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.
Can you name a single era in history before the 17th century when anyone, anywhere ever protested poverty?
The 1% is an income threshold of $380,000. That's not a high hurdle to jump over. As for 'rarely,' that's not actually true.
So the poor will have a better chance if they simply voted for the other party? How is that working out so far?
Poorly. Not because the poor don't have some clout, but because greed is no longer a deadly sin, it has become a virtue.
Greed is defined as a desire to acquire more than what is necessary for basic survival. This categorises everyone. Greed has never been a deadly sin. It's always a part of human nature. As expectations of the quality of life increases, people expected more from their standard of living. Can you name a single era in history before the 17th century when anyone, anywhere ever protested poverty? I doubt that you can. Did people suddenly become greedy around the 18th century? Not really, people just expected more as their quality of life increased.
It can be argued that the only thing one needs for basic survival are a few articles of clothing, a one room apartment and two meals a day. Anything more than this is greed.
As always, Greed is subjective.
No one ever makes money with that attitude, so stop pontificating. In order to make money, it has to be available to other people.
Rand Paul is an asshole, though I suspect you find him a step short of some deity. I wonder, have you ever studied the cause for civil unrest and revolution. In a word Greed.
Again, greed virtually defines everyone. It's a constant, not a variable. How does anyone make money in a market system? They find out what people want, and they give it to them. People can only make more money by making people like me and you better off.
That is greed.
While it's not a perfect see:
James Chowning Davies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As the differential between the very rich - the 5% - and those who once believe they could achieve such success widens shit hits the fan. That may include so many of the Callous Conservatives who vote for Republicans and Libertarians - they one day might string up Rand Paul from a tree.
The 5% is not very rich. It's just affluent. Rich is defined by a net worth exceeding $1 million dollars. And I'm really not clear on what your issue is. Is your issue that many people will not be able to make it into the 1% or is your issue that people won't get a chance to succeed in life?
You only have to accept the assumptions if you claim that free markets have the advantages classical economists attribute to perfect competition. Since you do not assume these "stupid things", your defense of free markets rests on what again?
First I am impressed by your civility. It is matched by your grasp of history of economic thought. "Free market" ideologues obviously do not want to talk about these assumptions because to do so exposes the unreality of the model. Any decent microeconomics text from Alfred Marshall on lists most of these assumptions. If you don't like them, simply abandon the competitive model.
I am a Taoist. That means that I do not feel responsible for your bad manners, your ignorance, or your inability to reason. You cannot even realize when you have lost an argument, but I'll give you a clue: a certain tip-off is when you cannot understand the other person's post and are reduced to invective.
You only have to accept the assumptions if you claim that free markets have the advantages classical economists attribute to perfect competition. Since you do not assume these "stupid things", your defense of free markets rests on what again?
If you were half as smart as you think I am you would know I didn't defend anything, I asked you why I have to assume stupid things about free markets in order to believe they work. You replied by doubling down on stupid.
Who, outside your delusions, assumes that competition is perfect in free markets?
First I am impressed by your civility. It is matched by your grasp of history of economic thought. "Free market" ideologues obviously do not want to talk about these assumptions because to do so exposes the unreality of the model. Any decent microeconomics text from Alfred Marshall on lists most of these assumptions. If you don't like them, simply abandon the competitive model.
Civility is for people who can't handle the real world.
That leads me to point out how stupid it is to read microeconomics texts when you are discussing macroeconomics. Tell you what, since you are so much smarter than everyone else, why don't you give me the name, and the page numbers, of anything Marshall ever wrote that even remotely says what you claim.
I am a Taoist. That means that I do not feel responsible for your bad manners, your ignorance, or your inability to reason. You cannot even realize when you have lost an argument, but I'll give you a clue: a certain tip-off is when you cannot understand the other person's post and are reduced to invective.
I'm not a Taoist, and still don't blame you for my manners, or anything else I do. What the fuck is your point?
You only have to accept the assumptions if you claim that free markets have the advantages classical economists attribute to perfect competition. Since you do not assume these "stupid things", your defense of free markets rests on what again?
If you were half as smart as you think I am you would know I didn't defend anything, I asked you why I have to assume stupid things about free markets in order to believe they work. You replied by doubling down on stupid.
Who, outside your delusions, assumes that competition is perfect in free markets?
Civility is for people who can't handle the real world.
That leads me to point out how stupid it is to read microeconomics texts when you are discussing macroeconomics. Tell you what, since you are so much smarter than everyone else, why don't you give me the name, and the page numbers, of anything Marshall ever wrote that even remotely says what you claim.
I am a Taoist. That means that I do not feel responsible for your bad manners, your ignorance, or your inability to reason. You cannot even realize when you have lost an argument, but I'll give you a clue: a certain tip-off is when you cannot understand the other person's post and are reduced to invective.
I'm not a Taoist, and still don't blame you for my manners, or anything else I do. What the fuck is your point?
I have been politely suggesting that you are obviously out of place in this discussion as you think that being abusive wins arguments for you. You are simply an ignorant bully and the quality of both your thought and your writing are embarrassing.
Ah yes, the "job creators", as in an Ayn Rand novel. The rich don't necessarily create jobs. If you had a billion dollars in your investment portfolio, would you pace about all day thinking up ways to get those poor crackers down in Alabama working? Or would you be drinking nice whiskey, and dreaming up investment tricks that tend to be the occupation of those with too much time, and too much money? Be honest now.
If the rich aren't the job creators, then who exactly signs your paychecks if you aren't signing it yourself?
Directing resources to areas of the economy that will have the most social benefits is much more likely to be a job creator however. And why would be private sector do this? Unless there is profit involved, there is no reason.
Profits are the only reason, and really, the most effective and most efficient ways to allocate such resources. You can dream up all the possibilities of if these resources were directed in ways which satisfied you the most, but there are reasons why these resources aren't allocated this way: because it's inefficient and unprofitable. Profits signals businesses to keep doing what works, and to stop doing what does work.
You can come up with more efficient ways to allocate these resources if you'd like, but they'll be to expensive, and no one will want any part of it.
Corporations are after short term gain, and there are plenty of opportunities to achieve this in the world. Why bother with the unemployed in America? GM recently opened a new car plant, one which they hope will be a money maker for them. In China. Was employment near the top of their list of priorities?
Yes, otherwise they would have never opened up another factor in China at all. If Corporations are only in it for short term gain as you claim, then why don't you see corporations opening opening factors in America and in China at the same time? After all, if you could make $1 Billion Dollars worth of revenue in America and $11 Billion dollars in China, why wouldn't you?
However, you never see this trend. In fact, you often see these factors close down in America. There is a reason for that: manufacturing in America is virtually unprofitable. If it were profitable to produce in America, it really wouldn't have mattered where these businesses tried to expand. You could have still had your American factors and expanded to emerging markets in Asia if you wanted to.
It is only a body responsible to the people that is likely to pursue pro-social goals. Not in every case to be sure, but this is the tendency, and history gives us plenty of examples.
Such as?
Personally, I would like my home built by private contractors, but my roads and parks and medical insurance run by the government. And monopoly power regulated by the government. Just my opinion. But pretty easy to back up based on what works in the world.Ah yes, the "job creators", as in an Ayn Rand novel. The rich don't necessarily create jobs. If you had a billion dollars in your investment portfolio, would you pace about all day thinking up ways to get those poor crackers down in Alabama working? Or would you be drinking nice whiskey, and dreaming up investment tricks that tend to be the occupation of those with too much time, and too much money? Be honest now.
If the rich aren't the job creators, then who exactly signs your paychecks if you aren't signing it yourself?
Nonsense. Employment may come from any point of the compass, including government, non-profits, struggling and poor small business, affluent large corporations, or others.
Theoretically, we could all work for government, with every function of life a subset of the state. Or, to go to the other extreme, all services could be contracted out, and all would be in the private sector.
There is no invisible guiding hand that assuredly makes the wise and energetic rich, the dishonest and slothful poor, and counts and distributes coins to their exact place in the universe. Those on the uber-right will tell you this, but they have their own agenda, and should be taken with a grain of salt.
So the question is, what works? The appalling mess of the US health care system is a good example. Some ventures, such as insurance, often work better in the public sector. Others work better in the private sphere.
In the region I live in, mining is a big part of the economy. Forest products slightly larger again. Both of these are slightly smaller than the trade in illegal drugs though. That's definitely where the profits are. So, how to allocate? It would make sense, using your logic, to forget about investing in mining and forestry, and concentrate on selling drugs.
Allocation by government is not necessarily expensive. Canada "allocates" resources towards health care through government, yet the per capita cost is less there than for Americans, who have health care resources "allocated" by the private sector.
I don't think I get your point. Yes, offshoring and globalzation are broader issues, ones for which solutions will be difficult. My point is that for the US government, the future of employment is, and must, be an issue. For GM, or any other corporation, it need not, and is not. That is inherent in the mission and the functioning of these two different entities. And that's why government must have sufficient revenue and hence authority to rule on pro-social issues.
It is only a body responsible to the people that is likely to pursue pro-social goals. Not in every case to be sure, but this is the tendency, and history gives us plenty of examples.
Such as?
Left to the punters on Wall Street, how quickly would the great depression of the '30s have ended? Left to the corporate bandits on Wall Street, how soon would the great recession of '08 turned into the great depression of the decade? Left to the private insurance industry, how many Americans would still be without health care, and what kind of premiums would the rest be paying?
One of the greatest fallacies of our time is the misguided belief that taxing the rich more will somehow redistribute wealth among the people. The only redistribution of wealth by doubling or tripling the tax burden on the very wealthy will be X dollars removed from the private sector economy to swell the size, scope, and power of government while there are even fewer opportunities for the poor to become wealthy.
That should not be the goal folks.
Ah yes, the "job creators", as in an Ayn Rand novel. The rich don't necessarily create jobs. If you had a billion dollars in your investment portfolio, would you pace about all day thinking up ways to get those poor crackers down in Alabama working? Or would you be drinking nice whiskey, and dreaming up investment tricks that tend to be the occupation of those with too much time, and too much money? Be honest now.
Directing resources to areas of the economy that will have the most social benefits is much more likely to be a job creator however. And why would be private sector do this? Unless there is profit involved, there is no reason. Corporations are after short term gain, and there are plenty of opportunities to achieve this in the world. Why bother with the unemployed in America? GM recently opened a new car plant, one which they hope will be a money maker for them. In China. Was employment near the top of their list of priorities?
It is only a body responsible to the people that is likely to pursue pro-social goals. Not in every case to be sure, but this is the tendency, and history gives us plenty of examples.
My opinion was upfront: I fear a Plutocracy. That's not a straw man, it's a real concern for me.
you started right out of the gate with strawman number 1-
steve forbes has been the granddaddy of the flat tax proposal for 20 years.......
here;
Start by scrapping the tax code. Don't fiddle with it. Junk it. Throw it out. Bury it. Replace it with a pro-growth, pro-family tax cut that lowers tax rates to 17% across the board and expands exemptions for individuals and children so that a family of four would pay no taxes on the first $36,000 of income.
Not one cent to the IRS on the first $36,000. Anything over that would be taxed at a flat, fair 17%.
Online NewsHour: Summary of Steve Forbes' Flat Tax Plan
Steve Forbes is a Plutocrat.
If my income was $100,000, I would pay $17,000. If his income is $10,000,000, how much would he keep.
Not one cent to the IRS on the first $36,000. Anything over that would be taxed at a flat, fair 17%.
Online NewsHour: Summary of Steve Forbes' Flat Tax Plan
Not one cent to the IRS on the first $36,000. Anything over that would be taxed at a flat, fair 17%.
Online NewsHour: Summary of Steve Forbes' Flat Tax Plan
I checked out the link; there is nothing there other than the 17% figure and the $36,000 amount. So I'll take that at face value, no deductions, no tax credits, no exemptions, no differential rates. I'll let you squeal when you see the consequences, but hey, it's your plan!
At the 2013 rate rates, standard deduction, and personal exemption a couple filing married jointly with 4 exemptions would have a tax liability of $ 820. That's it. So they save $820.
A person with a million dollars of income would pay $ 329,390 in tax. Under the Forbes plan, that family saves $163,880. Now who really benefits?
I can make the examples worse. I suppose all of the refundable credits are abolished (you did say no credits did you not?) which pulls $100 billion or so out of the working poor.
I didn't hear about this plan being revenue neutral. How much spending cuts will be necessary to offset cutting taxes on millionaires by 50% or more? Where will they come from?
With a top marginal rate of 17%, compared to today's 39.6% as income rises the tax burden on the most affluent approaches a reduction of 57%.
So the Forbes plan as presented is totally unworkable, generates half the revenue of today, and is grossly unfair to everyone except the most wealthy. What's not to like?
I checked out the link; there is nothing there other than the 17% figure and the $36,000 amount. So I'll take that at face value, no deductions, no tax credits, no exemptions, no differential rates. I'll let you squeal when you see the consequences, but hey, it's your plan!
At the 2013 rate rates, standard deduction, and personal exemption a couple filing married jointly with 4 exemptions would have a tax liability of $ 820. That's it. So they save $820.
A person with a million dollars of income would pay $ 329,390 in tax. Under the Forbes plan, that family saves $163,880. Now who really benefits?
I can make the examples worse. I suppose all of the refundable credits are abolished (you did say no credits did you not?) which pulls $100 billion or so out of the working poor.
I didn't hear about this plan being revenue neutral. How much spending cuts will be necessary to offset cutting taxes on millionaires by 50% or more? Where will they come from?
With a top marginal rate of 17%, compared to today's 39.6% as income rises the tax burden on the most affluent approaches a reduction of 57%.
So the Forbes plan as presented is totally unworkable, generates half the revenue of today, and is grossly unfair to everyone except the most wealthy. What's not to like?
It is unfair only if you are of the ilk that believes it is unfair to require those who pay no federal income taxes to be required to pay some.
It is unfair only if you believe those with the incentive, intelligence, and work ethic to lawfully and ethically acquire great wealth should not be able to do so.
It is unfair only if you believe we are geting our money's worth from government and it is a good thing that more and more of the American economy is swallowed up in an ever more bloated bureaucracy.
It is unfair only if you don't believe that all laws should be applied equitably across the board and politicians should be able to use the tax code or any other process to benefit a particular constituency they depend on to keep them in power.
It is unfair only if you believe that poor people are what drive the economy, create jobs, build the infrastructure, and fund great institutions of healing, learning, research, R & D, and philanthropy.
Be careful what you wish for.
I checked out the link; there is nothing there other than the 17% figure and the $36,000 amount. So I'll take that at face value, no deductions, no tax credits, no exemptions, no differential rates. I'll let you squeal when you see the consequences, but hey, it's your plan!
At the 2013 rate rates, standard deduction, and personal exemption a couple filing married jointly with 4 exemptions would have a tax liability of $ 820. That's it. So they save $820.
A person with a million dollars of income would pay $ 329,390 in tax. Under the Forbes plan, that family saves $163,880. Now who really benefits?
I can make the examples worse. I suppose all of the refundable credits are abolished (you did say no credits did you not?) which pulls $100 billion or so out of the working poor.
I didn't hear about this plan being revenue neutral. How much spending cuts will be necessary to offset cutting taxes on millionaires by 50% or more? Where will they come from?
With a top marginal rate of 17%, compared to today's 39.6% as income rises the tax burden on the most affluent approaches a reduction of 57%.
So the Forbes plan as presented is totally unworkable, generates half the revenue of today, and is grossly unfair to everyone except the most wealthy. What's not to like?
It is unfair only if you are of the ilk that believes it is unfair to require those who pay no federal income taxes to be required to pay some.
It is unfair only if you believe those with the incentive, intelligence, and work ethic to lawfully and ethically acquire great wealth should not be able to do so.
It is unfair only if you believe we are geting our money's worth from government and it is a good thing that more and more of the American economy is swallowed up in an ever more bloated bureaucracy.
It is unfair only if you don't believe that all laws should be applied equitably across the board and politicians should be able to use the tax code or any other process to benefit a particular constituency they depend on to keep them in power.
It is unfair only if you believe that poor people are what drive the economy, create jobs, build the infrastructure, and fund great institutions of healing, learning, research, R & D, and philanthropy.
Be careful what you wish for.
Well, it's apparent that you live in a different reality from most Americans so I wish you well with it. Can you stop whining now about how the poor are oppressing the rich?
I checked out the link; there is nothing there other than the 17% figure and the $36,000 amount. So I'll take that at face value, no deductions, no tax credits, no exemptions, no differential rates. I'll let you squeal when you see the consequences, but hey, it's your plan!
At the 2013 rate rates, standard deduction, and personal exemption a couple filing married jointly with 4 exemptions would have a tax liability of $ 820. That's it. So they save $820.
A person with a million dollars of income would pay $ 329,390 in tax. Under the Forbes plan, that family saves $163,880. Now who really benefits?
I can make the examples worse. I suppose all of the refundable credits are abolished (you did say no credits did you not?) which pulls $100 billion or so out of the working poor.
I didn't hear about this plan being revenue neutral. How much spending cuts will be necessary to offset cutting taxes on millionaires by 50% or more? Where will they come from?
With a top marginal rate of 17%, compared to today's 39.6% as income rises the tax burden on the most affluent approaches a reduction of 57%.
So the Forbes plan as presented is totally unworkable, generates half the revenue of today, and is grossly unfair to everyone except the most wealthy. What's not to like?
It is unfair only if you are of the ilk that believes it is unfair to require those who pay no federal income taxes to be required to pay some.
It is unfair only if you believe those with the incentive, intelligence, and work ethic to lawfully and ethically acquire great wealth should not be able to do so.
It is unfair only if you believe we are geting our money's worth from government and it is a good thing that more and more of the American economy is swallowed up in an ever more bloated bureaucracy.
It is unfair only if you don't believe that all laws should be applied equitably across the board and politicians should be able to use the tax code or any other process to benefit a particular constituency they depend on to keep them in power.
It is unfair only if you believe that poor people are what drive the economy, create jobs, build the infrastructure, and fund great institutions of healing, learning, research, R & D, and philanthropy.
Be careful what you wish for.
Well, it's apparent that you live in a different reality from most Americans so I wish you well with it. Can you stop whining now about how the poor are oppressing the rich?
I'd like to see the number of working poor who labor for the 1%. The claim that the very wealthy create jobs maybe partly true - they do hire gardeners and such. I suspect (and I admit to not doing any research) that fewer jobs are created by the 1% then by small business owners, special districts or local, state and federal governments.
Since Foxfyre makes the claim the 1% are job creaters I suppose she can enlighten me.
I'd like to see the number of working poor who labor for the 1%. The claim that the very wealthy create jobs maybe partly true - they do hire gardeners and such. I suspect (and I admit to not doing any research) that fewer jobs are created by the 1% then by small business owners, special districts or local, state and federal governments.
Since Foxfyre makes the claim the 1% are job creaters I suppose she can enlighten me.
I think it's because the governments are meddling too much and participating as a part of the market instead of being an impartial referee. Another reason is because it's not as bad to be poor these days so more people are less motivated to achieve financial success, which then leads to a cycle of dependency. That's not an argument to get rid of the social safety net, but it should not become a hammock.
Implicit in your post is the notion that free markets always function efficiently, while government tends to be bureaucratic and wasteful. Yet this is not necessarily the case, as history has shown. Oldfart explains the fallicy of free markets much more knowledgeably than I in the post on the previous page. And the derision of government in the US is of course famous by this point; it is a long running imperative of the financially omnipotent, spun out to serve their best interests, which is a low tax, low regulation environment. For the middle class and lower, this is not a welcome development.
As for welfare, I think this is often an emotional issue as resentment looms large in those that have to work hard at jobs that are not all that desirable, and suffer the thought that others are getting a free ride. Again, it serves the needs of the affluent to spin this image as much as possible, because these are the sort of services they will never need. In fact welfare forms a rather small part of the budget in the US, quite a bit less than in other countries. Are people more content to be poor these days? I'd like to see a study that backs this up. If anything, I imagine being poor is even more of an anathema today, as images of the ultra rich are everywhere, and the contrast must be upsetting.
In our complex society today, governments "meddle" every second of the day, as they must. Without that, we would look more like Somalia than a '60s image of suburbia.
Oldfart made a fool out of himself in that post.
I have a challenge for you, prove that, without government meddling, we would be in worse shape.
I won't hold my breath.
Implicit in your post is the notion that free markets always function efficiently, while government tends to be bureaucratic and wasteful. Yet this is not necessarily the case, as history has shown. Oldfart explains the fallicy of free markets much more knowledgeably than I in the post on the previous page. And the derision of government in the US is of course famous by this point; it is a long running imperative of the financially omnipotent, spun out to serve their best interests, which is a low tax, low regulation environment. For the middle class and lower, this is not a welcome development.
As for welfare, I think this is often an emotional issue as resentment looms large in those that have to work hard at jobs that are not all that desirable, and suffer the thought that others are getting a free ride. Again, it serves the needs of the affluent to spin this image as much as possible, because these are the sort of services they will never need. In fact welfare forms a rather small part of the budget in the US, quite a bit less than in other countries. Are people more content to be poor these days? I'd like to see a study that backs this up. If anything, I imagine being poor is even more of an anathema today, as images of the ultra rich are everywhere, and the contrast must be upsetting.
In our complex society today, governments "meddle" every second of the day, as they must. Without that, we would look more like Somalia than a '60s image of suburbia.
Oldfart made a fool out of himself in that post.
I have a challenge for you, prove that, without government meddling, we would be in worse shape.
I won't hold my breath.
Well for one, FDR put in the SEC after your wealthy american heroes crashed the stock market. Things went along pretty good for for 60, 70 years. Then your wealthy friends were able to overthrow glass-steagal (they stopped the government meddling), and not long after that, they pulled off another crash of the economy and their wealth has increased because of it.
Respectfully, you may want to take a look at this article and see why the fact based world does not see things exactly the same as you:It is unfair only if you are of the ilk that believes it is unfair to require those who pay no federal income taxes to be required to pay some.
It is unfair only if you believe those with the incentive, intelligence, and work ethic to lawfully and ethically acquire great wealth should not be able to do so.
It is unfair only if you believe we are geting our money's worth from government and it is a good thing that more and more of the American economy is swallowed up in an ever more bloated bureaucracy.
It is unfair only if you don't believe that all laws should be applied equitably across the board and politicians should be able to use the tax code or any other process to benefit a particular constituency they depend on to keep them in power.
It is unfair only if you believe that poor people are what drive the economy, create jobs, build the infrastructure, and fund great institutions of healing, learning, research, R & D, and philanthropy.
Be careful what you wish for.
Well, it's apparent that you live in a different reality from most Americans so I wish you well with it. Can you stop whining now about how the poor are oppressing the rich?
I would gladly quit if I had ever whined about how the poor are oppressing the rich. Is it something in the water that liberals drink that makes you take illogical leaps like that?
Our income right now qualifies us for food stamps --no we are not getting food stamps--so just cool it with your ill mannered assumptions of what my reality is. I am also pretty sure that if the federal government had gone to a flat tax and balanced its budget 20 years ago, I would not qualify for food stamps today.
I am also quite certain that I would not be enjoying outings to our wonderful local aquarium, our Rio Grande Zoo, our wonderful museums, our amazing planetarium, our state of the art medical facilities, or auditing courses at the local university etc. if there had not been a lot of rich people in the world to make all those things possible. Nor would I be enjoying a passably comfortable retirement if a lot of rich people had not been willing to trade good money for my experience and expertise and/or to purchase the business products I offered over the years.
Poor people benefit enormously from a strong economy that gives them opportunity to become rich. But they cannot create one by themselves. Nor can any government. We need the rich folks.
