Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If 1% of the population does control 40% of the wealth, what do you propose that the government do about that?
If 1% of the population does control 40% of the wealth, what do you propose that the government do about that?
And the top 1% also pay approx 37% of all Federal Income Taxes.
National Taxpayers Union - Who Pays Income Taxes?
So what do we do about that? The answer to that, and obviously also to the question above, is a resounding: NOTHING.
Translation: They have all the money and I want some! *stamps foot*Most of the 1% in NYC make their money in capital gains, which is taxed at a lower rate than middle class wage earners. Ayn Rand propaganda about losing the producers made sense in the 40s, but today we live in a world where the Koch brothers, just two men, can afford to fund entire election cycles... and one hedge fund manager makes more money than all the teachers in NYC combined. Our problem is that we have a distribution system where all the money is stuck on top - indeed, our suppliers are sitting on unprecedented levels of cash - but they can't invest it in the real economy because people on the bottom don't have enough money to buy what is produced - so, as a result, our producers have to manufacture asset bubbles in order to reinvest their surplus into "growth vehicles". This is why so much of the Bush tax cuts flooded into Housing and its ponzi securities and derivatives.
Rather than merely taking care of the suppliers (as we have since 1980), we need to incentivize demand as well - we need consumers who make enough money to buy what they capitalist produces.
Giving the wealthy additional tax incentives (more money) won't change the fact that neoliberalism, globalization and the politics of austerity have driven down wages to the point where workers cannot buy what they produce in sufficient volume to warrant an increase in production. Until the consumer is whole again, it will be more profitable for corporations to sit on cash.
Our largest employer, Walmart, doesn't pay workers enough in wages and benefits to buy stuff. They can barely survive. Henry Ford, one of our greatest capitalists, believed that workers needed to make enough money to buy what they produce. In 1980, with the election of Reagan, we decided to ignore that logic. We drove down wages in order to lower the cost of production so as to incentivize investment, and we expanded credit to the non-wealthy, who have spent the last 30 years going deeper and deeper into debt. This credit orgy gave us a temporary boom, but consumer debt levels have finally come home to roost.
Translation: They have all the money and I want some! *stamps foot*Most of the 1% in NYC make their money in capital gains, which is taxed at a lower rate than middle class wage earners. Ayn Rand propaganda about losing the producers made sense in the 40s, but today we live in a world where the Koch brothers, just two men, can afford to fund entire election cycles... and one hedge fund manager makes more money than all the teachers in NYC combined. Our problem is that we have a distribution system where all the money is stuck on top - indeed, our suppliers are sitting on unprecedented levels of cash - but they can't invest it in the real economy because people on the bottom don't have enough money to buy what is produced - so, as a result, our producers have to manufacture asset bubbles in order to reinvest their surplus into "growth vehicles". This is why so much of the Bush tax cuts flooded into Housing and its ponzi securities and derivatives.
Rather than merely taking care of the suppliers (as we have since 1980), we need to incentivize demand as well - we need consumers who make enough money to buy what they capitalist produces.
Giving the wealthy additional tax incentives (more money) won't change the fact that neoliberalism, globalization and the politics of austerity have driven down wages to the point where workers cannot buy what they produce in sufficient volume to warrant an increase in production. Until the consumer is whole again, it will be more profitable for corporations to sit on cash.
Our largest employer, Walmart, doesn't pay workers enough in wages and benefits to buy stuff. They can barely survive. Henry Ford, one of our greatest capitalists, believed that workers needed to make enough money to buy what they produce. In 1980, with the election of Reagan, we decided to ignore that logic. We drove down wages in order to lower the cost of production so as to incentivize investment, and we expanded credit to the non-wealthy, who have spent the last 30 years going deeper and deeper into debt. This credit orgy gave us a temporary boom, but consumer debt levels have finally come home to roost.
It's a great post, but when Krugman wrote concience of liberal, his exact premise was using progressive taxes to allow all workers to access healthcare, which is the same thing as a pay raise for those not covered. Both parties have mucked it up. The gop (controlled by the Kochs) must RINO out anyone (like Tom Coburn) who would suggest tax credit and govt sponsored high risk markets. And the dems did it on the backs of younger workers.
Killing the middle class will kill this nation through destroying buying power of the population. This will destroy the cycle of capitalism.
Who has the buying power within india, china or most of the world??? The middle class. How do you make a middle class you ask??? By educated the lower class and making sure the upper class at the top pays people right.
What you want is a unregulated shithole with two classes and the innovators won't be able to do anything without a middle class that wants their product.
The goal for any successful economic policy is to expand the middle class. If you become rich well good for you but we want to make more wealth across a larger class of people for a healthy economy.
Is there a name for this economic theory where protecting the golden goose is beneficial?
We want a sane and easy to understand economic frame work to promote business formation. Businesses depend on supply and demand and have to make a profit.
We don't want to kill businesses as we're helping expand the middle class.
Speaking of Golden Geese, here's a chart I found on Worker productivity.
Amazing that worker productivity has gone up, but worker wages have remained flat.
If 1% of the population does control 40% of the wealth, what do you propose that the government do about that?
And the top 1% also pay approx 37% of all Federal Income Taxes.
National Taxpayers Union - Who Pays Income Taxes?
So what do we do about that? The answer to that, and obviously also to the question above, is a resounding: NOTHING.
Tax them at a 93% rate, which is what we did back under that Commie Eisenhower, and use the money to build infrastructure, raising middle class salaries across the board.
You know, we used to do that, and it worked just fine.
true, but more and more are scratching their heads and thinking - why do I need to do this - for WHAT? so the bum in the next neighborhood can do nothing for all his/her life?
It is not the bum in the neighborhood that is the problem, it is the bum in the mansion that is destroying the middle class.
How is anyone living in a mansion destroying America? He's not a "bum," BTW. Most people living in mansions work their tails off. The "bums" are all getting checks from the government.
You don't say?I think he favors Benito Mussolini...
It is not the bum in the neighborhood that is the problem, it is the bum in the mansion that is destroying the middle class.
How is anyone living in a mansion destroying America? He's not a "bum," BTW. Most people living in mansions work their tails off. The "bums" are all getting checks from the government.
Never seen so many post made by a person that doesn't know crap about crap. I live in a community surrounded by mansions and super rich people. I know tons of them. I have worked with and for scores of them. I can count the self made rich and the hard workers on one hand. The rest inherited wealth. They invested in business's that require a minimum of work to maintain. Money makes money. Hard work is not required when you start life with a silver spoon.
Our golden goose stopped producing golden eggs a long time ago. When your chicken, duck of goose stops producing you kill it, devour it and replace it. There is no shortage of geese available that are ready and willing to produce golden eggs for us. They are lined up and ready. The only thing stopping them is the current crop of greedy geese that have stopped producing, or stopped sharing in what they produce. We are the farmers. If we do not maintain good livestock we are bad farmers. We need to replace our livestock.
You don't say?I think he favors Benito Mussolini...
The Golden Goose is the middle class and the upper middle class. 1% is an arbitrary number for the most part but the major reason the US can have so much wealth isn't because of the people who own that wealth but the people who produce above and beyond their compensation.
How is anyone living in a mansion destroying America? He's not a "bum," BTW. Most people living in mansions work their tails off. The "bums" are all getting checks from the government.
Never seen so many post made by a person that doesn't know crap about crap. I live in a community surrounded by mansions and super rich people. I know tons of them. I have worked with and for scores of them. I can count the self made rich and the hard workers on one hand. The rest inherited wealth. They invested in business's that require a minimum of work to maintain. Money makes money. Hard work is not required when you start life with a silver spoon.
Yeah, right. Unfortunately the statistics show that 90% of millionaires are self made. Trust fund babies normally end up broke within a couple of generations. If they made their wealth by investing in a business, then they didn't get it by inheriting it. You contradicted yourself with that claim.
I doubt you know any rich people. You're just spouting bullshit like most liberals do.
Never seen so many post made by a person that doesn't know crap about crap. I live in a community surrounded by mansions and super rich people. I know tons of them. I have worked with and for scores of them. I can count the self made rich and the hard workers on one hand. The rest inherited wealth. They invested in business's that require a minimum of work to maintain. Money makes money. Hard work is not required when you start life with a silver spoon.
Yeah, right. Unfortunately the statistics show that 90% of millionaires are self made. Trust fund babies normally end up broke within a couple of generations. If they made their wealth by investing in a business, then they didn't get it by inheriting it. You contradicted yourself with that claim.
I doubt you know any rich people. You're just spouting bullshit like most liberals do.
Camp has seen many rich people in comic strips. That's what he bases his opinion on.
