Census finds record gap between Rich and Poor

[DiamondDave]

And you have the freedom to succeed that goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail...

Your earning or money envy has no end, wrongwinger

Yeah, right, that's why they gave the wealthy more than $140 billion in bailouts while ignoring the middle and lower classes.

Did I agree with the bailouts? Nope.. And have spoke against it many times.... I am against governmental handouts whether it be to a rich corporation or a welfare queen

 

[hipeter924]

Voluntary taxation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The American federal income taxation system is sometimes called a "voluntary" taxation system. Marjorie E. Kornhauser writes, "Most people never pay their taxes voluntarily, in the ordinary sense of the word. Rather, they are generally anti-tax, in that they usually would prefer to keep any income they receive than pay it to the government in taxes. Voluntary, in the context of taxation, simply means that people do not have to be compelled to pay their taxes through actual enforcement actions by the state."[3] The "income taxes are voluntary" argument has not prevented U.S. residents who did not file tax returns or pay taxes from being prosecuted and convicted for tax offenses.

Well politicians are still justifying stealing off ALL Americans, so what do you expect?

The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: “Your money, or your life.” And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. "[4]

Real source of that here: http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-2.htm#no.2

 

[Bern80]

Maybe it's you who has the fundamental problem with comprehension. I know exactly what opportunity means, and one would have to be a complete fool to believe that it's available to all.

And YOU would have to be an absolute fool to believe that the majority of people take advantage of the opportunities available to them. Hell most people don't even recognize half of the opportunities they have, let alone take advantage of them.

People's bitching about outcomes is totally different than whether there's any sort of equitable meritocracy or fairness in providing opportunity. Stop moving the goal posts.

Again you prove you don't get it. An opportunity is not something given to you. Opportunities are something there for the taking. 'Taking' requires action on your part. Opportunities are not things that happen to you. They are things you make happen. That is a fundamental difference between people. Some people wait for things to happen to them and some make things happen. Guess which ones are more successful and guess which ones are generally wealthy and guess which ones piss and moan about not being wealthy.

think about the people in your life around you. Your family and co-workers, the people that make less than you do. How many of them truly have a right to wonder why they aren't wealthy? How many of them truly have exhausted every possible means of becoming rich and still didn't make it? My guess is close to zero.

 

[Bern80]

Hyperboyle? How many points is being a member of an underserved demographic worth at Harvard or Princeton? How many points is having a daddy, who's daddy got them into that school worth. If you think the playing field is level, you're delusional. If the playing field were level, Princeton, Harvard, and MIT would be 90% Asian.

No one is denying things like that happen. But to use them as an excuse for why someone else didn't achieve is just that. A lame ass excuse. Things like that simply do not occur on a large enough scale to directly impact the outcomes of others. You're right the vast majority of people may not have some connection that gets their kid into Harvard. That doesn't mean that one kid has taken opportunities from the majority. Maybe your daddy leaves his business to you and you become indepedently wealthy. That isn't the case for the vast majority of people. It isn't even the case for the vast majority of people that succeed in getting to millionaire status. The point is the things you mention do happen. They simply don't happen on a large enough scale that the rest of society should get to use it as an excuse for why they didn't achieve something.

And no there is no such thing as an even playing field. Everyone has advantages and disadvantages relative to other people. It's why you got hired over someone else. You had something the employer wnated that other people applying for the same job didn't. Now according to YOU, that's not fair. I guess in your world there suppossed to randomly choose a cone out of a basket. That's the way it should be only IF you don't have control over what advantages you have. And the fact is you can control a vast majority of the criteria that makes you valuable to an employer.

 

[Bfgrn]

wave good bye to the middle class.

This is a glaring example of why the GOP/Reagan concepts of trickle down economics do not work. The idea that cutting taxes on the wealthy will result in more jobs and a rising tide for all Americans has been a farce.

In reality, the wealthy has kept the additional money and sent jobs overseas.

The standard of living for the middle class is disappearing and we continue to reward the wealthy for it

Failed reply. It worked for 30 years. Even with all the hand out for votes from the democrats.

The last 30 years have seen the decline of the middle class. It has FAILED you moron. The Reagan revolution failed just like it's brethren, the Bolshevik revolution. Ronbo Reagan was the biggest 'socialist' this country has ever had as president.

 

[Bern80]

This is a glaring example of why the GOP/Reagan concepts of trickle down economics do not work. The idea that cutting taxes on the wealthy will result in more jobs and a rising tide for all Americans has been a farce.

In reality, the wealthy has kept the additional money and sent jobs overseas.

The standard of living for the middle class is disappearing and we continue to reward the wealthy for it

Failed reply. It worked for 30 years. Even with all the hand out for votes from the democrats.

The last 30 years have seen the decline of the middle class. It has FAILED you moron. The Reagan revolution failed just like it's brethren, the Bolshevik revolution. Ronbo Reagan was the biggest 'socialist' this country has ever had as president.

What failed? What was suppossed to happen exactley? What should society look like in your eyes? How many poor? How many middle class? How many wealthy? Who is responsible for creating these outcomes?

 

[8537]

What failed? What was suppossed to happen exactley? What should society look like in your eyes? How many poor? How many middle class? How many wealthy? Who is responsible for creating these outcomes?

I'm not sure what it "should" look like, but it is certainly clear that something *did* happen. Before about 1978, there was a 30+ year trend towards income equality - a shrinking difference between the incomes of those at the top and the incomes of those in the middle. During that period, real incomes in the middle climbed so dramatically that the period created what we now call the "middle class".

After about 1978, that gap began widening and it has widened almost every year for the past 32 years. During this period, real incomes of the wealthiest Americans has increased dramatically while the real incomes of the middle class have shrunk.

"What" happened is a valid question. Unless you believe that the middle class suddenly got lazier or less productive starting in the late 70's or early 80's while the wealthiest suddenly started working harder and got more productive, it's worth looking around to try to figure out why the great compression of the 1940's became the great widening 40 years later.

 

[Bern80]

What failed? What was suppossed to happen exactley? What should society look like in your eyes? How many poor? How many middle class? How many wealthy? Who is responsible for creating these outcomes?

I'm not sure what it "should" look like, but it is certainly clear that something *did* happen. Before about 1978, there was a 30+ year trend towards income equality - a shrinking difference between the incomes of those at the top and the incomes of those in the middle. During that period, real incomes in the middle climbed so dramatically that the period created what we now call the "middle class".

After about 1978, that gap began widening and it has widened almost every year for the past 32 years. During this period, real incomes of the wealthiest Americans has increased dramatically while the real incomes of the middle class have shrunk.

"What" happened is a valid question. Unless you believe that the middle class suddenly got lazier or less productive starting in the late 70's or early 80's while the wealthiest suddenly started working harder and got more productive, it's worth looking around to try to figure out why the great compression of the 1940's became the great widening 40 years later.

Laziness would not quite be it, but I think it's part of human nature. As I said before human nature tends toward finding simpler more efficient ways of doing things. As we find easier ways of doing things our expectations change about the level of effort that should be required to accomplish certain things. I believe that over the span of just a few decades we have been conditioned by greater convenience to expect things to be easy.

But the effort it takes to be middle class has not changed. In fact you could argue it take more effort (or at least more money) to acquire all of the status symbols that conotate 'middle class'. Middle class now is more than one tv, more than one car, a computer, cable, internet, cell phones, etc. Things you didn't have to pay for 20 years ago. The definition of middle class now is different than it was 20 years ago. To expect the effort needed to attain middle class not to change along with the definition of middle class is ridiculous. My contention is that the individuals that make up our society simply have not adapted. People think the same or less effort is supposed to yield the same outcome it once did. And it doesn't even need to be more effort. It means learning a different way of exerting effort. Not the hard way. The smart way.

There are a ton of reasons why we are where we are now. Almost none of them have to do with what government has done and people want things to change. But one fact of life is this; You can not change what you don't acknowledge. And my observation has been those that complain about the rich getting richer and engage in class warfare NEVER acknowledge their role in why they are where they are. Even though it is undeniable that your actions are predominantly what determines your outcome. You will notice none of the whiners on here say things like. I'm not wealthy because I chose not to go into this career. Or I'm not wealthy because I chose not to educate myself about money. It's NEVER their fault. And that is the mind set that has to change. If you want change, YOU have to change. I believe the last change occurred unconciously. The next one to attain what you want is going to take a concious one.

 

[Charles_Main]

Yeah, nickels and dimes. If what you claim is correct, why did Bush push his "ownership society" initiative, and loosen the requirements on Freddie and Fannie. Nope, you need to think outside of your partisan box, and determine what Phil Graham's deregulation did. It essentially allowed investment banks into the mortgage industry, with zero oversight.

It was the Dems who took the reins off F&F.

It was the Dems who pushed for the banks to loan to people who couldn't afford it.

Idiot.

Sorry liar, but it was Bush's "ownership society" nonsense which pushed things over the top.

 

[Intense]

Ownership Society????? Is this a New Speak Double Speak term to degrade the concept of Private Property Rights????? What the Fuck is it with this crowd?????

Here is another Perspective. To imply State sponsorship does not justify the crime, it compounds the crime.


LARCENY
Illegal taking and carrying away of personal property belonging to another with the purpose of depriving the owner of its possession.

The wrongful and fraudulent taking and carrying away by one person of the mere personal goods of another from any place, with a felonious intent to convert them to the taker's use and make them his property without the consent of the owner.

To constitute larceny several ingredients are necessary. The intent of the party must be felonious; he must intend to appropriate the property of another to his own use. If the accused have taken the goods under a claim of right, however unfounded, he has not committed a larceny.

There must be a taking from the possession, actual or implied, of the owner; hence if a man should find goods and appropriate them to his own use, he is not a thief on this account.

There must be a taking against the will of the owner and this may be in some cases where he appears to consent; e.g., if a man suspects another of an intent to steal his property, and in order to try him, leaves it in his way and he takes it, he is guilty of larceny. The taking must be in the county where the criminal is to be tried. But when the taking has been in the county or state and the thief is caught with the stolen property in another county than that where the theft was committed, he may be tried in the county where arrested with the goods, as by construction of law, there is a fresh taking in every county in which the thief carries the stolen property.

There must be an actual carrying away, but the slightest removal, if the goods are completely in the power of the thief, is sufficient; to snatch a diamond from a lady's ear, which is instantly dropped among the curls of her hair, is a sufficient asportation or carrying away.

The property taken must be personal property; a man cannot commit larceny of real estate. For example, an apple, while hanging on the tree where it grew, is real estate, having never been separated from the freehold; it is not larceny therefore, at common law, to pluck an apple from the tree and appropriate it to one's own use, but a mere trespass. If that same apple however, had been separated from the tree by the owner or if shaken by the wind, and while lying on the ground it should be taken with a felonious intent, the taker would commit a larceny, because then it was personal property. Animals ferae naturae, while in the enjoyment of their natural liberty, are not the subjects of larceny. At common law, choses in action are not subjects of larceny.

Larceny is divided in some states into grand and petit larceny depending upon the value of the property stolen.


Legal Definition of 'Larceny'

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This is a glaring example of why the GOP/Reagan concepts of trickle down economics do not work. The idea that cutting taxes on the wealthy will result in more jobs and a rising tide for all Americans has been a farce.

In reality, the wealthy has kept the additional money and sent jobs overseas.

The standard of living for the middle class is disappearing and we continue to reward the wealthy for it

Failed reply. It worked for 30 years. Even with all the hand out for votes from the democrats.

The last 30 years have seen the decline of the middle class. It has FAILED you moron. The Reagan revolution failed just like it's brethren, the Bolshevik revolution. Ronbo Reagan was the biggest 'socialist' this country has ever had as president.

Wrong faggot
Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 261:Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the ReaganEconomic Record
On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa261.pdf

The Standard of Living
The Reagan Information Page:The Standard of Living

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Failed reply. It worked for 30 years. Even with all the hand out for votes from the democrats.

The last 30 years have seen the decline of the middle class. It has FAILED you moron. The Reagan revolution failed just like it's brethren, the Bolshevik revolution. Ronbo Reagan was the biggest 'socialist' this country has ever had as president.

What failed? What was suppossed to happen exactley? What should society look like in your eyes? How many poor? How many middle class? How many wealthy? Who is responsible for creating these outcomes?

You have to over look our communist faggot. He's crazy or didn't you notice? Call the president who said "government was the problem" a socialist

 

[georgephillip]

For thousands of years before anyone coined the word "socialism" the prime function of ALL governments was to socialize cost and privatize profit.

GE and the Pentagon continue this proud tradition.

Yeah, GE is one of my favorite too.

GE is a good example of today's corporate citizen's sense of entitlement:

"Take GE, for example. GE has $36Bn in sales and paid $431M in taxes (15% of net profits) in 2009.

"They also paid out $9Bn in dividends and over $24Bn in 2008 and 2007 and in 2007 they bought back their own stock but, in those three years, they paid -(NEGATIVE) $900M in taxes!

"Are you feeling victimized yet? 'Does GE use our infrastructure? Do they use our public airwaves?

"'Are they protected by our police? Is our army out there fighting and dying to protect them? Do they take money from our government? Do we educate their employees? This is the INSANITY of the US tax system.'"

When Warren Buffett revealed in 2007 that he paid taxes at about half the rate of his employees (17.7%), I certainly didn't connect the dots between individual and corporate tax rates and our national deficit:

" US corporations, who are (according to to the Supreme Court) also citizens of this country, paid just $300Bn in taxes last year on $6 TRILLION in income (5%).

"That’s right, if US corporations simply paid the same amount of tax as Mr. Buffett - that would, by itself, be enough to wipe out our deficit. But, things have gone decidedly the other way in the past 30 years:

http://www.philstockworld.com/wp-content/uploads/Coorporate Taxes.jpg

 

[georgephillip]

The forcing comes from those on the left who think others should be forced to subsidize your want to go to college

You can work your way thru.. most just do not choose the hard road it takes to do so...

You could "work your way through" 100K to get an engineering degree? How many people can do that? Very few (you'd have to be already rich). C'mon, stop being so stupid.

You want it, you'll work your way through it... it is your CHOICE to go to a 25K a year school... if it's not a wise CHOICE, maybe community college for 2 years before the 4 year school.. maybe part time while you work in the mail room of a corporation that offers tuition reimbursement as an employment benefit... maybe you work harder and earn a scholarship.. maybe you work with organizations like the Lions club to obtain a charitable scholarship... maybe you work 60 hours as a stripper to take 2 classes a semester... maybe you hold off college for a couple of years while you save up 10K to start... maybe you join the military for the college fund and GI Bill... you CAN indeed work your way through it... but it is asshats like you who would rather whine and put the effort toward that, than put the effort toward doing what you have to do...

Un-fucking-believable

Here are some other possibilities for making that degree more affordable:

"I’d like to exempt the first $20,000 of income from the payroll tax and make it up by applying payroll taxes to incomes over $250,000.

"I’d like to make public higher education free, and pay for it with a small transfer tax on all financial transactions."

From a imaginary backyard dialog between our president and a persistent neighbor.

The President's Backyard...

 

[Trajan]

OTOH, those on the right fail to see how collective decisions shape society and progresses it as a whole. Did central water and sewage treatment advance society?



An exaggeration and a strawman argument.



My attitudes and decisions didn't facilitate off shoring of traditional middle class jobs like software engineering. Right wing tax policy did.



More Limbaugh style bullshit. The converse is that only the well to do, and their children, are entitled to opportunities.



All you need is a hook up under that bridge if you've lost your job, your family, your home because of the bad dice roll that's always crooked toward the most wealthy.

The bottom line is still the bottom line. The upper class will remove your opportunities, and buy a right wing government to enable them, if that's what they see as putting more money in their pockets. They'll get the middle class to shoulder the lions share of the tax burden, and right wingers will screech cut taxes and lower the deficit.

Only a fool believes there's a level playing field. The rich will grant just enough social safety nets to protect them from armed insurrection, and the middle class can go pound sand if they find they can make more money by having their customer service centers in India.

jesus Christ the rich were the middle class and the lower class..they just don't appear out of nowhere this is an upwardly mobile nation......

as far as the bolded area that I added; that always the lefts fallback, the system is broken and stacked against them..what a crock. there are so many examples that speak against that nonsense its literally beyond count, while you descend into hyperbole.

Hyperboyle? How many points is being a member of an underserved demographic worth at Harvard or Princeton? How many points is having a daddy, who's daddy got them into that school worth. If you think the playing field is level, you're delusional. If the playing field were level, Princeton, Harvard, and MIT would be 90% Asian.

so you worried about legacy's? Okay, sure and I happen to agree, so what do we do about affirmative action?

 

[Trajan]

This is a glaring example of why the GOP/Reagan concepts of trickle down economics do not work. The idea that cutting taxes on the wealthy will result in more jobs and a rising tide for all Americans has been a farce.

In reality, the wealthy has kept the additional money and sent jobs overseas.

The standard of living for the middle class is disappearing and we continue to reward the wealthy for it

The union members and government workers would dispute that? It is because of the rich that there is enough capital to sustain a middle-class! It will soon all be worse, then you can feel successful.

You couldn't be any more wrong.

It is because of the strong middle class that we have so many wealthy

so we do have a strong middle class? and when they make that shift from middle class to "wealthy" they get a target put on their back and shift to- "the evil rich"..?

 

[Trajan]

"There’s a great WSJ blog called "The Wealth Report" by Robert Frank, who wrote an excellent book called "Richistan" in which he makes a case that the world’s wealthy have essentially formed a shadow (let’s call it virtual as it sounds nicer) nation 'where the top 1% control $17T in wealth, have their own health care system (concierge doctors), travel system (private jets, destination clubs) and language. (”Who’s your household manager?')."

"As this chart shows, the US is cranking out multimillionaires at a record pace with super-rich (more than $10M) households doubling in the past decade.

"What’s scary is that doubling the amount of people who have more than $10M per household (from 300K to 600K) means there’s $3,000,000,000,000 less available for the other 98% of the of the households as MONEY IS A COMMODITY and can only be possessed by one person OR another."

This has more to do with Republicans AND Democrats dependence on the richest 1% of Americans to fund their campaigns than it does with "merit."

FLUSH the DC TOILET in 2010.

The Dooh Nibor Economy

thats so cock- eyed I can barely contain my derision.

 

[code1211]

More justification for why we need to extend Bush tax cuts for the rich

If the rich is part of everyone, then so be it. What you would like to to do is create more class warfare.

The poor are always poor. The bottom is the bottom and that's the way it is.

In the USA, the top keeps getting higher. If the ability to rise without limit is what you detest, then the USA must make you cry daily.

The fact that the gap between the richest and the poorest widens only points to the opportunity in this country and success of some in exploiting that opportunity.

If the gap did not widen and the bottom was still the bottom, that only means that the top is lower. How does it benefit the poor if the rich are not as rich?

 

[georgephillip]

It's the rich and their apologists who are waging and winning the class war in this country.

And since both major political parties tap the richest 1% of Americans to fund their campaigns, it's our government that helps the rich stay rich and get richer.

See: The Conservative Nanny State

 

[Big Fitz]

Still waiting for the explanation why having a gap between rich and poor is bad.