Richest 1 percent will own more than rest combined by 2016: report

[rdean]

The super rich are also getting a huge break on taxes and allowed to move their money to other countries to shield it from taxes.

Shielding your money from taxes is a good thing. I do it every year when I take as many deductions as I can. I would much rather spend the money I make rather than give it some corrupt bureaucrat, elected by special interest groups, to spend on stupid things.

If the government wasn't taking so much money out of the productive economy and if they didn't regulate everything out of business and if taxes weren't so high then there would be no need to go overseas to more business friendly countries.

Overseas business flight is the consequence of failed Left Wing economic polices.

Why don't you move to a country that you could trust and believe in. We don't want your kind here anyway. Fucking leech.

 

[rdean]

Lol I love how RWs denied this issue was even true when the Occupied protests were happening. Nowadays they acknowledge it but say "so what?" or they just it's all Obama's fault.

Ah you gotta love republicans.

I know. Right? Worse, they are trying to take it over as a GOP "cause". Who believes that?

 

[CowboyTed]

Look at the right wing nutters. Red States are the poorest filled with food stampers living in trailers and they think wealthy Blue States are full of greed and envy. Well, if poor, uneducated Republicans are satisfied with mobile homes, who am I to try and help them? I say stop wasting money trying to get them into school and stop giving them food stamps. Grits and gravy are cheap.

Typical Libtard bigotry.

Two of the three wealthiest states are southern and the third western one is living off the wealth created decades ago when it wasn't so Left Wing.

It really sucks to be a Libtard and know that everything you believe in has failed, doesn't it?

Generally Red states make less and suck more fed dollars...

List of U.S. states by income - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[occupied]

If you conservatives really want to avoid real socialism you might want to reconsider your unconditional support for the ultra-wealthy. If inequality continues to slide too far there will be a tipping point where our plutocratic western governments will not be able to keep a lid on things. Some very angry people will remember who collaborated with the billionaires and spit on the poor for having the gall to complain about the state of the world. It's not anything I wish to happen but hungry people are angry people and they will eat the rich if things do not start to turn around soon.

 

[rdean]

Look at the right wing nutters. Red States are the poorest filled with food stampers living in trailers and they think wealthy Blue States are full of greed and envy. Well, if poor, uneducated Republicans are satisfied with mobile homes, who am I to try and help them? I say stop wasting money trying to get them into school and stop giving them food stamps. Grits and gravy are cheap.

Typical Libtard bigotry.

Two of the three wealthiest states are southern and the third western one is living off the wealth created decades ago when it wasn't so Left Wing.

It really sucks to be a Libtard and know that everything you believe in has failed, doesn't it?

Which states are you talking about and what did they produce to make them wealthy?

Dipshit said: Two of the three wealthiest states are southern and the third western one is living off the wealth created decades ago when it wasn't so Left Wing.

And I said: Which states are you talking about and what did they produce to make them wealthy?

Then Dipshit said, nothing of importance. That's what right wingers do. They make a claim and refuse to back it up. Morons accuse me of doing the same thing. Not sure why since I generally post links to back up my claim.

But then they say my links are partisan. Yea, the Christian Science Monitor is so partisan. Conservative Partisan.

So many USMB Republicans are so damn ignorant, they don't even know the things their kind does. For instance this:

Unemployment benefits not until Bush tax cuts pass Senate GOP says - CSMonitor.com

or this:

Senate Republicans block BP investigation - Twin Cities Gas Prices

 

[initforme]

Yes I read about this too. Why do we want to protect a company that through willful neglect polluted the gulf? Why are they not on the attack of BP>. A full scale all out attack.

 

[AmericanFirst]

The richest 80 individuals in the world had the same wealth as the poorest 50 percent of the entire population, some 3.5 billion people, Oxfam said. This was an even bigger concentration at the top than a year ago, when half the world's wealth was in the hands of 85 of the ultra rich.

Richest 1 percent will own more than rest combined by 2016 report Al Jazeera America

Rich getting richer Wealth increasingly concentrated in hands of few Oxfam says CTV News

At the same time, one in nine people don't have enough to eat and more than a billion people live on less than $1.25 a day, Oxfam said, ticking off statistics that paint a grim picture for all but the world's richest.

The charity is calling for a crackdown on tax avoidance by corporations and rich people, as well as increased investment in health and education and equal pay legislation.

-----------------------------------

Republicans think inherited wealth is earned and everyone has an equal opportunity. They see this as a "job well done".

Thanks Obutthurt, and who cares what al Jezebel says?

 

[Flash]

[

Why don't you move to a country that you could trust and believe in. We don't want your kind here anyway. Fucking leech.

The leeches are the greedy assholes that elect shitheads like Obama to use the government to steal money for them. You know, Democrats.

 

[Flash]

Yes I read about this too. Why do we want to protect a company that through willful neglect polluted the gulf? Why are they not on the attack of BP>. A full scale all out attack.

You like driving around in a vehicle? You need BP gas because those Solyndra solar cells aren't working out too well, are they?

 

[Flash]

If you conservatives really want to avoid real socialism you might want to reconsider your unconditional support for the ultra-wealthy. If inequality continues to slide too far there will be a tipping point where our plutocratic western governments will not be able to keep a lid on things. Some very angry people will remember who collaborated with the billionaires and spit on the poor for having the gall to complain about the state of the world. It's not anything I wish to happen but hungry people are angry people and they will eat the rich if things do not start to turn around soon.

Conservatives don't give a shit if other people make more money than they do.

Only you greedy envious socialists are obsessed with that. You idiots don't understand that you are not poorer because somebody else is richer.

The government already is too fvcked up to keep a lid on anything. The government can't even keep the Negroes from rioting and burning down their neighborhoods like we have seen recently..

The best way for someone not to be hungry is to get off their fat ass and go to work. However, you may be right. There may be rioting because the shitheads would rather riot than exhibit personal responsibility.

 

[Dad2three]

You do know you only need an income of $34k a year per person to be in the top 1% worldwide, right?

So a family of 4 is in the top 1% if they make a combined income of $136,000 a year, which is basically middle to upper middle class depending on your region.

We are the 1 You need 34k income to be in the global elite... and half the world s richest live in the U.S. Daily Mail Online

MIDDLE OR UPPER MIDDLE? lol

Half of US who make enough to even file in the US AVG less than $15,000 PER FAMILY. The MOST that family made is $34,800

TOP 10% OF US MADE A MIN OF $120,000 A YEAR

WHAT 'MIDDLE CLASS' ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation

 

[Dad2three]

Greed and envy from the Left.

Newsflash for the Moon Bat. You are not poorer because somebody else is richer.

If you want to be richer yourself then stop voting for Left Wingers that screw up the economy with failed policies. Vote for somebody that will stimulate capitalism so we all can prosper and get the government off our backs.

We are all poorer because the filthy ass combined government in the US (fed, state and local) takes over 40% of the GNP. No wonder we don't have much.

Stimulate capitalism? lol



After 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policies? How'd that work out?


Maybe Ronnie Reagan having a top rate of 50% his first six years the economy sucked right?



If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people. I'm not actually producing cash, I'm acquiring theirs. Therefore, others have collectively lost a million dollars of purchasing power to me.

These people can't go demand new money just because I have all of their money.

They go broke, I get rich, and income inequality is a thing.



Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

The Zero-sum Nature of economics









Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950


Federal, state and local income taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950

Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950 - USATODAY.com

 

[Dad2three]

Look at the right wing nutters. Red States are the poorest filled with food stampers living in trailers and they think wealthy Blue States are full of greed and envy. Well, if poor, uneducated Republicans are satisfied with mobile homes, who am I to try and help them? I say stop wasting money trying to get them into school and stop giving them food stamps. Grits and gravy are cheap.

Typical Libtard bigotry.

Two of the three wealthiest states are southern and the third western one is living off the wealth created decades ago when it wasn't so Left Wing.

It really sucks to be a Libtard and know that everything you believe in has failed, doesn't it?

Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala A theory of a divided nation

In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren’t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.

Blue States are from Scandinavia Red States are from Guatemala The New Republic



Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know
Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know

 

[thereisnospoon]

The richest 80 individuals in the world had the same wealth as the poorest 50 percent of the entire population, some 3.5 billion people, Oxfam said. This was an even bigger concentration at the top than a year ago, when half the world's wealth was in the hands of 85 of the ultra rich.

Richest 1 percent will own more than rest combined by 2016 report Al Jazeera America

Rich getting richer Wealth increasingly concentrated in hands of few Oxfam says CTV News

At the same time, one in nine people don't have enough to eat and more than a billion people live on less than $1.25 a day, Oxfam said, ticking off statistics that paint a grim picture for all but the world's richest.

The charity is calling for a crackdown on tax avoidance by corporations and rich people, as well as increased investment in health and education and equal pay legislation.

-----------------------------------

Republicans think inherited wealth is earned and everyone has an equal opportunity. They see this as a "job well done".

And your solution is?

 

[Dad2three]

The entire monotonous droning from the far left modern American liberals about "income inequality" is premised on some empty undefined basic premises and some very odd notions.

If income Income inequality is "bad," somehow, then is "income equality" the goal?

No. They deny that. (They kind of HAVE to deny it since it is so clearly stupid as to be a non-starter.)

Well, then if income equality is NOT the goal, is it the case that SOME income inequality is ok?

They commence to mumbling and hemming and hawing and deflecting at this juncture because even THEY have to be dimly aware that if "some" is ok, then additional questions are promptly raised. Questions such as:

• "What degree of income inequality is ok?"
  
• "On what basis is it determined how much income inequality is ok?"
  
• "Who makes these decisions?"

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated.

 

[occupied]

If you conservatives really want to avoid real socialism you might want to reconsider your unconditional support for the ultra-wealthy. If inequality continues to slide too far there will be a tipping point where our plutocratic western governments will not be able to keep a lid on things. Some very angry people will remember who collaborated with the billionaires and spit on the poor for having the gall to complain about the state of the world. It's not anything I wish to happen but hungry people are angry people and they will eat the rich if things do not start to turn around soon.

Conservatives don't give a shit if other people make more money than they do.

Only you greedy envious socialists are obsessed with that. You idiots don't understand that you are not poorer because somebody else is richer.

The government already is too fvcked up to keep a lid on anything. The government can't even keep the Negroes from rioting and burning down their neighborhoods like we have seen recently..

The best way for someone not to be hungry is to get off their fat ass and go to work. However, you may be right. There may be rioting because the shitheads would rather riot than exhibit personal responsibility.

Wealth envy again? Is that all you people have? I do not envy great wealth, if I had it I would be trying to get rid of it as fast as possible. I make enough have all I need, owe nothing and most importantly be content that every dollar that has ever passed through my hands was honestly earned.

As to the topic at hand, the current trend is unsustainable, does that not worry you even a little? It worries me. No society can remain stable with so much wealth getting locked up in so few hands. We are headed for widespread civil unrest and the rich will not protect you.

 

[Dad2three]

Even if there existed some rational basis for making such decisions about 'how much' income inequality is 'permissible' and how much is too much, what are the proposals for rectifying this alleged "problem?"

Will those on the far left stand up and state their position, clearly and directly? I doubt it. But all the same, I'll ask some of the questions.

• IF there is some defined point at which income inequality is intolerable, how do you leftists propose to "correct" it?
• 
  
• Might it involve (possibly) some more heavily weighted "progressive" income tax levels?
• 
  
• Is this why we are seeing so much present day rhetoric designed to incite divisions in society based on wealth and income? Mr. Alinsky, was that you?
  
• 
  
• Doesn't this explain the rhetorical nonsense about the "1%"?
• 
  
• Aren't you leftists really, in the end, simply making the tired old argument once again clamoring for redistribution of wealth and socialism?

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”



Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

STUDY: These Charts Show There's Almost No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP

These Charts Show There s Probably No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP - Business Insider


Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth (or not)

If you read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal (or surf around the nether regions of Forbes.com), you may come to the conclusion that no aspect of tax policy is more important for economic growth than the way we tax capital gains. You’d be wrong

Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth or not - Forbes

 

[Vandalshandle]

If you conservatives really want to avoid real socialism you might want to reconsider your unconditional support for the ultra-wealthy. If inequality continues to slide too far there will be a tipping point where our plutocratic western governments will not be able to keep a lid on things. Some very angry people will remember who collaborated with the billionaires and spit on the poor for having the gall to complain about the state of the world. It's not anything I wish to happen but hungry people are angry people and they will eat the rich if things do not start to turn around soon.

Conservatives don't give a shit if other people make more money than they do.

Only you greedy envious socialists are obsessed with that. You idiots don't understand that you are not poorer because somebody else is richer.

The government already is too fvcked up to keep a lid on anything. The government can't even keep the Negroes from rioting and burning down their neighborhoods like we have seen recently..

The best way for someone not to be hungry is to get off their fat ass and go to work. However, you may be right. There may be rioting because the shitheads would rather riot than exhibit personal responsibility.

Interesting. You have somehow morphed this thread from economic disparity to "negroes" rioting.

I guess that pretty much makes your position clear on the economic issues being discussed.

You have outed yourself, Flash.

 

[Dad2three]

The richest 80 individuals in the world had the same wealth as the poorest 50 percent of the entire population, some 3.5 billion people, Oxfam said. This was an even bigger concentration at the top than a year ago, when half the world's wealth was in the hands of 85 of the ultra rich.

Richest 1 percent will own more than rest combined by 2016 report Al Jazeera America

Rich getting richer Wealth increasingly concentrated in hands of few Oxfam says CTV News

At the same time, one in nine people don't have enough to eat and more than a billion people live on less than $1.25 a day, Oxfam said, ticking off statistics that paint a grim picture for all but the world's richest.

The charity is calling for a crackdown on tax avoidance by corporations and rich people, as well as increased investment in health and education and equal pay legislation.

-----------------------------------

Republicans think inherited wealth is earned and everyone has an equal opportunity. They see this as a "job well done".

And your solution is?

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of Federal Revenue

1955 . . . 27.3%
2010 . . . 8.9%

Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of GDP

1955 . . . 4.3%
2010 . . . 1.3%

Individual Income/Payrolls as a Percentage of Federal Revenue

1955 . . . 58.0%
2010 . . . 81.5%

Corporate Profits Are At An All-Time High

'corporate profits are at an all-time high as a percentage of the economy, wages are at an all-time low.'

'Last year, corporations made a record $824 billion, which didn’t stop conservatives from continually claiming that President Obama is anti-business.'
Corporate Profits Are At An All-Time High ThinkProgress

The fortunate 400

400 tax returns reporting the highest incomes in 2009.

Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each.

another 110 families paid 15 percent or less in federal income taxes.
The fortunate 400 David Cay Johnston Reuters

The 400 richest Americans used to pay 30% of their income on the average to Uncle Sam(but 55% in 1955).

 

[ninja007]

its none of your damn business how much others make or have #1. #2 why don't you try to get richer yourself #3. libtard hypocrites tell cons to mind their own business regarding abortion, gay "marriage", etc etc yet they can't get OTHER PEOPLES money out of their peewee brains.