Wealth and Income Inequality in the United States

[Full-Auto]

Amazing how greedy liberals are.

Doesnt matter how much im worth

What matters is you libs arnt getting one more penny .

Fine. I'm not asking to.

That doesn't change the fact that corporations need to start paying higher taxes.

Attention Pussy is stupid.
Heres one more..................................OMG reported as early as 2006


Is Google Purging Conservative News Sites? | NewsBusters.org

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

After 30 years of voodoo, there has NEVER been a bigger rich/poor gap, or worse upward mobility, and it's all the fault of lazy poor people. You are SOOOOO brainwashed, you're functional MORONS. Certainly not the fault of bloated greedy rich, ridiculously expensive college, crappy schools, crummy jobs, infrastructure falling apart, ruinous fees and brutal health costs. That would be communist!!.

 

[DontBeStupid]

You want a world where success is guaranteed

No one is advocating that. But is it too much to ask for opportunities?

Provided by someone else? Why do yiu think someone owes you an opportunity?

Not provided by a person, no, but by a state or a school or the government? Yes, absolutely.

How can we call ourselves the greatest country in the world and not provide our citizens with opportunities to be great?

 

[Sundial]

It's not about that. Having a small group of people controlling the vast majority of income and therefore spending, is simply not good for an economy.

Cons on this board, or even contemporary con politicians, will never seriously discuss this disparity problem, or stipulate that it even constitutes a problem. Which is a shame, because it's possibly the biggest problem we're facing.

I'll discuss it. First, you explain how it's a "problem".

When a small group of people control a disproportionate share of the resources of a country, they're able to use their wealth to shape laws, policies, and institutions to their advantage, allowing them to control an ever greater share of the country's wealth, while insulating themselves from the repercussions of their actions. Eventually, as the productive part of the country's population is forced to shoulder an ever-greater burden, they begin to question why they are doing the lion's share of the work, while another group of people get to enjoy its benefits. Aside from the inherent immorality of the situation, it's economically unproductive, unsustainable and inconsistent with democracy.

 

[Foxfyre]

heh heh please, I would love to hear you explain this more!

Restarants have a lot more loss than a dry goods store does. A resturant needs to make more money per plate to make up for the food they have to throw away and can not sell.

Obviously. But you're talking about revenue not profits. We don't tax revenue in this country. We tax profits. If a restaurant makes $500K in profits and a dry good store makes $500K in profits, they are taxed the same. Raising that tax rate will not force one out of business over the other.

But the restaurant is a much different business with a rapid turnover in products sold. While a restaurant must always keep up with the times, if he is unable to sell his product for any reason on any given day, he at most loses only two or three days of profits and revenues. And if some product becomes an overnight sensation he simply substitutes that for another and he doesn't have a large inventory sitting idle.

But a dry goods store must stock for myriad tastes, invests a good deal more in the inventory it stocks, and takes a much higher risk that the public will not be interested in the product. Styles change, popular color schemes change, and it is not unusual for many items to sit on the shelves for weeks, month, even years before they finally sell.

Very different businesses with very different components going into their bottom line and the numbers on the monthly balance sheet will be allocated very differently.

Tax the restaurant to the point that it has to raise prices beyond what the customer base will pay in order to make a decent profit and it will go out of business and thus pay no taxes. Until they can find other work the employees become a drain on society instead of taxpayers and contributors to the economy. Suppliers and service providers to the restaurant lose that income and pay corresponding less in taxes.

The dry goods store may compensate for higher taxes also by raising prices or by importing cheaper products or using cheaper labor and may be able to tough it out longer, but in the end, consumers are willing to pay only so much for products they don't absolutely have to have. If the store cannot provide the product at a marketable price it will also go out of business with a corresponding loss to its employees, suppliers, and service providers.

Raise taxes to the point that it changes behavior with negative consequences for the economy, and it can easily result in less revenue for the treasury.

 

[dblack]

When a small group of people control a disproportionate share of the resources of a country, they're able to use their wealth to shape laws, policies, and institutions to their advantage, allowing them to control an ever greater share of the country's wealth, while insulating themselves from the repercussions of their actions. Eventually, as the productive part of the country's population is forced to shoulder an ever-greater burden, they begin to question why they are doing the lion's share of the work, while another group of people get to enjoy its benefits. Aside from the inherent immorality of the situation, it's economically unproductive, unsustainable and inconsistent with democracy.

Wow. I couldn't agree more, Sundial. in fact, I'd go one further and say that a rather large chunk of them got rich in the first place via a targeted effort to manipulate government policy in their favor.

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

Bought off Conservative BS propaganda sites, you mean, dupe. Tell us again how we're slaughtering Libyan women and children, and not getting anywhere...LOL. How's your hero Kaddafi doing, brainwashed shyttehead. And you have PLENTY of company...hoping for your recovery...

 

[DontBeStupid]

Tax the restaurant to the point that it has to raise prices beyond what the customer base will pay in order to make a decent profit and it will go out of business and thus pay no taxes. ...

The dry goods store may compensate for higher taxes also by raising prices

Again, no. You clearly don't understand the issue here. You cannot raise taxes on a company's profits to the point where the cost of doing business is so high the company goes under. It's not possible no matter what the type of business.

Take GE again as an example. If GE had a tax rate of 100%, they would have paid $5B in taxes and no dividends. Would this mean the company was going under? No. They still paid all employees and paid all costs of doing business. They simply had no money left over. Obviously I'm not advocating a 100% tax rate, but if that were the case, GE would be looking for ways to report zero profits and thus pay zero taxes. One of the easiest ways to do that is to pay your employees more in wages.

 

[Sundial]

"Problem"? What problem? There are industrious, clever, risk-taking, smart entrepreneurial people in the world who get rich, and there are lazy, stupid, parasitic, shiftless people who stay poor.

Do you think that middle-class Americans are "lazy, stupid, parasitic, shiftless people"?

Are we more lazy and stupid than middle-class Japanese?
Swedes?
Germans?

Obviously, people who are intermediate between the rich and poor have intermediate qualities on average.

If the bottom 80% of the country are getting relatively poorer compared to the richest among us, does that mean that 80% of the country is getting lazier, stupider, and more shiftless? Or that the top 1% have discovered a smart drug that's making them smarter all the time?

How would you describe Paris Hilton?

 

[Patrick2]

Cons on this board, or even contemporary con politicians, will never seriously discuss this disparity problem, or stipulate that it even constitutes a problem. Which is a shame, because it's possibly the biggest problem we're facing.

I'll discuss it. First, you explain how it's a "problem".

When a small group of people control a disproportionate share of the resources of a country, they're able to use their wealth to shape laws, policies, and institutions to their advantage, allowing them to control an ever greater share of the country's wealth, while insulating themselves from the repercussions of their actions.

In a democracy, that's manifestly false - controlling wealth doesn't mean you are allocated more votes. If the people elect representatives who can be bought off, they have only themselves to blame for their stupidity.

Eventually, as the productive part of the country's population is forced to shoulder an ever-greater burden, they begin to question why they are doing the lion's share of the work, while another group of people get to enjoy its benefits. Aside from the inherent immorality of the situation, it's economically unproductive, unsustainable and inconsistent with democracy.

You got that as backwards as possible. The vast majority of taxes are paid by the wealthy, approximately the lower 50% pay no income taxes at all. You offer no facts to support your claims. Big assertions require big proof, and I haven't seen any from you. Note: the mere existence of income differentials does >>NOTHING<< to support assertions such as "they are doing the lion's share of the work"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

From: It's the Inequality, Stupid | Mother Jones

It's not just that the rich have a disproportionate share; it's that problem is getting worse over time.

Unequal input, unequal output.

Don't worry, Obama will fix things.

It would make sense if the corporate executives were generating a greater share of wealth for their companies. However, the opposite is true.....American companies are losing market share to foreign competition while executive compensation skyrockets

It doesn't make sense? I didn't say anything about corporate execs.

 

[dblack]

Obviously I'm not advocating a 100% tax rate...

Why not? I mean, if what you're saying is true - if a lack of profits would actually improve conditions for the company as a whole - why in the world wouldn't you be advocating 100% taxes?

 

[Auxous]

Americans have gotten more productive over the last decades, but median household income has stayed roughly constant since the early 1960's.

I'll let people guess where the productivity gains went.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Obviously I'm not advocating a 100% tax rate...

Why not? I mean, if what you're saying is true - if a lack of profits would actually improve conditions for the company as a whole - why in the world wouldn't you be advocating 100% taxes?

Because it would prevent companies from paying dividends and it would prevent them from having a rainy day fund. Both are kind of important.

 

[dblack]

Because it would prevent companies from paying dividends and it would prevent them from having a rainy day fund. Both are kind of important.

How important?

 

[Sundial]

Some people are just smarter than others and can make that kind of money.

You mean people like Charlie Sheen, Paris Hilton and Justin Bieber?

All those people are smart - Hilton in particular is a very shrewd self-promoting slut.

Oops - you already answered that question.

Rich people are rich because they're smart, risk-taking, blah blah blah and shrewd self-promoting sluts?

Because I known some poor self-promoting sluts...

Are sure there's not some other reason Paris Hilton is rich?

 

[Full-Auto]

obviously i'm not advocating a 100% tax rate...

why not? I mean, if what you're saying is true - if a lack of profits would actually improve conditions for the company as a whole - why in the world wouldn't you be advocating 100% taxes?

because it would prevent companies from paying dividends and it would prevent them from having a rainy day fund. Both are kind of important.

lol playing stupid on both sides

 

[dblack]

lol playing stupid on both sides

HEY! I'm not playing!

 

[Foxfyre]

Tax the restaurant to the point that it has to raise prices beyond what the customer base will pay in order to make a decent profit and it will go out of business and thus pay no taxes. ...

The dry goods store may compensate for higher taxes also by raising prices

Again, no. You clearly don't understand the issue here. You cannot raise taxes on a company's profits to the point where the cost of doing business is so high the company goes under. It's not possible no matter what the type of business.

Take GE again as an example. If GE had a tax rate of 100%, they would have paid $5B in taxes and no dividends. Would this mean the company was going under? No. They still paid all employees and paid all costs of doing business. They simply had no money left over. Obviously I'm not advocating a 100% tax rate, but if that were the case, GE would be looking for ways to report zero profits and thus pay zero taxes. One of the easiest ways to do that is to pay your employees more in wages.

Let's say I have $100. I can take an informed and calculated risk and invest that $100 in machinery, raw materials, and wages plus licenses, fees, registrations, etc. and hope to turn that $100 into $200 less $20 in taxes. The $80 I net will support me nicely and also allow me to invest even more in the coming year and go for even more profit. That means I will utilize more services from others, buy more raw products, hire more people.

So you want to raise my taxes to $30. I might suck it up and think it was still worth the risk, time, effort, and mental stress to make the investment for a smaller net.

And now you want to raise my taxes to $40. I'll still have lots and lots left over, right?

But each time you are making the risk less and less worth it. And at some point, I will decide it isn't worth it at all. I'll pack it in and live on my $100 rather than gamble it. If I have no assurance what tax rate you eventually expect to impose or when you will impose it, I will also not take the risk.

And THAT is why we have trillions of dollars sidelined both here in America and stashed abroad right now because our fearless leader keeps threatening to increase taxes, regulation, requirements, mandates, etc. etc. etc. and business just isn't willing to risk the capital they have with so much uncertainty re the risk they will be taking.

Further when the economy is in recession, the risk for all commerce and industry is greatly elevated. That is absolutely the worst time to raise taxes and thereby increase their risk. It is a sure way to make sure most of them won't take it.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Because it would prevent companies from paying dividends and it would prevent them from having a rainy day fund. Both are kind of important.

How important?

Important enough that we shouldn't get rid of them.