some people earning $80,000 a year or less, might get some stock options as compensation, I think it's safe to say very few do.

But those earning over $200K, often get stock options and other such compensation.

Thus logically, only those getting stock options, and alternative compensation, are likely to benefit from tax breaks for such alternative compensation.

Seriously, this is a very obvious answer. I more surprised you would ask such a question.

Where did you get the idea that...?

"Forty-seven percent of Americans don’t pay taxes.

"The most pernicious misconception about people who don’t pay federal income taxes is that they don’t pay any taxes. That oft-heard claim ignores all the other taxes Americans encounter in their daily lives.

"Almost two-thirds of the 47 percent work, for example, and their payroll taxes help finance Social Security and Medicare.

"Accounting for this, the share of households paying no net federal taxes falls to 28 percent."

Five myths about the 47 percent - The Washington Post

There's also federal taxes on gasoline, beer, and cigarettes along with state and local sales and property taxes which are often more regressive than federal income taxes.

While everything you say is technically true, it's also irrelevant to the point of the prior poster. The prior poster was complaining about deductions and tax breaks that the wealthy have, that the poor do not use.

All of these taxes, are ones that no one has any exception for. Do wealthy people have an exemption from Gasoline tax? No. So obviously bringing up that tax, as well as smokes and beer, was pointless. It didn't support the original claim.

Further, rich people have no tax breaks on Social Security or Medicare either. So there was no point in bringing that up.

The primary tax breaks that rich people use deductions on, that poor people can not, is income tax deductions. And the primary reason the poor do not use those tax breaks is because they don't pay any income tax.

The only other exceptions, would be deductions on specific types of property, like a yacht. There's a deduction for the depreciation of a yacht. Obviously poor people can't use that deduction, because they can't buy the yacht. But the other side of that argument is that, they also don't pay the tax to have a yacht anchored in the US either, and the amount of that tax, is far greater than the amount of the deduction.

So while everything you said was technically accurate, it was also irrelevant to the original point.

THAT SAID.......

I'm assuming that you are a leftist. It's rare that a right-wing person would make the argument you are making. If I am wrong.... oops.

You people on the left need to figure out which way you want to think about Social Security and Medicare.

If it's a tax... ok then it's a tax. Social Security, and Medicare, is the most oppressive anti-poor, anti-lower-class socialist policy the world has ever known. It takes money away from the lowest income citizens, and gives them little to nothing. Nothing has held down the poor and impoverished, more than Social Security and Medicare.

When I say that.... It's suddenly not a tax. It's a contribution for an insurance policy.

Ok.... Then 47% of the population pays no tax, and you have no valid reason to complain about the wealthy not paying enough tax, because they are paying nearly all of it.

When I say that.... It's suddenly a tax again.

Look.... you can't have it both ways. You can't just change your position to conveniently fit whatever situation you are talking about. It's one, or the other.

I happen to believe it is a tax, and Social Security and Medicare are both horribly oppressive, and cruel socialistic policies that harm the poor the most. We should dismantle them. There was ZERO demand for Social Security or Medicare, before they were created. The Government had to push, and sell these programs to the public, and manufacture demand for them. Poor people were, and would be, better able to take care of themselves if they HAD THEIR OWN MONEY, instead of it being stolen by the government.

But you people on the left, pick your position. Either it is a tax, and a horrible oppressive system, or it's not a tax, and 47% don't pay taxes. Take your pick. One or the other.

 

[Andylusion]

Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?

A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?

Ready for the best part?

Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.

"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.

"The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."

"Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world’s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.

"In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown, increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."

When I look at the definition of "democracy", and look at your statement about three rich people and combined GDP of some countries........ what the heck does one have to do with the other? Nothing.

Further, who care what percentage of the assets whatever % of the people have? What difference does that make?

Yes, Capitalism does ensure that there will be inequality, but who said equality was good, or that inequality was bad? Who said you deserve anything? Does your existence on this planet promise you jack? Why? What have you done to earn what you have? Sucking air? Pooping?

The OECD is completely bonkers wrong. Inequality did not first start in the 1970s. For heaven sakes, what are you people smoking? Seriously? Did you ever read the massive difference between the Rich and the Poor, back in the 1920s? Or back in the 1800s even? Or even all the way back to the 1700s when this country was founded?

And here's the other side. What alternative do you propose? Socialism? Are you crazy?

Socialism is even more unequal. Have you read about the Soviet Union? Did you read about the private Communist party shops, that were stocked full of goods, while the citizens shops were empty? Have you read about the shops around Red Square, where the shop owners hid their goods in the back of the store behind curtains, so that common people wouldn't see the goods that Communist leaders had access to, that they did not? Or about the multi-floor villas reserved only for Communist officials. Or the yachts, available year around for Communist party members.

Here's the deal... there is no system on the face of this planet, or throughout all human history, in which there has been equality. Even in tribal peoples living in the forest.... the guy at the top of the tribe, had the bigger mud hut, and had more women to sleep with, had more food to eat, and more water to drink, and worked less than the rest of the people in the tribe.

This is universally true. All claims of an equal society somewhere are all myths, and lies.

The difference between Socialism, and Capitalism, is that the inequality in socialism is enforced by the states, and the inequality of Capitalism, is based on the individuals providing goods and services to the market.

I read the story of a man from Egypt. In Egypt past, you are born lower class, you live lower class, and you die lower class. You can't move up, no matter what you do, because there is a class system, and that's your fate. This man left Egypt, and moved to the US, where he started working as a janitor for a hospital. 10 years later, he had worked his way up, and earned promotion after promotion, until he was director of maintenance over several hospitals. That's Capitalism. He went from minimum wage, to well over six-figure income, while being an immigrant from another country, where the class system would have left him a low-wage low-class worker until he died.

So, I'll take inequality, over socialistic 'equality' any day.

Your words:

"When I look at the definition of "democracy", and look at your statement about three rich people and combined GDP of some countries........ what the heck does one have to do with the other? Nothing.

"Further, who care what percentage of the assets whatever % of the people have? What difference does that make?"

Tell me if you accept the following definition of...

"...DEMOCRACY

1
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2
: a political unit that has a democratic government
3
capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts>
4
: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5
: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges"

When incomes of 1% of the population increase 31% while the incomes of the other 99% rise 0.4% between 2009 -2012 that should tell you the common people are having their political choices vetted by the richest 1% long before election day. That, in turn, dilutes the political authority of the majority.

Hereditary and arbitrary class distinctions guarantee the sort of economic inequality we've seen since 2008, and their consequence will only become worse.

When three individuals control more wealth than the combined GDP of the last 47 countries, you're living in a world where oligarchy and not democracy controls the political processes of the major nation states.

You may console yourself with the false dichotomy of capitalism or socialism, others aren't so ignorant.

Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No it shouldn't. Your income is has nothing to do with your ability to vote, or your voice in government. Political authority, and your pay check, are not connected. Has nothing to do with each other.

Democracy, and income equality, are not causally linked, or even related.

Nor is there Hereditary and arbitrary class distinction in America. Nor do these non-existent class distinctions cause income inequality. Nor is income inequality bad.

80% of this countries millionaires, are all first generation rich. Many people started off at the very bottom of the income ladder, and worked their way up to the top 20%.

Sorry, you are just wrong on this.

 

[Andylusion]

China made up almost half of our trade imbalance in 2013. Not only do they represent the biggest trade imbalance by far the ratio of imports to exports is the worst of any major trading partner by far.

Yes Germany also uses capital flows to ensure a trade balance they want. So has Japan. It is not a huge surprise that Japan has the problems they have now considering how they grew their economy in the past. They can't manipulate the USD forever and neither can China.

As for the employment figures, I wouldn't expect a direct impact like that. Those numbers change the way they do because imports are based on demand and demand goes up and down with the economic cycle (ie unemployment). The problems with the trade imbalance can be seen with the stagnation of wages in the US.

The idea that it is our socialists policies is ridiculous. If anything US labor would be more competitive with UHC.

Only because the rest of our trade balance disappeared. You can see clearly from the chart, that from 96 to 09, China made up far less than half.

Further, you implication is that this "manipulation" will destroy the country doing the manipulation. If that's the case, then we should do nothing about it, and allow them to destroy themselves. It certainly didn't hurt us.

I don't see wages being stagnate, unless you are looking at "household income" numbers, in which case, the numbers are skewed.

Household income has fallen, but not because of imports. It's fallen because the number one way to stay poor and impoverished, is to divorce, or not get married at all, both of which have become exceptionally common in our culture.

Think about it. You have two people earning an income, and married. Then they divorce. You take one household with a high income, and separate it into two homes both of which have a much lower income. Obviously that's going to massively drag the average down.

Additionally, we used to have a culture where kids lived at home, worked a job, and went to college. Now those kids are getting their own apartment, and working a job, while going to college. Again, taking one household with a large household income, and splitting it into two households, both of which, with a lower income.

There is no real drop in wages. At least none worth talking about.

And yes of course it's our socialistic policies that have caused this, and claiming that UHC would be a net benefit is ridiculous as well. Go tell that to Europe. Tell Greece they are more competitive because they have UHC. Tell that to Spain. Tell that to Cuba and Venezuela. Double the tax rate, to cover UHC, and then thing we're going to be competitive? Not to mention that their health care sucks compared to ours, and people come here from all over the world to get health care. Being "more competitive" while having more people die, is not an even trade.

Dude I don't care about your chart. In reality China made up almost half of the trade deficit. Almost $300 billion of the $600 billion or so deficit.

It will hurt both of us and is hurting both of us.

Your explanation of the drop in wages is hilarious.

The lesson of Spain and Greece is that capital flows between nations matter. Spain didn't have that much government debt as industrialized nations go but they did rely on foreign capital. Surprise surprise their production problems were masked by consumption that was artificially boosted by foreign capital. Eventually that debt gets paid back and the economy sees a large drop in demand.

UHC is more efficient. It is not the only trade issue though. Capital flows are far more important.

Well the chart shows the facts. If you don't care about the facts, then there is no point in you talking about this subject. You can claim it's hurting us, but that's all it is, a claim. What is hurting us, is bad socialist policies.

My explanation of the drop in wages, is a mathematical, and historical fact.

UHC is not more efficient. That was a ridiculous unsupportable claim. The per person overhead of Medicare, is just under double the per person overhead of private insurance companies. Nor is it more 'efficient' in any other country. You don't know what you are talking about.

Spainish capital flows were created by the government of Spain, which encouraged investment into "infrastructure". (sound familiar?) These infrastructure investments, were pushed by the government as being a boost to future economic growth. Instead they created no growth, and crashed. There are numerous examples.

Greece was a mess, building and investing into infrastructure, like a rail service, that was so expensive, they could have hired a private taxi cab for each passenger, and saved money over the cost of the rail service.

You are blaming the tool of foreign investment, for the problem caused by bad economic socialist policies.

 

[Bombur]

Only because the rest of our trade balance disappeared. You can see clearly from the chart, that from 96 to 09, China made up far less than half.

Further, you implication is that this "manipulation" will destroy the country doing the manipulation. If that's the case, then we should do nothing about it, and allow them to destroy themselves. It certainly didn't hurt us.

I don't see wages being stagnate, unless you are looking at "household income" numbers, in which case, the numbers are skewed.

Household income has fallen, but not because of imports. It's fallen because the number one way to stay poor and impoverished, is to divorce, or not get married at all, both of which have become exceptionally common in our culture.

Think about it. You have two people earning an income, and married. Then they divorce. You take one household with a high income, and separate it into two homes both of which have a much lower income. Obviously that's going to massively drag the average down.

Additionally, we used to have a culture where kids lived at home, worked a job, and went to college. Now those kids are getting their own apartment, and working a job, while going to college. Again, taking one household with a large household income, and splitting it into two households, both of which, with a lower income.

There is no real drop in wages. At least none worth talking about.

And yes of course it's our socialistic policies that have caused this, and claiming that UHC would be a net benefit is ridiculous as well. Go tell that to Europe. Tell Greece they are more competitive because they have UHC. Tell that to Spain. Tell that to Cuba and Venezuela. Double the tax rate, to cover UHC, and then thing we're going to be competitive? Not to mention that their health care sucks compared to ours, and people come here from all over the world to get health care. Being "more competitive" while having more people die, is not an even trade.

Dude I don't care about your chart. In reality China made up almost half of the trade deficit. Almost $300 billion of the $600 billion or so deficit.

It will hurt both of us and is hurting both of us.

Your explanation of the drop in wages is hilarious.

The lesson of Spain and Greece is that capital flows between nations matter. Spain didn't have that much government debt as industrialized nations go but they did rely on foreign capital. Surprise surprise their production problems were masked by consumption that was artificially boosted by foreign capital. Eventually that debt gets paid back and the economy sees a large drop in demand.

UHC is more efficient. It is not the only trade issue though. Capital flows are far more important.

Well the chart shows the facts. If you don't care about the facts, then there is no point in you talking about this subject. You can claim it's hurting us, but that's all it is, a claim. What is hurting us, is bad socialist policies.

My explanation of the drop in wages, is a mathematical, and historical fact.

UHC is not more efficient. That was a ridiculous unsupportable claim. The per person overhead of Medicare, is just under double the per person overhead of private insurance companies. Nor is it more 'efficient' in any other country. You don't know what you are talking about.

Spainish capital flows were created by the government of Spain, which encouraged investment into "infrastructure". (sound familiar?) These infrastructure investments, were pushed by the government as being a boost to future economic growth. Instead they created no growth, and crashed. There are numerous examples.

Greece was a mess, building and investing into infrastructure, like a rail service, that was so expensive, they could have hired a private taxi cab for each passenger, and saved money over the cost of the rail service.

You are blaming the tool of foreign investment, for the problem caused by bad economic socialist policies.

The trade imbalance with China is public record. Your entire argument is based off of incorrect facts. Your explanation for the drop of wages is comical and based on nothing.

Spain's government debt was no worse than other countries. Continuing to claim otherwise just demonstrates to me that you are working with bad facts.

UHC is more efficient consistently. The US spends way more than other countries so we get better results in many areas but the system is horribly inefficient.

Basically everything you say doesn't even pass a basic sniff test.

 

[georgephillip]

Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?

A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?

Ready for the best part?

Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.

"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.

"The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."

"Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world’s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.

"In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown, increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."

who cares? .....see george, thats the beauty of it.

here you have the right to go get your own....so, go get your own.

Trajan, has it ever occurred to you it's not worth getting?

"We live in a world rife with inequality of wealth, income, power and influence. It is the underlying cause of deep-seated social tensions, community divisions and a range of poisons that cause terrible suffering to millions of people.
The disparity between the wealthy minority and the billions living in suffocating poverty is greater than it has ever been.
Worldwide it is estimated that the wealthiest 10 per cent owns 85 per cent of global household wealth."

Have you considered the possibility that private wealth is the poison here?

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

 

[georgephillip]

Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stockholding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors. The remaining three directors are appointed by the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks, but direct supervision and control of each Bank is exercised by its board of directors. 12 U.S.C. § 301. The directors enact by-laws regulating the manner of conducting general Bank business, 12 U.S.C. § 341, and appoint officers to implement and supervise daily Bank activities. These activities include collecting and clearing checks, making advances to private and commercial entities, holding reserves for member banks, discounting the notes of member banks, and buying and selling securities on the open market. See 12 U.S.C. §§ 341-361.

Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 04/19/1982)


.

Last chance. I don't deal with stupid people. I don't deal with childish people.

You failed to make a point the first time. You failed the second time, while repeating yourself like a really dumb child, as if saying it again, makes it all true.

So this is your one and only warning. Next time you act like a 5-year-old whose parents forgot to put him to bed, you join my ignore list. There, you will cease to exist in my world, for all time. You won't be missed, and given the fact you have failed to say anything of value thus far, I will not be missing anything.

Last chance. Want to discuss stuff? Fine. Answer the questions I posed in the prior post, or make a counter point. That's what adults do. If that's not you, just make another childish, Forest Gump style post, and I will eliminate you from my world forever! Up to you! Grow up, or get out. Make your choice. I'm fine either way.

"Q: Who owns the Federal Reserve Bank?
A: There are actually 12 different Federal Reserve Banks around the country, and they are owned by big private banks.

"But the banks don’t necessarily run the show.

"Nationally, the Federal Reserve System is led by a Board of Governors whose seven members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

"FULL ANSWER
"The stockholders in the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks are the privately owned banks that fall under the Federal Reserve System.

"These include all national banks (chartered by the federal government) and those state-chartered banks that wish to join and meet certain requirements.

"About 38 percent of the nation’s more than 8,000 banks are members of the system, and thus own the Fed banks.

"The concept of 'ownership' needs some explaining here, however. The member banks must by law invest 3 percent of their capital as stock in the Reserve Banks, and they cannot sell or trade their stock or even use that stock as collateral to borrow money.

"They do receive dividends of 6 percent per year from the Reserve Banks and get to elect each Reserve Bank’s board of directors."

Federal Reserve Bank Ownership

 

[georgephillip]

Well... is seems rather logical to me that when the bottom 47% don't even pay tax, that more tax breaks likely benefit those who actually pay tax, than those who don't.

Equally, the people who gain more differing types of income, would also likely be able to use tax breaks designed for those types of income.

For example, if there is a tax break for getting stock options.

While some people earning $80,000 a year or less, might get some stock options as compensation, I think it's safe to say very few do.

But those earning over $200K, often get stock options and other such compensation.

Thus logically, only those getting stock options, and alternative compensation, are likely to benefit from tax breaks for such alternative compensation.

Seriously, this is a very obvious answer. I more surprised you would ask such a question.

Where did you get the idea that...?

"Forty-seven percent of Americans don’t pay taxes.

"The most pernicious misconception about people who don’t pay federal income taxes is that they don’t pay any taxes. That oft-heard claim ignores all the other taxes Americans encounter in their daily lives.

"Almost two-thirds of the 47 percent work, for example, and their payroll taxes help finance Social Security and Medicare.

"Accounting for this, the share of households paying no net federal taxes falls to 28 percent."

Five myths about the 47 percent - The Washington Post

There's also federal taxes on gasoline, beer, and cigarettes along with state and local sales and property taxes which are often more regressive than federal income taxes.

While everything you say is technically true, it's also irrelevant to the point of the prior poster. The prior poster was complaining about deductions and tax breaks that the wealthy have, that the poor do not use.

All of these taxes, are ones that no one has any exception for. Do wealthy people have an exemption from Gasoline tax? No. So obviously bringing up that tax, as well as smokes and beer, was pointless. It didn't support the original claim.

Further, rich people have no tax breaks on Social Security or Medicare either. So there was no point in bringing that up.

The primary tax breaks that rich people use deductions on, that poor people can not, is income tax deductions. And the primary reason the poor do not use those tax breaks is because they don't pay any income tax.

The only other exceptions, would be deductions on specific types of property, like a yacht. There's a deduction for the depreciation of a yacht. Obviously poor people can't use that deduction, because they can't buy the yacht. But the other side of that argument is that, they also don't pay the tax to have a yacht anchored in the US either, and the amount of that tax, is far greater than the amount of the deduction.

So while everything you said was technically accurate, it was also irrelevant to the original point.

THAT SAID.......

I'm assuming that you are a leftist. It's rare that a right-wing person would make the argument you are making. If I am wrong.... oops.

You people on the left need to figure out which way you want to think about Social Security and Medicare.

If it's a tax... ok then it's a tax. Social Security, and Medicare, is the most oppressive anti-poor, anti-lower-class socialist policy the world has ever known. It takes money away from the lowest income citizens, and gives them little to nothing. Nothing has held down the poor and impoverished, more than Social Security and Medicare.

When I say that.... It's suddenly not a tax. It's a contribution for an insurance policy.

Ok.... Then 47% of the population pays no tax, and you have no valid reason to complain about the wealthy not paying enough tax, because they are paying nearly all of it.

When I say that.... It's suddenly a tax again.

Look.... you can't have it both ways. You can't just change your position to conveniently fit whatever situation you are talking about. It's one, or the other.

I happen to believe it is a tax, and Social Security and Medicare are both horribly oppressive, and cruel socialistic policies that harm the poor the most. We should dismantle them. There was ZERO demand for Social Security or Medicare, before they were created. The Government had to push, and sell these programs to the public, and manufacture demand for them. Poor people were, and would be, better able to take care of themselves if they HAD THEIR OWN MONEY, instead of it being stolen by the government.

But you people on the left, pick your position. Either it is a tax, and a horrible oppressive system, or it's not a tax, and 47% don't pay taxes. Take your pick. One or the other.

Where did you get the idea rich people have no tax breaks on Social Security when the tax they pay applies only to the first $117,000 they earn and is not imposed on investment income of any kind?

Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Contumacious]

"We live in a world rife with inequality of wealth, income, power and influence. It is the underlying cause of deep-seated social tensions, community divisions and a range of poisons that cause terrible suffering to millions of people.

As previously stated individuals are responsible for learning the appropriate skills to be gainfully employed.

But you are saying that the parasites are capable of using violence in order to force taxpayers to be support them in the comfort of their homes.

.

 

[georgephillip]

When I look at the definition of "democracy", and look at your statement about three rich people and combined GDP of some countries........ what the heck does one have to do with the other? Nothing.

Further, who care what percentage of the assets whatever % of the people have? What difference does that make?

Yes, Capitalism does ensure that there will be inequality, but who said equality was good, or that inequality was bad? Who said you deserve anything? Does your existence on this planet promise you jack? Why? What have you done to earn what you have? Sucking air? Pooping?

The OECD is completely bonkers wrong. Inequality did not first start in the 1970s. For heaven sakes, what are you people smoking? Seriously? Did you ever read the massive difference between the Rich and the Poor, back in the 1920s? Or back in the 1800s even? Or even all the way back to the 1700s when this country was founded?

And here's the other side. What alternative do you propose? Socialism? Are you crazy?

Socialism is even more unequal. Have you read about the Soviet Union? Did you read about the private Communist party shops, that were stocked full of goods, while the citizens shops were empty? Have you read about the shops around Red Square, where the shop owners hid their goods in the back of the store behind curtains, so that common people wouldn't see the goods that Communist leaders had access to, that they did not? Or about the multi-floor villas reserved only for Communist officials. Or the yachts, available year around for Communist party members.

Here's the deal... there is no system on the face of this planet, or throughout all human history, in which there has been equality. Even in tribal peoples living in the forest.... the guy at the top of the tribe, had the bigger mud hut, and had more women to sleep with, had more food to eat, and more water to drink, and worked less than the rest of the people in the tribe.

This is universally true. All claims of an equal society somewhere are all myths, and lies.

The difference between Socialism, and Capitalism, is that the inequality in socialism is enforced by the states, and the inequality of Capitalism, is based on the individuals providing goods and services to the market.

I read the story of a man from Egypt. In Egypt past, you are born lower class, you live lower class, and you die lower class. You can't move up, no matter what you do, because there is a class system, and that's your fate. This man left Egypt, and moved to the US, where he started working as a janitor for a hospital. 10 years later, he had worked his way up, and earned promotion after promotion, until he was director of maintenance over several hospitals. That's Capitalism. He went from minimum wage, to well over six-figure income, while being an immigrant from another country, where the class system would have left him a low-wage low-class worker until he died.

So, I'll take inequality, over socialistic 'equality' any day.

Your words:

"When I look at the definition of "democracy", and look at your statement about three rich people and combined GDP of some countries........ what the heck does one have to do with the other? Nothing.

"Further, who care what percentage of the assets whatever % of the people have? What difference does that make?"

Tell me if you accept the following definition of...

"...DEMOCRACY

1
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2
: a political unit that has a democratic government
3
capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts>
4
: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5
: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges"

When incomes of 1% of the population increase 31% while the incomes of the other 99% rise 0.4% between 2009 -2012 that should tell you the common people are having their political choices vetted by the richest 1% long before election day. That, in turn, dilutes the political authority of the majority.

Hereditary and arbitrary class distinctions guarantee the sort of economic inequality we've seen since 2008, and their consequence will only become worse.

When three individuals control more wealth than the combined GDP of the last 47 countries, you're living in a world where oligarchy and not democracy controls the political processes of the major nation states.

You may console yourself with the false dichotomy of capitalism or socialism, others aren't so ignorant.

Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No it shouldn't. Your income is has nothing to do with your ability to vote, or your voice in government. Political authority, and your pay check, are not connected. Has nothing to do with each other.

Democracy, and income equality, are not causally linked, or even related.

Nor is there Hereditary and arbitrary class distinction in America. Nor do these non-existent class distinctions cause income inequality. Nor is income inequality bad.

80% of this countries millionaires, are all first generation rich. Many people started off at the very bottom of the income ladder, and worked their way up to the top 20%.

Sorry, you are just wrong on this.

Can you prove 80% of US millionaires are first generation rich?
How many Americans who started off at the very bottom of the income ladder and reached the top quintile?
Increasing income inequality leads to a form of government known as oligarchy.
Oligarchy and Democracy have been in conflict for thousands of years.
When the richest one percent of the US voters decide by the size of campaign donations which candidates will receive their party's nomination in the general election, they are restricting your voice in government.

That's why the US is widely believed to have the best government money can buy.

 

[georgephillip]

"We live in a world rife with inequality of wealth, income, power and influence. It is the underlying cause of deep-seated social tensions, community divisions and a range of poisons that cause terrible suffering to millions of people.

As previously stated individuals are responsible for learning the appropriate skills to be gainfully employed.

But you are saying that the parasites are capable of using violence in order to force taxpayers to be support them in the comfort of their homes.

.

Individuals are more likely to learn the appropriate skills needed for employment when their society is capable of providing an adequate number of jobs for each new generation. IMHO, the parasites impeding that in the US today work on Wall Street and they have no lack of support in DC from elected Republicans AND Democrats alike.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The uptick in the amount of USE of the meaningless liberal term "income inequality" is noticeable.

It is one of the hugely ridiculous lolberal Democrat talking points probably heading right up until and well into the elections.

They best not over work it, though.

Sooner or later the majority of the people might just start collectively questioning whether "income equality" is in any way a desirable thing for our Republic and its people.

And it certainly is not.

 

[KevinWestern]

Hey - I'm not arguing about the morality of it all, I'm just saying that it happens. When you have a finite amount of resources, and 90% are owned by 1 guy in a society of 100, eventually those 99 individuals are going to say "fuck it" and forcibly make the 1 guy share with the rest. This is what happens.

Even the strongest, cleverest, most powerful lion can't defend itself from 99 jealous peers. It's simply a fact of life.

Not true.

Resources are not 'finite', they are dynamic.

I was listening to a documentary on the BBC about a water utilities in an African country. And the system was socialized, where the amount money given for water was provided by the government, and there was massive water shortages throughout the country.

Well they privatized it, and a guy started operating the water utilities like a business, and demanding payment for water. In the process by getting people to provide money for the water, he was able to invest that money into building more systems for getting water. The percentage of the population with access to clean drinking water, more than doubled if I remember.

All resources operate this way.

As the value of resources increases, the value in developing those resources also increases.

Take for example Shale Oil. Back in the 90s, and even the early 2000s, experts in Oil, said Shale Oil would "never be developed" because it was simply uneconomical to do so. I can remember guys on forums just like this saying "Shale Oil will never be used".... then 2008 hit. The price of oil went up to $140 a barrel. Suddenly, it was economical to invest in Shale Oil. In the process of investing in Shale Oil, the cost to produce Shale Oil declined down to an average $50 a barrel. No one predicted this.

Resources are dynamic. When the price is low, it seems like we have dwindling supplies, because there's no economical way to get many resources. But when the price is high, it spurs investment, and that investment will lead to more resources being economical.

Water surplus in Israel? With desalination, once unthinkable is possible | Jewish Telegraphic Agency
Water in the desert regions of Israel, is of course rare, and costly. But that cost, also drove investment. Today Israel is producing more clean drinking water from Ocean salt water, than the entire country can consume. They are now selling excess water to Jordan, and a few others.

Now all of that to say this.

"Wealth" is also a dynamic resource. If you deny the benefit to those who grow wealth, wealth will not be grown. This is why every system where the 99 greedy people, demand that the 1 guy share, end up impoverished.

Look at it another way. Say I'm the wealthy guy, and I have BMW Z4. MSRP $65K. Say I have a fleet of them. And the 99 greedy people, come and take my cars away.

In about 10 years time, both me, and the 99 greedy people, will end up right back where we are now. Why?

If you don't have the ability to buy a BMW Z4 now, how will you be able to maintain one if it was stolen from me, and given to you? The first time something breaks, and you take it into the shop, and they say "yeah, that'll be $2,000 to fix the blaw blaw", you won't have it.

Me on the other hand, if I have the ability to earn enough to buy the BMW Z4 before, then likely I will have it again, and will be able to get another one.

As such, the wealth divided up will be consumed and gone. The wealth earned, will be replaced. Wealth itself is dynamic.

This is the universal truth.

Similarly, if you try and prevent me from earning more, I'll simply move to where I can earn more. When France passed it's wealth tax, thousands of the wealthy in France, moved operations out of the country.

When Venezuela started confiscating the rightfully earned property of the wealthy, they packed up and left. Over one million people, in a country of only 29 million, have left Venezuela, and most all of them were the wealthy job makers, wealth creators of the country.

And Venezuela is less wealthy, and in fact the worst performing economy in Latin America.

When the people who produce wealth leave, that doesn't mean wealth is spread more evenly among the people. It means there is less wealth period, and people end up more impoverished.

I understand resources are dynamic, and that the poor in the US - for example - probably have a better standard of life than some Kings 400 years ago. But the point I'm making is that it is all a matter of perception. If the 99% feel like the 1% has too much of the general wealth, or is making too much when it comes to income, they will eventually revolt (ie create an situation where things aren't quite stable).

I'm not just pulling this out of my ass either. A well researched, diverse study (by a reputable institution, which I provided earlier) concluded that there is indeed a correlation between income inequality and instability after taking a look at over 70 different countries.

Now does it make it right that people revolt? No, not saying that's the case. I'm just saying they do. It's happened over, and over, and over again. You can't deny the FACTS.

Therefore, it can be a legitimate problem. I'd rather live and invest in a country that's at peace, vs one in the midst of a civil war.

You?

 

[Contumacious]

I understand resources are dynamic, and that the poor in the US - for example - probably have a better standard of life than some Kings 400 years ago. But the point I'm making is that it is all a matter of perception. If the 99% feel like the 1% has too much of the general wealth, or is making too much when it comes to income, they will eventually revolt (ie create an situation where things aren't quite stable).

Their unemployment is caused by the gargantuan welfare/warfare police state. And they should revolt.

.

 

[georgephillip]

The uptick in the amount of USE of the meaningless liberal term "income inequality" is noticeable.

It is one of the hugely ridiculous lolberal Democrat talking points probably heading right up until and well into the elections.

They best not over work it, though.

Sooner or later the majority of the people might just start collectively questioning whether "income equality" is in any way a desirable thing for our Republic and its people.

And it certainly is not.

Income equality is an economic impossibility; there will always be workers whose efforts are worth more to society than others.

This thread is arguing the current level of income inequality in the US represents a threat to our Republic that is much greater than any Lenin, Hitler, or Stalin manufactured.

 

[bripat9643]

Your words:

"When I look at the definition of "democracy", and look at your statement about three rich people and combined GDP of some countries........ what the heck does one have to do with the other? Nothing.

"Further, who care what percentage of the assets whatever % of the people have? What difference does that make?"

Tell me if you accept the following definition of...

"...DEMOCRACY

1
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2
: a political unit that has a democratic government
3
capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts>
4
: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5
: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges"

When incomes of 1% of the population increase 31% while the incomes of the other 99% rise 0.4% between 2009 -2012 that should tell you the common people are having their political choices vetted by the richest 1% long before election day. That, in turn, dilutes the political authority of the majority.

Hereditary and arbitrary class distinctions guarantee the sort of economic inequality we've seen since 2008, and their consequence will only become worse.

When three individuals control more wealth than the combined GDP of the last 47 countries, you're living in a world where oligarchy and not democracy controls the political processes of the major nation states.

You may console yourself with the false dichotomy of capitalism or socialism, others aren't so ignorant.

Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No it shouldn't. Your income is has nothing to do with your ability to vote, or your voice in government. Political authority, and your pay check, are not connected. Has nothing to do with each other.

Democracy, and income equality, are not causally linked, or even related.

Nor is there Hereditary and arbitrary class distinction in America. Nor do these non-existent class distinctions cause income inequality. Nor is income inequality bad.

80% of this countries millionaires, are all first generation rich. Many people started off at the very bottom of the income ladder, and worked their way up to the top 20%.

Sorry, you are just wrong on this.

Can you prove 80% of US millionaires are first generation rich?
How many Americans who started off at the very bottom of the income ladder and reached the top quintile?
Increasing income inequality leads to a form of government known as oligarchy.
Oligarchy and Democracy have been in conflict for thousands of years.
When the richest one percent of the US voters decide by the size of campaign donations which candidates will receive their party's nomination in the general election, they are restricting your voice in government.

That's why the US is widely believed to have the best government money can buy.

Fidelity Survey Finds 86 Percent of Millionaires Are Self-Made

BOSTON -- Fidelity Investments® today released results of its fifth Fidelity® Millionaire Outlook, an in-depth survey analyzing the investing attitudes and behaviors of more than 1,000 millionaire households1. This year’s study found that 86 percent of millionaires are self-made and that their path to wealth, financial outlook and goals greatly impact their investment behaviors. In addition, millionaires’ outlook on the future financial environment is at its highest level in the survey’s history, underscored by their confidence in the stock market, as millionaires ranked domestic stocks their number one investment added in the last year.​

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The uptick in the amount of USE of the meaningless liberal term "income inequality" is noticeable.

It is one of the hugely ridiculous lolberal Democrat talking points probably heading right up until and well into the elections.

They best not over work it, though.

Sooner or later the majority of the people might just start collectively questioning whether "income equality" is in any way a desirable thing for our Republic and its people.

And it certainly is not.

Income equality is an economic impossibility;

Yes it is. And that's GREAT news in its own right.

there will always be workers whose efforts are worth more to society than others.

Absolutely correct. Which makes the liberal clamor and railing against so-called "income inequality" that much less coherent.

This thread is arguing the current level of income inequality in the US represents a threat to our Republic

WHich is, of course, a silly and baseless absurd, ridiculous and very "liberal" "argument."

that is much greater than any Lenin, Hitler, or Stalin manufactured.

An even wilder set of absurd contentions: This is why (upon any serious study and reflection) the theses of modern American liberalism are uniformly revealed to be laughable.

 

[The T]

The uptick in the amount of USE of the meaningless liberal term "income inequality" is noticeable.

It is one of the hugely ridiculous lolberal Democrat talking points probably heading right up until and well into the elections.

They best not over work it, though.

Sooner or later the majority of the people might just start collectively questioning whether "income equality" is in any way a desirable thing for our Republic and its people.

And it certainly is not.

Income equality is only good as the tools you have taken the time to arm yourself with to get through life as you have sought fit as a responsible person.

It irritates me to have to have to pay for individuals that haven't taken the time to arm themselves and therefore EXPECT the rest of us to carry them.
But then why work when you have the producers carrying your water and the Government making it easy to get in but not so much to get out?

The problem is Opportunity...and Government's willingness to make them less with their attacks upon the private sector/citizen with heavy-handed taxation, regulation all for the sake of their control.

The Founders would be aghast at what this Republic has become.

 

[KevinWestern]

I understand resources are dynamic, and that the poor in the US - for example - probably have a better standard of life than some Kings 400 years ago. But the point I'm making is that it is all a matter of perception. If the 99% feel like the 1% has too much of the general wealth, or is making too much when it comes to income, they will eventually revolt (ie create an situation where things aren't quite stable).

Their unemployment is caused by the gargantuan welfare/warfare police state. And they should revolt.

.

Well it's my opinion is that capitalism is great however it tends to have a little flaw in that at the "end states" wealth will begin to pool and accumulate between a very few people (because money makes money, and once you hit a billion - as long as you're not a complete dimwit - you can make tens of millions a year with little to no effort).

This is why we have a scenario where there's 85 individuals who have more combined wealth than the bottom 4,500,000,000.

Again in absolutely no way am I saying those 85 are "evil" or they didn't work hard for their money (some did, some didn't), or that the money isn't rightfully theirs, I'm simply saying that humans are jealous by nature and if this gap continues to become more and more extreme PEOPLE WILL REVOLT and forcibly make those 85 redistribute. Just happens...

.

 

[KevinWestern]

The uptick in the amount of USE of the meaningless liberal term "income inequality" is noticeable.

It is one of the hugely ridiculous lolberal Democrat talking points probably heading right up until and well into the elections.

They best not over work it, though.

Sooner or later the majority of the people might just start collectively questioning whether "income equality" is in any way a desirable thing for our Republic and its people.

And it certainly is not.

Income equality is only good as the tools you have taken the time to arm yourself with to get through life as you have sought fit as a responsible person.

It irritates me to have to have to pay for individuals that haven't taken the time to arm themselves and therefore EXPECT the rest of us to carry them.
But then why work when you have the producers carrying your water and the Government making it easy to get in but not so much to get out?

The problem is Opportunity...and Government's willingness to make them less with their attacks upon the private sector/citizen with heavy-handed taxation, regulation all for the sake of their control.

The Founders would be aghast at what this Republic has become.

Agree with a lot of that. And revolting due to wealth inequality DOES have a lot to do with firing people up about it.

A family might have everything they need, and are happy and secure, and are totally stable UNTIL they hear that "person X owns 40% of wealth" or whatever. Then the jealousy/comparisons kick in and before you know it there's a revolution. With the internet and such, facts about inequality are more prevalent than ever, and why we're seeing a lot of stir about things.

Nonetheless, the Dems - I believe - are just playing political games by getting these buzzwords going.

Who are they to fucking trust anyways? They too are as crony as any Republican. Al Gore - for pete's sake - is just as rich as Mitt Romney.