Unequal distribution of wealth

[kiwiman127]

Notice that only lowering the super wealthy's taxes (Capital Gains/Dividends) is OK but lowering the taxes for the working class is wealth redistribution and class warfare?
Those crazy wingnuts just keep shooting themselves in the foot, all for a few crumbs that MAY fall of the wealthy's table that MIGHT fall their way.

Stupid post of the day.

Most middle class people derive income from cap gains and dividends.
You cannot lower taxes for the working class (whoever they are) because they generally pay no taxes.

The leftwingnuts just don't get it. They cannot get class warfare and envy out of their minds. "He's got more! Take it!"

Most of the Middle Class derive income from Capital Gains and Dividends!!! Ha, ha, ha!
Now that's rich (pardon the pun). Most of the Middle Class isn't the investor class they are the 401 class. There's a BIG difference. Yes, they get some income from 401ks, when they CASH OUT. Do you really know what the investor class is? Try those who annually file for Capital Gains and Dividends.
I read where approximately 85 percent of the value of taxable stocks and mutual funds were held by the top 10 percentile, THAT is the investor class.
Why don't you go and see if you can find some talking points on that?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'd like to know why the unequal distribution of wealth is a bad thing. This seems to be a major premise from those on the left, but it's like you just assume it's a bad thing without every really providing evidence or justifying the premise.

unequal ? try history. what happens to societies without a middle class?

Gee, I dunno. You tell us. What happens to societies without a middle class? Cite historic examples.

You ask this as America heads towards Banana Republic status?

 

[Bfgrn]

I'd like to know why the unequal distribution of wealth is a bad thing. This seems to be a major premise from those on the left, but it's like you just assume it's a bad thing without every really providing evidence or justifying the premise.

speaking of distribution of wealth....

as more and more jobs disappear because of automation, computers and robotics, I can see a time at which MOST people become unemployed.....

we even have the military working on robot-troops to replace people....

i imagine that at that point ONLY the very best, brightest, strongest, most useful will have "jobs"/"positions"

maybe...10% of the population? 15%?

my q; since we all know that it would be completely unfair for the 10% of the population who have ALL THE WEALTH to have to pay any money at all just to support lazy good for nothing freeloaders, what should be done with/to the unemployed?

cultivated for spare parts for the wealthy?
slavery?
extermination?
set loose in the wilds and hunted for sport?

In 1890 about 90% of the US population worked in agriculture. Since then mechanization has taken most of those jobs so now less than 10% work in agriculture.
What happened to the people with all those ag jobs? Were they set loose to be hunted? Cultivated for spare parts?
Liberals see people as liabilities. Conservatives see them as assets.

Horseshit!

You are welcome to defend conservatism, but I have yet to meet anyone that can do it without diminishing others or requiring some group of human beings to evaporate. It is a negative form of thought that is incompatible with a free and open society. It is anti-democratic in nature and builds nothing, it can only tear things down. The last 30 years are a shining example of conservatism.

Conservatism throughout human history has always created a aristocracy, plutocracy, or some form of oppressive society where there is a ruling class or hierarchy. Today's aristocrats and hierarchy are the CEO's, corporations, captains of industry, and the business elite. Conservatives will defend to the death McDonald's right to slowly poison our children, but they never defend our children's health and well being.

I've lived to see the total failure of two revolutions of extreme ideology. The Bolshevik revolution and the Reagan revolution. Unfettered communism and unfettered capitalism creates the same end...failure.

Conservatism has no investment in human capital. It believes everyone is basically evil, so it treats people accordingly and it always creates a fear of 'others', some group of people that must be excluded or ostracized. Liberalism is faith in human beings and a trust that the human spirit can solve all man-made problems. Liberalism is a belief that everyone has good inside them, all they need a fair opportunity to succeed.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"Some Republican leaders actually treat this unemployment insurance as if it's a form of welfare," the president said. "They say it discourages folks from looking for work ... And we all have friends, neighbors, or family members who already know how hard it is to land a job when five workers are competing for every opening."

Obama said that while denying unemployment benefits to workers, Republicans have no problem spending money on tax breaks for wealthy Americans who don't need them.

- Obama: Republicans block tax cuts for small business | Raw Story

Where is the President wrong?

also, Did or did not the GOP block tax cuts for small businesses, the real job creators? http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/141501-american-small-businesses-are-the-job-creators.html

The GOP has never been a true friend of America's Middle class. Not in my life time or yours. They warned about Social Security...it was bad socialism. They argued this when the worst poverty in America was affecting the older generations who the free markets threw out on their old asses. People are as disposable as extra income to the Big Business Free Marketeers.

 

[Revere]

Are the 120,000 oil workers Obama threw out of the oil business the "middle class?"

Are the record uninsured adults who will have to wait four years for Obamacare "middle class?"

 

[MikeK]

I'd like to know why the unequal distribution of wealth is a bad thing. This seems to be a major premise from those on the left, but it's like you just assume it's a bad thing without every really providing evidence or justifying the premise.

Unequal distribution of wealth is not a bad thing, as the enlisted military example will show. The E-1 pay grade is somewhat less than the E-2 and the E-2 is substantially less than the E-8, and so on up through the officer ranks. This example represents a practical, well-planned, equitably reasoned scale of expediently unequal distribution.

Another acceptable example of unequal distribution was the typical ratio of salary disparity between the corporate CEO and the lowest paid employee during the most productive and economically stable period in our history. At that time the typical ratio was the CEO earned around forty times more than the lowest paid employee. But that level of acceptably unequal distribution began to change when Ronald Reagan became President.

Today the typical ratio is a corporate CEO earns at least four hundred times more than the lowest paid employee. And at a time when wages have remained stagnant since 1980, at a time when more and more corporate employees are losing their retirement benefits, at a time when American jobs are being "outsourced" and American workers are being forced to compete with virtual slaves in foreign countries, at a time when some corporate CEOs are going home with $300,000,000 bonuses, at a time when bankers and Wall Street speculators are driving hard-working people from the homes they were scammed into putting their savings into, it is time to acknowledge that we are not talking about unequal distribution but wholly unacceptable and excessively unequal distribution of our Nation's resources (wealth).

Unequal is acceptable. Excessively unequal is not. America needs to get back to the time when the economy was operating smoothly and everyone was making a living. And if it takes going back to the progressive tax rate with a 91% cap, so be it. It is us against them and while they won't like it they will still be rich.

 

[SuMar]

I'm all for non-distribution of wealth. You keep what you earn.

 

[Revere]

Would Obama have to create debt to try and grow jobs if he didn't kill the ones already out there?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Are the 120,000 oil workers Obama threw out of the oil business the "middle class?"

Are the record uninsured adults who will have to wait four years for Obamacare "middle class?"

get a life.

 

[Revere]

Does the middle class have a better shot at making a comeback if Obama creates another $2T in debt?

 

[Meister]

Does the middle class have a better shot at making a comeback if Obama creates another $2T in debt?

I know these libs won't touch your fair question, so I will...."no".

 

[syrenn]

Does the middle class have a better shot at making a comeback if Obama creates another $2T in debt?

The middle class, oh you mean the new poor. You know the ones whose wealth was so nicely distributed to the poor that are not you.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Wealth does not create jobs. Spending does. When companies spend they create jobs. When rich people accumulate wealth, jobs are not created.


Under the Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest (unpaid for cuts) America did not get more job creation.

Tax Returns: A Comprehensive Assessment of the Bush Administration's Record on Cutting Taxes — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[boedicca]

Oh, so deluded.

Wealth does create jobs. Most wealth is invested. Investment creates jobs.

Smart investment is in areas where people spend money.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Does the middle class have a better shot at making a comeback if Obama creates another $2T in debt?

The middle class, oh you mean the new poor. You know the ones whose wealth was so nicely distributed to the poor that are not you.

People are saying under George W. Bush, America had the worst economic record since Herbert Hoover. Wages were stagnant, George W. Bush had the worst job creation record of any President in history, concluding in the worst economic catastrophe since the great depression

 

[mudwhistle]

Does the middle class have a better shot at making a comeback if Obama creates another $2T in debt?

The middle class, oh you mean the new poor. You know the ones whose wealth was so nicely distributed to the poor that are not you.

I think you're missing the point. Our earnings aren't going to be taken from us exclusively through taxes. Much of what the Obama Administration is doing is intended to raise our expenses. They're instituting government mandates on packaging and distribution that will cause groceries, tobacco, and other goods to go way up in price.

A pack of gum that I usually buy went from $1.50 to $2.39 this year. We keep finding out that the source of this price increase is usually government. They want to raise our costs slowly so we won't notice that our paychecks don't go as far as they used to.

We already have to have more then one money source. Pretty soon 3 jobs won't be enough.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Oh, so deluded.

Wealth does create jobs. Most wealth is invested. Investment creates jobs.

Smart investment is in areas where people spend money.

Wealth, Wall Street, was doing well while America was drowning in job loss. Wealth does not always create jobs. It's yet another Right Wing World Myth that wealth creates jobs.


The accumulation of wealth is the opposite of spending to create jobs. Investments do not create jobs. Investments in job creation creates jobs.

Wealthy people can and have invested in companies that cut jobs and ship the left over jobs overseas.

please stop being deluded?

 

[Meister]

Does the middle class have a better shot at making a comeback if Obama creates another $2T in debt?

The middle class, oh you mean the new poor. You know the ones whose wealth was so nicely distributed to the poor that are not you.

People are saying under George W. Bush, America had the worst economic record since Herbert Hoover. Wages were stagnant, George W. Bush had the worst job creation record of any President in history, concluding in the worst economic catastrophe since the great depression

"People " are saying, huh? Was that with the democratic Congress and Senate?
By the way, I did quite well under Clinton And under Bush financially.

 

[boedicca]

Does the middle class have a better shot at making a comeback if Obama creates another $2T in debt?

The middle class, oh you mean the new poor. You know the ones whose wealth was so nicely distributed to the poor that are not you.

People are saying under George W. Bush, America had the worst economic record since Herbert Hoover. Wages were stagnant, George W. Bush had the worst job creation record of any President in history, concluding in the worst economic catastrophe since the great depression

Even if that were the case, Obama's even more horrible record is worse than Bush's after only 2 years.

 

[mudwhistle]

Does the middle class have a better shot at making a comeback if Obama creates another $2T in debt?

The middle class, oh you mean the new poor. You know the ones whose wealth was so nicely distributed to the poor that are not you.

People are saying under George W. Bush, America had the worst economic record since Herbert Hoover. Wages were stagnant, George W. Bush had the worst job creation record of any President in history, concluding in the worst economic catastrophe since the great depression

People are saying????

Wow....that's a reliable source.