The rich get richer and the poorer remain poorer?

[healthmyths]

HEY... what do rich people and "poor" people have in common???

CELL PHONES ONLY rich have to pay for them!

People in poverty in the USA get:

a) Free Cell phone (my cell phone I PAY is about $100/month)
if the poor person receives just one of the below FREE entitlements:
* Food stamps * Medicaid * Section 8 * Supplemental Security Income * National School Lunch Program

=== $ 1,200 in free cell phone

Again, every time the Right exaggerate they are actually admitting they know their case is too weak to defend otherwise!

The poor who get a cell phone get a bare bones phone and 125 to 250 minutes per month, basically a phone for emergencies. If you are paying $100 a month for 125 minutes, you are an idiot.

Admitting what? Poor get free stuff that is paid for by the rest of us and the rich?
You know there are MORE of us in the middle class that are paying for the "poor" then there are the "rich" ... but most of us in the middle class aspire to be rich not pitiful bitching about
the rich!
Now read this:

The study by philanthropy.com accumulated data by following the donation patterns of every state. It concluded that people who make between $50,000 and $75,000 a year donated 7.6% of their discretionary income to charity. Conversely, those making $100,000 or more only donated 4.2%.

An even curiouser trend found that if the local population contained 40% of people making $200,000 a year then the donation rates plummeted to a paltry 2.8%.
Study finds rich people give much less to charity than poor people - Detroit liberal | Examiner.com

Want to see the tax return of one of these people making $100,000 or more ?
YOUR VP..
The Bidens filed joint federal and combined Delaware income tax returns.
Dr. Biden filed a separate non-resident tax return for the state of Virginia.
Together, they reported adjusted gross income of $385,072.
The Bidens paid $87,851 in total federal tax for 2012. They paid $13,531 in Delaware income tax and $3,593 in Virginia income tax.
The Bidens contributed $7,190 to charity in 2012. which is 1.8% of their gross adjusted income!

President Obama and Vice President Biden?s 2012 Tax Returns | The White House

NOW do you see me complaining about that?
NOPE.. MY complaint is the hypocrisy of Biden and Obama constantly pleading for the "poor"!!!
And of course this CLASSIC... "It is that fundamental belief — I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper —"
While his brother lives in this:

 

[rdean]

It's all part of the GOP strategy for everyone to work for below minimum wage with no benefits until the day they die.
Well, it's not going to work. More and more Republicans look like Mitch McConnell. Old, over weight and not qualified for anything. We need younger workers. Immigration is something we need. And those people will help change this awful GOP dynamic.

 

[Papageorgio]

People make more money as their career progresses. If you worked a job for 8 years and weren't making more money you should probably change careers.

I had a guy come in and apply for a jog, he has gotten a .50 cent and hour raise for the company he worked for, he had been there 5 years. .50 cent raise in 5 years!
I offered him a job that was $5 an hour more than what he was getting, same type of work.
He told me he needed $7 an hour more. I said we would review it after 90 days.

He turned me down, flat. He rather keep a job paying $5 an hour less.

You can't fix stupid.

 

[Papageorgio]

It's all part of the GOP strategy for everyone to work for below minimum wage with no benefits until the day they die.
Well, it's not going to work. More and more Republicans look like Mitch McConnell. Old, over weight and not qualified for anything. We need younger workers. Immigration is something we need. And those people will help change this awful GOP dynamic.

You know, your stupidity would only be valid if the Republicans had been in power for decades. The issue is that BOTH parties have been in power and BOTH parties are to blame. Otherwise when Democrats controlled Congress and the Presidency, they would have made massive reforms. But they didn't, why? Because they like it the way it is.

Sorry but both parties own it and neither wants it fixed.

Translation: You are an idiot to think Democrats want the common or poor folk to gain any economic advantage. They stay in power with the poor vote.

 

[Katzndogz]

People make more money as their career progresses. If you worked a job for 8 years and weren't making more money you should probably change careers.

Or have a college or craft school affordable enough to go into a better job. Not that America allows to much of that.

How does America prevent it?

 

[Katzndogz]

People make more money as their career progresses. If you worked a job for 8 years and weren't making more money you should probably change careers.

I had a guy come in and apply for a jog, he has gotten a .50 cent and hour raise for the company he worked for, he had been there 5 years. .50 cent raise in 5 years!
I offered him a job that was $5 an hour more than what he was getting, same type of work.
He told me he needed $7 an hour more. I said we would review it after 90 days.

He turned me down, flat. He rather keep a job paying $5 an hour less.

You can't fix stupid.

In the 70s I applied for a job making $7.00 and hour but I wanted $12.00 an hour. I made the employer a challenge. I would work for free for a week. If after that week I was not worth $12.00 an hour we would just part company.

There was an old joke that had circulated for years. A man applies for a job. In discussing wages the employer tells him "We will pay you what you're worth." The man angrily walks out saying "I won't work for that."

I got my $12.00 an hour.

 

[Darkwind]

It ought not surprise us that as the American workers purchasing power declines (from 1972 on according to most marco-economists) that the wealthy started paying a larger share of the FEDERAL income tax burden.

But if one compares the tax burden the affluent pay (by percentage rather than simply arithematically) one notes that the affluent have more puchasing power than ever while the working classes have far less.

Basically the very afflient are becoming more affluent and the working classes (the bottom 80% or so) are losing puchasing power.

I am far better educated than my father, I worked as professional while he worked as an unskilled dirty white collar laborer.

But his retirement plans, and his income's purchasing power was much much MUCH better than mine was or ever will be now.

And I am NOT the generational exception to this trend, I am rather typical of the boomers V their WWII generation parents.

I am (we were) better educated, I (we) worked more hours and I (we) had less purchasing power than my (our) father's generation.

I just realized who you remind Me of.

V.I. Lenin, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-tung and a few dozen others who whined about the rich until they became rich themselves and then began the purge of millions of lives.

IT is what happens when people speak of whats good for society when they have no real understanding of what true compassion is.

It seems you and zeke are a pair.

 

[Londoner]

While America certainly has its share of people in chronic poverty and those with vast wealth, we are an economically mobile society. There are no class or cast systems that might prevent anyone with initiative from bettering their station in life. IRS data tracking the same group of taxpayers between 1999 and 2007 showed that Americans can move from one economic group to another fairly quickly.For example, nearly 60% of taxpayers who began in the lowest income group in 1999, moved to a higher income group by 2007. Conversely, roughly 40% of taxpayers who started out in the highest income group moved to lower income groups within eight years.
Official Statistics on Inequality, the Top 1%, and Redistribution | Tax Foundation

The Tax Foundation is a Rightwing think tank funded by billionaires. Using their research and data would be like using Michael Moore's data. They cherry pick and distort on behalf of the people who fund them. Unlike academic settings where Econ depts feature arguments from multiple sides of the issue, the Tax Foundation ONLY allows research and conclusions that support their tax agenda. They are activists in pursuit of one goal: lower taxes. Research their donor base. I wouldn't trust their data any more than I would trust a Soviet think tank on the Left.

They're citing the upward mobility of poor Americans during a time when Bush put more poor Americans in homes than at any time in history. They're using home values from a corrupt mortgage system/housing bubble to credit poor people with assets that they would later loose during the housing meltdown in 2008, about which they provide no data. By the end of the Bush years, poor and middle class Americans had been bankrupted by the greatest meltdown in the last 70 years. The fact that the study curiously leaves out 2008, a year when all their data is proved to be bubble based, is telling, not to mention all the flawed assumptions that gloss over the debt those same Americans accumulated, a debt that is now strangling the economy.

The reason we can't solve our greatest problems is because we have a generation of talk radio republicans who have been fully captured by propaganda.

You should see the data and finely displayed graphs in Al Gore's climate research. It looks great until you start evaluating the actual data. The fact that OP doesn't show us how this data was collected, or what the research model's assumptions are should tell you that he is another cut-&-paste drone. Be weary of anyone who can't fully and completely explain the conclusions they import from the work of other people.

 

[Bombur]

People make more money as their career progresses. If you worked a job for 8 years and weren't making more money you should probably change careers.

I had a guy come in and apply for a jog, he has gotten a .50 cent and hour raise for the company he worked for, he had been there 5 years. .50 cent raise in 5 years!
I offered him a job that was $5 an hour more than what he was getting, same type of work.
He told me he needed $7 an hour more. I said we would review it after 90 days.

He turned me down, flat. He rather keep a job paying $5 an hour less.

You can't fix stupid.

In the 70s I applied for a job making $7.00 and hour but I wanted $12.00 an hour. I made the employer a challenge. I would work for free for a week. If after that week I was not worth $12.00 an hour we would just part company.

There was an old joke that had circulated for years. A man applies for a job. In discussing wages the employer tells him "We will pay you what you're worth." The man angrily walks out saying "I won't work for that."

I got my $12.00 an hour.

In economics we learn that there is no money in paying people what they are actually worth. In fact the general idea is to stop hiring new people once you start paying them what they are worth to you.

 

[Uncensored2008]

In economics we learn that there is no money in paying people what they are actually worth.

Bullshit.

In fact the general idea is to stop hiring new people once you start paying them what they are worth to you.

You know nothing of economics, finance, or business. You're making up shit.

 

[edthecynic]

HEY... what do rich people and "poor" people have in common???

CELL PHONES ONLY rich have to pay for them!

People in poverty in the USA get:

a) Free Cell phone (my cell phone I PAY is about $100/month)
if the poor person receives just one of the below FREE entitlements:
* Food stamps * Medicaid * Section 8 * Supplemental Security Income * National School Lunch Program

=== $ 1,200 in free cell phone

Again, every time the Right exaggerate they are actually admitting they know their case is too weak to defend otherwise!

The poor who get a cell phone get a bare bones phone and 125 to 250 minutes per month, basically a phone for emergencies. If you are paying $100 a month for 125 minutes, you are an idiot.

Admitting what?

When caught exaggerating, the Right plays dumb and then desperately tries to change the subject.

 

[Bombur]

In economics we learn that there is no money in paying people what they are actually worth.

Bullshit.

In fact the general idea is to stop hiring new people once you start paying them what they are worth to you.

You know nothing of economics, finance, or business. You're making up shit.

If someone is worth $100 to you and you pay them $100 how much do you make on the deal?

It is called math not bullshit. I will grant you that more often then not the two won't be equal because the employer will be taking risks and possibly even using profit to pay some employees more than they are worth. Many employers are not perfect.

If you really want to learn about the economics I am talking about I bet there are some labor economics classes you can take for free online.

 

[Cecilie1200]

While America certainly has its share of people in chronic poverty and those with vast wealth, we are an economically mobile society. There are no class or cast systems that might prevent anyone with initiative from bettering their station in life. IRS data tracking the same group of taxpayers between 1999 and 2007 showed that Americans can move from one economic group to another fairly quickly.For example, nearly 60% of taxpayers who began in the lowest income group in 1999, moved to a higher income group by 2007. Conversely, roughly 40% of taxpayers who started out in the highest income group moved to lower income groups within eight years.
Official Statistics on Inequality, the Top 1%, and Redistribution | Tax Foundation

The Tax Foundation is a Rightwing think tank funded by billionaires. Using their research and data would be like using Michael Moore's data. They cherry pick and distort on behalf of the people who fund them. Unlike academic settings where Econ depts feature arguments from multiple sides of the issue, the Tax Foundation ONLY allows research and conclusions that support their tax agenda. They are activists in pursuit of one goal: lower taxes. Research their donor base. I wouldn't trust their data any more than I would trust a Soviet think tank on the Left.

They're citing the upward mobility of poor Americans during a time when Bush put more poor Americans in homes than at any time in history. They're using home values from a corrupt mortgage system/housing bubble to credit poor people with assets that they would later loose during the housing meltdown in 2008, about which they provide no data. By the end of the Bush years, poor and middle class Americans had been bankrupted by the greatest meltdown in the last 70 years. The fact that the study curiously leaves out 2008, a year when all their data is proved to be bubble based, is telling, not to mention all the flawed assumptions that gloss over the debt those same Americans accumulated, a debt that is now strangling the economy.

The reason we can't solve our greatest problems is because we have a generation of talk radio republicans who have been fully captured by propaganda.

You should see the data and finely displayed graphs in Al Gore's climate research. It looks great until you start evaluating the actual data. The fact that OP doesn't show us how this data was collected, or what the research model's assumptions are should tell you that he is another cut-&-paste drone. Be weary of anyone who can't fully and completely explain the conclusions they import from the work of other people.

::snore:: Oh, I'm sorry, were you saying something?

"Blah blah blah, I don't like your source, end of discussion". Here's a thought, dimwit. Show me that people DON'T move between income quintiles, or shut the fuck up. Saying, "Oh, it's right-wing, I win" accomplishes nothing except to tell me you know you're wrong and too much of a chickenshit to admit it.

 

[Katzndogz]

The democrat solution is to have a huge mass of voters who don't work at all, but collect in benefits what they would have if they had worked at a skilled job. The whole idea of a thriving and producing middle class is what democrats are trying so hard to prevent.

 

[RandomVariable]

Jesus said that the poor would always be among us.

Did he specify just how poor they should be?

 

[Cecilie1200]

In economics we learn that there is no money in paying people what they are actually worth.

Bullshit.

In fact the general idea is to stop hiring new people once you start paying them what they are worth to you.

You know nothing of economics, finance, or business. You're making up shit.

If someone is worth $100 to you and you pay them $100 how much do you make on the deal?

It is called math not bullshit. I will grant you that more often then not the two won't be equal because the employer will be taking risks and possibly even using profit to pay some employees more than they are worth. Many employers are not perfect.

If you really want to learn about the economics I am talking about I bet there are some labor economics classes you can take for free online.

They're worth $100 to you because they bring in $1000 worth of revenue, you dimwit. Do you need someone to draw you a diagram of what "worth to you" means and how to determine it?

What a fucking moron.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Jesus said that the poor would always be among us.

Did he specify just how poor they should be?

No, because I'm fairly sure He understood that as civilization advanced, "poor" would be defined upward.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If someone is worth $100 to you and you pay them $100 how much do you make on the deal?

IF you were educated, you would know the answer, which is from finance, not economics.

What are the elements that go into any product?

Labor
Overhead
Material

Add to this the fee, or desired profit, and you have the price of the product.

If a person is worth a hundred dollars an hour, and can make 10 super-widgets per hour with a material cost of $30 per unit, then the calculation is (assume a 300% overhead)

Labor=10
Overhead = 30
Material = 30

Cost = 70

Add a 15% fee and the price of the super widget is $80.50

IF you cannot sell the super widget for $80.50, then the worker is NOT worth $100 an hour.

Costing is ALWAYS based on what the labor is worth. When you made your silly claim, you merely advertised your abject ignorance.

It is called math not bullshit. I will grant you that more often then not the two won't be equal because the employer will be taking risks and possibly even using profit to pay some employees more than they are worth. Many employers are not perfect.

What is bullshit is your pretense that you have any knowledge on the subject. What is stupid is that you'd try and pull this shit here. Do you have ANY idea how many MBA's are here?

If you really want to learn about the economics I am talking about I bet there are some labor economics classes you can take for free online.

The fact that you don't grasp the distinction between finance and economics is the first clue that you're full of shit.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Did he specify just how poor they should be?

He said they should have 65" flatscreens and iPhone 5's which is why our "poor" have these things.

 

[Londoner]

While America certainly has its share of people in chronic poverty and those with vast wealth, we are an economically mobile society. There are no class or cast systems that might prevent anyone with initiative from bettering their station in life. IRS data tracking the same group of taxpayers between 1999 and 2007 showed that Americans can move from one economic group to another fairly quickly.For example, nearly 60% of taxpayers who began in the lowest income group in 1999, moved to a higher income group by 2007. Conversely, roughly 40% of taxpayers who started out in the highest income group moved to lower income groups within eight years.
Official Statistics on Inequality, the Top 1%, and Redistribution | Tax Foundation

The Tax Foundation is a Rightwing think tank funded by billionaires. Using their research and data would be like using Michael Moore's data. They cherry pick and distort on behalf of the people who fund them. Unlike academic settings where Econ depts feature arguments from multiple sides of the issue, the Tax Foundation ONLY allows research and conclusions that support their tax agenda. They are activists in pursuit of one goal: lower taxes. Research their donor base. I wouldn't trust their data any more than I would trust a Soviet think tank on the Left.

They're citing the upward mobility of poor Americans during a time when Bush put more poor Americans in homes than at any time in history. They're using home values from a corrupt mortgage system/housing bubble to credit poor people with assets that they would later loose during the housing meltdown in 2008, about which they provide no data. By the end of the Bush years, poor and middle class Americans had been bankrupted by the greatest meltdown in the last 70 years. The fact that the study curiously leaves out 2008, a year when all their data is proved to be bubble based, is telling, not to mention all the flawed assumptions that gloss over the debt those same Americans accumulated, a debt that is now strangling the economy.

The reason we can't solve our greatest problems is because we have a generation of talk radio republicans who have been fully captured by propaganda.

You should see the data and finely displayed graphs in Al Gore's climate research. It looks great until you start evaluating the actual data. The fact that OP doesn't show us how this data was collected, or what the research model's assumptions are should tell you that he is another cut-&-paste drone. Be weary of anyone who can't fully and completely explain the conclusions they import from the work of other people.

::snore:: Oh, I'm sorry, were you saying something?

"Blah blah blah, I don't like your source, end of discussion". Here's a thought, dimwit. Show me that people DON'T move between income quintiles, or shut the fuck up. Saying, "Oh, it's right-wing, I win" accomplishes nothing except to tell me you know you're wrong and too much of a chickenshit to admit it.

The data isn't simply about whether upward mobility happens. It's about the fact that it happened from 2000-2007, and the reasons or policies that enabled it. Since you are citing the study, we assume you know how they collected the data, their research methods and the assumptions built into them. So please defend their study rather than cutting and pasting it. Show us you know the particulars so we can have a debate. Otherwise you are just stealing work you don't understand.

Again: please explain what they base their data on. Don't speculate, source it.

And I didn't merely impeach the source, I cited the problems with measuring upward mobility during the greatest bubble of the last 70 years, one that was nearly exclusively driven by lifting up poor people and putting them into higher tax bracket by simply giving them a massive taxable asset.

But we do agree on this. Impeaching the source is bad form. So next time someone shits on the NYT or MSNBC or Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky or any liberal/socialist as slanted or biased, I'm happy that your side will start talking about the actual ideas rather than name calling and liberal bashing. Thanks for finally coming around .