Where does wealth hatred come from?

[Winston]

Ray From Cleveland, post: 19059607

And you failed to answer my question: if the top 1% pay almost half of those income taxes for the rest of us, and that is not enough, how much should they be paying and why?

They aren't paying it for the rest of us, idiot. They possess twice as much wealth as the rest of us.

They are paying to protect their enormous wealth and assets.

No hate here. Just let them pay taxes in proportion to what they possess.

I see you also failed to answer my question.

We are a country of 315 million people. 4 million of our people are paying nearly half of all collected income taxes. If that's not enough, what percentage should those 4 million pay for the rest of us? And yes, they are paying for the rest of us.

Obviously they get more from this country than some middle class man working to keep his family going.

But that is not relevant.

Why do you want to borrow money to give it to rich people & well off corporations. Trump nw has tens of milions more dollars. And morons like you think that helps create jobs for Americans?

That is the entire issue intelligent people have against the tax cut bill.

If you amt to spur the economy, put money in the hands of those that will spend it.

Well.......the quickest answer is that it comes from the Democrat party and politicians. Hate people because they own businesses, hate people because they don't pay their workers enough, hate people because they get tax breaks, hate people because they have stuff the rest doesn't. It's brainwashing as usual.

But in my opinion, it must have deeper roots than politics.

Hate is usually a defense mechanism. Hate comes from fear or threat. You may hate your supervisor because he or she threatens your future with the company. Hate may come in forms of race where you feel a threat or fear for the safety of your family or investment of your home. Hate may be of gender where a person was abused by their spouse or even a stranger. It comes from somewhere. You don't wake up one morning and say "I really hate that Donald Trump. I didn't mind him yesterday, but today I wish he'd fall off a cliff."

I guess this question is really for the libs since they lead the charge in wealth hatred. If you agree with my assessment that hate derives from fear or threat, what has the wealthy done to you in the past that makes you feel this way? Or is it you were told by the Democrat party to hate wealthy people?

Well.......not all wealthy people of course. Liberals tend to give waivers to sports figures, entertainment figures, lottery winners, people that do things they enjoy instead of working for wealth. But if you went to college, worked your way up the ladder, made investments, and became wealthy through work, you are the worst creature on earth, and the Democrat party simply fuels that flame.

I come from a somewhat rich household worth 1.4 million.

However, I think most rich people kind of suck,as do most poor people kind of suck.

But, the rich people are more dangerous, especially ones in our institutions.

Look at the brats in media, Hollywood, the NFL, or businesses hiring illegals, or outsourcing.

The Goldilocks effect. Those who are not like me (the very rich, the very poor) are bad.

A lot of racists use that same supposed logic. They think blacks and Hispanics are too dumb and Asians and Jews are too smart and each is threatening to white people.

However by liberal standards, that kind of hate is unacceptable. Why is wealth hatred acceptable by liberals?

Ray, liberals don’t hate the wealthy. Most liberals aspire to BE wealthy. What they hate, is skewing the economy to heavily favour the wealthy.

When Reagan was elected President, there was an economic balance in the US where a rising tide lifted all boats. The American economy was strong because the working and middle class had financial security and savings. Reagan changed that balance and tilted it to the wealthy. The working class stopped getting raises. Profits mattered more than people.

Reagan removed most anti-trust provisions were lifted, allowing larger and larger corporations to be created. Now almost all retail is mega-chains and big box stores. Mega corporations employ millions but the money all goes to the top and the shareholders, while the employees who generate that income receive government assistance.

Wages for low income front line workers have been stagnant since the 1980’s. Not coincidentally, government assistance programs have grown under Republicans. The number of people receiving food stamps doubled the first two years of Reagan’s administration and never declined thereafter.

When Reagan was elected, the working class had savings. They owned 5% of the wealth of America. Not a lot to be sure, but they had a stake in things. That was gone before the outsourcing began in earnest under George W. Bush. The American middle class is shrinking and the recent tax cuts made by Trump will only accelerate that process.

W’s tax cut and refusal to raise minimum wages got the destruction of the middle class going big time. Trump just doubled down by cutting taxes with a huge deficit and full employment. Dumb and dumber.

Well he did say he would run the country like he ran his businesses. 7 bankruptcies and counting.

Good post. The problem is not the wealthy, although many of them are ill equipped to handle that wealth. The problem is a society that is tilted in favor of the wealthy. If you want a glaring example of the results of that tilting you only have to look at our current president and his children. Had Donald Trump grown up the son of a pump operator at the city water plant, like say, Michelle Obama, he would be damn lucky to be a manager at the local McDonalds. And his children are even worse. Ivanka is considered the brains of the bunch, and she is "dumb as a brick". I mean seriously, how dumb do you have to be to fail to report valuable art work on your financial disclosures and then post pictures of them on social networks?

In the United States today a child from the bottom quintile of income that tests at the top quintile on the SAT has the same chance of entering college as a student from the top quintile of income testing at the bottom. Contrast that with both China and India, where those testing at the top gain admission to their top universities regardless of their income.

 

[HappyJoy]

Poor baby, the right wing fanatics complain about their civil rights while protesting the civil rights of others. The klan doesn't have a reputation for holding the peace, so when they show up in town people are rightfully on edge.

Well, Communists are much worse scum than the KKK.

Yet, Communists are treated like Humans in this country, KKK not really.

Actually dogs are treated better than the KKK.

Communists killed 100 million, KKK 3 thousand or so.

All of a sudden people Chimp out about the KKK, rather than Communists.

Dumb society does as dumb society dies.

Communist Party USA and other American communist groups don't have a history of racial supremacy or violence. The klan, different story.

Communist ANTIFA are violent, and they usually start it.

Communists killed 100 million people.

Yet, people can wear Che, Mao, or Lenin shirts without getting beat up.

It's time for that to change, we must stomp out Communists, one skull at a time.

Totalitarian dictatorships killed millions, get it straight.

Stop communism? Dude, that was done decades ago, are you really red baiting in 2018?

Yet, you think the KKK, and Nazis must be stomped out, even though those problems are decades old as any kind of issue.

The Communist problem is worse now than ever, in this country.

It's time to stomp out Communism.

The KKK, alt-right, neo-Nazis and fascists are not stomped out. You have Russia attempting to prop them all up in elections held across the globe.

Here in the United States they have a history of violence and promote the remove of civil rights for minorities. You're not going to get too many Americans who are going to be just fine with the klan marching down Main St considering their horrific past.

 

[Dragonlady]

Ray condones the water in flint. Cuz ah heck water can't hurt ya right?

. Good post, but the whole problem is that when you give the corrupt left any wiggle room, they kill you with add on's that go way above and beyond the pale. This then gives those in opposition the ability to go to far in the opposite direction (placing profits above safety)

Excuses, excuses. When given clean bills, Republicans poison them with their own add-ons, giving license to pollute or overcharge. It’s what politicians do so that they can claim to help when they’re doing more harm than good.

I swear if I were queen of the world every bill would be an one issue bill with no ad ons. Ad ons are just weasel ways of making the other side look bad and solve no problems.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ray From Cleveland, post: 19059607

And you failed to answer my question: if the top 1% pay almost half of those income taxes for the rest of us, and that is not enough, how much should they be paying and why?

They aren't paying it for the rest of us, idiot. They possess twice as much wealth as the rest of us.

They are paying to protect their enormous wealth and assets.

No hate here. Just let them pay taxes in proportion to what they possess.

I see you also failed to answer my question.

We are a country of 315 million people. 4 million of our people are paying nearly half of all collected income taxes. If that's not enough, what percentage should those 4 million pay for the rest of us? And yes, they are paying for the rest of us.

Obviously they get more from this country than some middle class man working to keep his family going.

But that is not relevant.

Why do you want to borrow money to give it to rich people & well off corporations. Trump nw has tens of milions more dollars. And morons like you think that helps create jobs for Americans?

That is the entire issue intelligent people have against the tax cut bill.

If you amt to spur the economy, put money in the hands of those that will spend it.

Sorry my little troll, but you don't borrow money when you cut taxes, you borrow money when you spend it.

The liberal philosophy is that the people that give the most should get the least, and the people that give the least should get the most. HTF does that logic work anyway?

https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/12/03/why-rich-consumers-matter-more

 

[Dragonlady]

Ray From Cleveland, post: 19059607

And you failed to answer my question: if the top 1% pay almost half of those income taxes for the rest of us, and that is not enough, how much should they be paying and why?

They aren't paying it for the rest of us, idiot. They possess twice as much wealth as the rest of us.

They are paying to protect their enormous wealth and assets.

No hate here. Just let them pay taxes in proportion to what they possess.

I see you also failed to answer my question.

We are a country of 315 million people. 4 million of our people are paying nearly half of all collected income taxes. If that's not enough, what percentage should those 4 million pay for the rest of us? And yes, they are paying for the rest of us.

Obviously they get more from this country than some middle class man working to keep his family going.

But that is not relevant.

Why do you want to borrow money to give it to rich people & well off corporations. Trump nw has tens of milions more dollars. And morons like you think that helps create jobs for Americans?

That is the entire issue intelligent people have against the tax cut bill.

If you amt to spur the economy, put money in the hands of those that will spend it.

Well.......the quickest answer is that it comes from the Democrat party and politicians. Hate people because they own businesses, hate people because they don't pay their workers enough, hate people because they get tax breaks, hate people because they have stuff the rest doesn't. It's brainwashing as usual.

But in my opinion, it must have deeper roots than politics.

Hate is usually a defense mechanism. Hate comes from fear or threat. You may hate your supervisor because he or she threatens your future with the company. Hate may come in forms of race where you feel a threat or fear for the safety of your family or investment of your home. Hate may be of gender where a person was abused by their spouse or even a stranger. It comes from somewhere. You don't wake up one morning and say "I really hate that Donald Trump. I didn't mind him yesterday, but today I wish he'd fall off a cliff."

I guess this question is really for the libs since they lead the charge in wealth hatred. If you agree with my assessment that hate derives from fear or threat, what has the wealthy done to you in the past that makes you feel this way? Or is it you were told by the Democrat party to hate wealthy people?

Well.......not all wealthy people of course. Liberals tend to give waivers to sports figures, entertainment figures, lottery winners, people that do things they enjoy instead of working for wealth. But if you went to college, worked your way up the ladder, made investments, and became wealthy through work, you are the worst creature on earth, and the Democrat party simply fuels that flame.

I come from a somewhat rich household worth 1.4 million.

However, I think most rich people kind of suck,as do most poor people kind of suck.

But, the rich people are more dangerous, especially ones in our institutions.

Look at the brats in media, Hollywood, the NFL, or businesses hiring illegals, or outsourcing.

The Goldilocks effect. Those who are not like me (the very rich, the very poor) are bad.

A lot of racists use that same supposed logic. They think blacks and Hispanics are too dumb and Asians and Jews are too smart and each is threatening to white people.

However by liberal standards, that kind of hate is unacceptable. Why is wealth hatred acceptable by liberals?

Ray, liberals don’t hate the wealthy. Most liberals aspire to BE wealthy. What they hate, is skewing the economy to heavily favour the wealthy.

When Reagan was elected President, there was an economic balance in the US where a rising tide lifted all boats. The American economy was strong because the working and middle class had financial security and savings. Reagan changed that balance and tilted it to the wealthy. The working class stopped getting raises. Profits mattered more than people.

Reagan removed most anti-trust provisions were lifted, allowing larger and larger corporations to be created. Now almost all retail is mega-chains and big box stores. Mega corporations employ millions but the money all goes to the top and the shareholders, while the employees who generate that income receive government assistance.

Wages for low income front line workers have been stagnant since the 1980’s. Not coincidentally, government assistance programs have grown under Republicans. The number of people receiving food stamps doubled the first two years of Reagan’s administration and never declined thereafter.

When Reagan was elected, the working class had savings. They owned 5% of the wealth of America. Not a lot to be sure, but they had a stake in things. That was gone before the outsourcing began in earnest under George W. Bush. The American middle class is shrinking and the recent tax cuts made by Trump will only accelerate that process.

W’s tax cut and refusal to raise minimum wages got the destruction of the middle class going big time. Trump just doubled down by cutting taxes with a huge deficit and full employment. Dumb and dumber.

Well he did say he would run the country like he ran his businesses. 7 bankruptcies and counting.

Good post. The problem is not the wealthy, although many of them are ill equipped to handle that wealth. The problem is a society that is tilted in favor of the wealthy. If you want a glaring example of the results of that tilting you only have to look at our current president and his children. Had Donald Trump grown up the son of a pump operator at the city water plant, like say, Michelle Obama, he would be damn lucky to be a manager at the local McDonalds. And his children are even worse. Ivanka is considered the brains of the bunch, and she is "dumb as a brick". I mean seriously, how dumb do you have to be to fail to report valuable art work on your financial disclosures and then post pictures of them on social networks?

In the United States today a child from the bottom quintile of income that tests at the top quintile on the SAT has the same chance of entering college as a student from the top quintile of income testing at the bottom. Contrast that with both China and India, where those testing at the top gain admission to their top universities regardless of their income.

When Reagan was elected, you had a 20% chance of escaping poverty if you were born poor. Today your chances have been reduced to 2%. Generational poverty is becoming ingrained for the working poor.

Access to computers and electronic literacy and training will determine the next generations winners. The poor aren’t able to access the technology much beyond smart phones. Homes lack access to WIFI or the high tech toys to use them. Kids without tech toys are already on the losing track.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ray, liberals don’t hate the wealthy. Most liberals aspire to BE wealthy. What they hate, is skewing the economy to heavily favour the wealthy.

Spoke too soon:

In other words, tax 99% of the billionaires into extinction (and prison)

When Reagan was elected President, there was an economic balance in the US where a rising tide lifted all boats. The American economy was strong because the working and middle class had financial security and savings. Reagan changed that balance and tilted it to the wealthy. The working class stopped getting raises. Profits mattered more than people.

So what you're trying to say is that because Reagan lowered their taxes, they quit giving raises? How does that work anyway?

Reagan removed most anti-trust provisions were lifted, allowing larger and larger corporations to be created. Now almost all retail is mega-chains and big box stores. Mega corporations employ millions but the money all goes to the top and the shareholders, while the employees who generate that income receive government assistance.

Wages for low income front line workers have been stagnant since the 1980’s. Not coincidentally, government assistance programs have grown under Republicans. The number of people receiving food stamps doubled the first two years of Reagan’s administration and never declined thereafter.

No, that's completely wrong. When Reagan got in, 23 million were collecting food stamps. When he left, it was about 18 million, but nothing compared to what happened during Clinton and of course DumBama who doubled it within a few short years:

When Reagan was elected, the working class had savings. They owned 5% of the wealth of America. Not a lot to be sure, but they had a stake in things. That was gone before the outsourcing began in earnest under George W. Bush. The American middle class is shrinking and the recent tax cuts made by Trump will only accelerate that process.

W’s tax cut and refusal to raise minimum wages got the destruction of the middle class going big time. Trump just doubled down by cutting taxes with a huge deficit and full employment. Dumb and dumber.

Presidents have nothing to do with outsourcing. Outsourcing is a company decision and not a government one.

Can you explain to me how giving middle-class workers tax breaks are destroying the middle-class? How does that work exactly?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ray From Cleveland, post: 19059607

And you failed to answer my question: if the top 1% pay almost half of those income taxes for the rest of us, and that is not enough, how much should they be paying and why?

They aren't paying it for the rest of us, idiot. They possess twice as much wealth as the rest of us.

They are paying to protect their enormous wealth and assets.

No hate here. Just let them pay taxes in proportion to what they possess.

I see you also failed to answer my question.

We are a country of 315 million people. 4 million of our people are paying nearly half of all collected income taxes. If that's not enough, what percentage should those 4 million pay for the rest of us? And yes, they are paying for the rest of us.

Obviously they get more from this country than some middle class man working to keep his family going.

But that is not relevant.

Why do you want to borrow money to give it to rich people & well off corporations. Trump nw has tens of milions more dollars. And morons like you think that helps create jobs for Americans?

That is the entire issue intelligent people have against the tax cut bill.

If you amt to spur the economy, put money in the hands of those that will spend it.

I come from a somewhat rich household worth 1.4 million.

However, I think most rich people kind of suck,as do most poor people kind of suck.

But, the rich people are more dangerous, especially ones in our institutions.

Look at the brats in media, Hollywood, the NFL, or businesses hiring illegals, or outsourcing.

The Goldilocks effect. Those who are not like me (the very rich, the very poor) are bad.

A lot of racists use that same supposed logic. They think blacks and Hispanics are too dumb and Asians and Jews are too smart and each is threatening to white people.

However by liberal standards, that kind of hate is unacceptable. Why is wealth hatred acceptable by liberals?

Ray, liberals don’t hate the wealthy. Most liberals aspire to BE wealthy. What they hate, is skewing the economy to heavily favour the wealthy.

When Reagan was elected President, there was an economic balance in the US where a rising tide lifted all boats. The American economy was strong because the working and middle class had financial security and savings. Reagan changed that balance and tilted it to the wealthy. The working class stopped getting raises. Profits mattered more than people.

Reagan removed most anti-trust provisions were lifted, allowing larger and larger corporations to be created. Now almost all retail is mega-chains and big box stores. Mega corporations employ millions but the money all goes to the top and the shareholders, while the employees who generate that income receive government assistance.

Wages for low income front line workers have been stagnant since the 1980’s. Not coincidentally, government assistance programs have grown under Republicans. The number of people receiving food stamps doubled the first two years of Reagan’s administration and never declined thereafter.

When Reagan was elected, the working class had savings. They owned 5% of the wealth of America. Not a lot to be sure, but they had a stake in things. That was gone before the outsourcing began in earnest under George W. Bush. The American middle class is shrinking and the recent tax cuts made by Trump will only accelerate that process.

W’s tax cut and refusal to raise minimum wages got the destruction of the middle class going big time. Trump just doubled down by cutting taxes with a huge deficit and full employment. Dumb and dumber.

Well he did say he would run the country like he ran his businesses. 7 bankruptcies and counting.

Good post. The problem is not the wealthy, although many of them are ill equipped to handle that wealth. The problem is a society that is tilted in favor of the wealthy. If you want a glaring example of the results of that tilting you only have to look at our current president and his children. Had Donald Trump grown up the son of a pump operator at the city water plant, like say, Michelle Obama, he would be damn lucky to be a manager at the local McDonalds. And his children are even worse. Ivanka is considered the brains of the bunch, and she is "dumb as a brick". I mean seriously, how dumb do you have to be to fail to report valuable art work on your financial disclosures and then post pictures of them on social networks?

In the United States today a child from the bottom quintile of income that tests at the top quintile on the SAT has the same chance of entering college as a student from the top quintile of income testing at the bottom. Contrast that with both China and India, where those testing at the top gain admission to their top universities regardless of their income.

When Reagan was elected, you had a 20% chance of escaping poverty if you were born poor. Today your chances have been reduced to 2%. Generational poverty is becoming ingrained for the working poor.

Access to computers and electronic literacy and training will determine the next generations winners. The poor aren’t able to access the technology much beyond smart phones. Homes lack access to WIFI or the high tech toys to use them. Kids without tech toys are already on the losing track.

They also don't get much exercise either. That's why they should take hikes to the public libraries where they have high-speed internet and the latest Tech Toys.

 

[georgephillip]

Federal income taxes are what provides us all our federal goodies: welfare, food stamps, military, road construction, Medicaid, SCHIPS, school lunch, daycare services, and of course, so much more.

So much more?
You didn't even mention the biggest receptacle of fraud and waste in the US government.

U.S. Army fudged its accounts by trillions of dollars, auditor finds

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The United States Army’s finances are so jumbled it had to make trillions of dollars of improper accounting adjustments to create an illusion that its books are balanced..."

"The report affirms a 2013 Reuters series revealing how the Defense Department falsified accounting on a large scale as it scrambled to close its books.

"As a result, there has been no way to know how the Defense Department – far and away the biggest chunk of Congress’ annual budget – spends the public’s money."
Financing & Reimbursement | Medicaid.gov

"The Medicaid program is jointly funded by the federal government and states. The federal government pays states for a specified percentage of program expenditures, called the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP).

"FMAP varies by state based on criteria such as per capita income. The regular average state FMAP is 57%, but ranges from 50% in wealthier states up to 75% in states with lower per capita incomes (the maximum regular FMAP is 82 %).

"FMAPs are adjusted for each state on a three-year cycle to account for fluctuations in the economy. The FMAP is published annually in the Federal Register."

There is fraud everywhere in the government. Care to see some that goes on in our social programs?

It's one of the reasons government should never....ever be allowed to control our healthcare in this country.

Do you have numbers to match these?

"The Defense Department’s Inspector General, in a June report, said the Army made $2.8 trillion in wrongful adjustments to accounting entries in one quarter alone in 2015, and $6.5 trillion for the year. Yet the Army lacked receipts and invoices to support those numbers or simply made them up."

U.S. Army fudged its accounts by trillions of dollars, auditor findsU.S. Army fudged its accounts by trillions of dollars, auditor finds

 

[Doc1]

Ray condones the water in flint. Cuz ah heck water can't hurt ya right?

. Good post, but the whole problem is that when you give the corrupt left any wiggle room, they kill you with add on's that go way above and beyond the pale. This then gives those in opposition the ability to go to far in the opposite direction (placing profits above safety)

Excuses, excuses. When given clean bills, Republicans poison them with their own add-ons, giving license to pollute or overcharge. It’s what politicians do so that they can claim to help when they’re doing more harm than good.

I swear if I were queen of the world every bill would be an one issue bill with no ad ons. Ad ons are just weasel ways of making the other side look bad and solve no problems.

Only idiots single one "party" out for this abuse. They ALL do it. Take the ACA, why was Student Loan legislation included in it?

 

[Winston]

Ray From Cleveland, post: 19059607 They aren't paying it for the rest of us, idiot. They possess twice as much wealth as the rest of us.

They are paying to protect their enormous wealth and assets.

No hate here. Just let them pay taxes in proportion to what they possess.

I see you also failed to answer my question.

We are a country of 315 million people. 4 million of our people are paying nearly half of all collected income taxes. If that's not enough, what percentage should those 4 million pay for the rest of us? And yes, they are paying for the rest of us.

Obviously they get more from this country than some middle class man working to keep his family going.

But that is not relevant.

Why do you want to borrow money to give it to rich people & well off corporations. Trump nw has tens of milions more dollars. And morons like you think that helps create jobs for Americans?

That is the entire issue intelligent people have against the tax cut bill.

If you amt to spur the economy, put money in the hands of those that will spend it.

The Goldilocks effect. Those who are not like me (the very rich, the very poor) are bad.

A lot of racists use that same supposed logic. They think blacks and Hispanics are too dumb and Asians and Jews are too smart and each is threatening to white people.

However by liberal standards, that kind of hate is unacceptable. Why is wealth hatred acceptable by liberals?

Ray, liberals don’t hate the wealthy. Most liberals aspire to BE wealthy. What they hate, is skewing the economy to heavily favour the wealthy.

When Reagan was elected President, there was an economic balance in the US where a rising tide lifted all boats. The American economy was strong because the working and middle class had financial security and savings. Reagan changed that balance and tilted it to the wealthy. The working class stopped getting raises. Profits mattered more than people.

Reagan removed most anti-trust provisions were lifted, allowing larger and larger corporations to be created. Now almost all retail is mega-chains and big box stores. Mega corporations employ millions but the money all goes to the top and the shareholders, while the employees who generate that income receive government assistance.

Wages for low income front line workers have been stagnant since the 1980’s. Not coincidentally, government assistance programs have grown under Republicans. The number of people receiving food stamps doubled the first two years of Reagan’s administration and never declined thereafter.

When Reagan was elected, the working class had savings. They owned 5% of the wealth of America. Not a lot to be sure, but they had a stake in things. That was gone before the outsourcing began in earnest under George W. Bush. The American middle class is shrinking and the recent tax cuts made by Trump will only accelerate that process.

W’s tax cut and refusal to raise minimum wages got the destruction of the middle class going big time. Trump just doubled down by cutting taxes with a huge deficit and full employment. Dumb and dumber.

Well he did say he would run the country like he ran his businesses. 7 bankruptcies and counting.

Good post. The problem is not the wealthy, although many of them are ill equipped to handle that wealth. The problem is a society that is tilted in favor of the wealthy. If you want a glaring example of the results of that tilting you only have to look at our current president and his children. Had Donald Trump grown up the son of a pump operator at the city water plant, like say, Michelle Obama, he would be damn lucky to be a manager at the local McDonalds. And his children are even worse. Ivanka is considered the brains of the bunch, and she is "dumb as a brick". I mean seriously, how dumb do you have to be to fail to report valuable art work on your financial disclosures and then post pictures of them on social networks?

In the United States today a child from the bottom quintile of income that tests at the top quintile on the SAT has the same chance of entering college as a student from the top quintile of income testing at the bottom. Contrast that with both China and India, where those testing at the top gain admission to their top universities regardless of their income.

When Reagan was elected, you had a 20% chance of escaping poverty if you were born poor. Today your chances have been reduced to 2%. Generational poverty is becoming ingrained for the working poor.

Access to computers and electronic literacy and training will determine the next generations winners. The poor aren’t able to access the technology much beyond smart phones. Homes lack access to WIFI or the high tech toys to use them. Kids without tech toys are already on the losing track.

They also don't get much exercise either. That's why they should take hikes to the public libraries where they have high-speed internet and the latest Tech Toys.

That is comical. Have you checked out the funding of public libraries lately? But regardless, so the poor student hikes to the library every day, he studies his ass off, stays off the street and away from trouble, and nails the SAT. He applies, and is accepted, to a state university. He gets the maximum Pell Grant, he borrows the maximum amount of subsidized student loans and he supplements that with the maximum amount of unsubsidized loans. Without additional private loans the student's family, if they are in the lowest quintile of income earners, will have to throw in about FORTY PERCENT of their disposable income to keep the student in college. With one kid, that might be doable, but with two, it becomes impossible. So, our physically fit hard working academic standout now is working at McDonalds. Meanwhile, Richie Rich's spoiled son is drinking his way through college, taking six years to graduate, and if Pop is lucky, he doesn't move back into the house to play video games full time after graduation and he actually gets a job.

Tell me, which of those two individuals would you rather have in a management position? Yet which one is most likely to get that position? Can you not see the problem? If we want to compete with China and India it is time we started treating our students like China and India, otherwise, they are going to be eating our lunch. Hell, we already see it in the medical field. While you worry about whites becoming a minority I worry about the fact that "whites" don't become doctors or engineers anymore.

 

[Dragonlady]

Ray, liberals don’t hate the wealthy. Most liberals aspire to BE wealthy. What they hate, is skewing the economy to heavily favour the wealthy.

Spoke too soon:

In other words, tax 99% of the billionaires into extinction (and prison)

When Reagan was elected President, there was an economic balance in the US where a rising tide lifted all boats. The American economy was strong because the working and middle class had financial security and savings. Reagan changed that balance and tilted it to the wealthy. The working class stopped getting raises. Profits mattered more than people.

So what you're trying to say is that because Reagan lowered their taxes, they quit giving raises? How does that work anyway?

Reagan removed most anti-trust provisions were lifted, allowing larger and larger corporations to be created. Now almost all retail is mega-chains and big box stores. Mega corporations employ millions but the money all goes to the top and the shareholders, while the employees who generate that income receive government assistance.

Wages for low income front line workers have been stagnant since the 1980’s. Not coincidentally, government assistance programs have grown under Republicans. The number of people receiving food stamps doubled the first two years of Reagan’s administration and never declined thereafter.

No, that's completely wrong. When Reagan got in, 23 million were collecting food stamps. When he left, it was about 18 million, but nothing compared to what happened during Clinton and of course DumBama who doubled it within a few short years:

View attachment 171526

When Reagan was elected, the working class had savings. They owned 5% of the wealth of America. Not a lot to be sure, but they had a stake in things. That was gone before the outsourcing began in earnest under George W. Bush. The American middle class is shrinking and the recent tax cuts made by Trump will only accelerate that process.

W’s tax cut and refusal to raise minimum wages got the destruction of the middle class going big time. Trump just doubled down by cutting taxes with a huge deficit and full employment. Dumb and dumber.

Presidents have nothing to do with outsourcing. Outsourcing is a company decision and not a government one.

Can you explain to me how giving middle-class workers tax breaks are destroying the middle-class? How does that work exactly?

Because the breaks are going to the wealthy - over 70% of the debt created to pay for this tax cut ties to the wealthy and corporations. Middle class business owners get less of a cut than shareholders. Investing in the stock market is doing nothing for the dividends this money earns. It’s like a rich guy’s version of a government handout since the rich guys and corporations use more government services and return much less than what they use to government coffers.

Corporations use roads for transportation of goods and services and to get employees to work efficiently. They use waste treatment facilities at a higher level. They need an educated work force but they don’t want to pay for their training.

Rural areas complain about the high taxes in cities but cities with public transportation and access to jobs provide shelter for the working poor.

There’s a thread on this board about how higher wages for restaurant workers in Seattle is threatening the return of the $5 foot long sandwich. I see that as a good thing for everyone.

This campaign to keep fast food restaurant wages low so Americans can eat the worst possible food for the cheapest possible price would make for high farce if another thread didn’t make also make the claim that America was the only country in the world where poor people are fat.

Yes because fast food restaurant prices are being subsidized by EIC’s. It may be hard to find a supermarket in the ghetto but MickeyD is everywhere.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ray, liberals don’t hate the wealthy. Most liberals aspire to BE wealthy. What they hate, is skewing the economy to heavily favour the wealthy.

Spoke too soon:

In other words, tax 99% of the billionaires into extinction (and prison)

When Reagan was elected President, there was an economic balance in the US where a rising tide lifted all boats. The American economy was strong because the working and middle class had financial security and savings. Reagan changed that balance and tilted it to the wealthy. The working class stopped getting raises. Profits mattered more than people.

So what you're trying to say is that because Reagan lowered their taxes, they quit giving raises? How does that work anyway?

Reagan removed most anti-trust provisions were lifted, allowing larger and larger corporations to be created. Now almost all retail is mega-chains and big box stores. Mega corporations employ millions but the money all goes to the top and the shareholders, while the employees who generate that income receive government assistance.

Wages for low income front line workers have been stagnant since the 1980’s. Not coincidentally, government assistance programs have grown under Republicans. The number of people receiving food stamps doubled the first two years of Reagan’s administration and never declined thereafter.

No, that's completely wrong. When Reagan got in, 23 million were collecting food stamps. When he left, it was about 18 million, but nothing compared to what happened during Clinton and of course DumBama who doubled it within a few short years:

View attachment 171526

When Reagan was elected, the working class had savings. They owned 5% of the wealth of America. Not a lot to be sure, but they had a stake in things. That was gone before the outsourcing began in earnest under George W. Bush. The American middle class is shrinking and the recent tax cuts made by Trump will only accelerate that process.

W’s tax cut and refusal to raise minimum wages got the destruction of the middle class going big time. Trump just doubled down by cutting taxes with a huge deficit and full employment. Dumb and dumber.

Presidents have nothing to do with outsourcing. Outsourcing is a company decision and not a government one.

Can you explain to me how giving middle-class workers tax breaks are destroying the middle-class? How does that work exactly?

Because the breaks are going to the wealthy - over 70% of the debt created to pay for this tax cut ties to the wealthy and corporations. Middle class business owners get less of a cut than shareholders. Investing in the stock market is doing nothing for the dividends this money earns. It’s like a rich guy’s version of a government handout since the rich guys and corporations use more government services and return much less than what they use to government coffers.

Corporations use roads for transportation of goods and services and to get employees to work efficiently. They use waste treatment facilities at a higher level. They need an educated work force but they don’t want to pay for their training.

Rural areas complain about the high taxes in cities but cities with public transportation and access to jobs provide shelter for the working poor.

There’s a thread on this board about how higher wages for restaurant workers in Seattle is threatening the return of the $5 foot long sandwich. I see that as a good thing for everyone.

This campaign to keep fast food restaurant wages low so Americans can eat the worst possible food for the cheapest possible price would make for high farce if another thread didn’t make also make the claim that America was the only country in the world where poor people are fat.

Yes because fast food restaurant prices are being subsidized by EIC’s. It may be hard to find a supermarket in the ghetto but MickeyD is everywhere.

No, supermarkets can't survive in the ghetto because of the thefts committed by blacks. If it's not the shoplifting it's the armed robberies.

Our Target store--closed, our Walmart store--closed, our K-mart store--closed, all for the same reason.

A handout is when you give somebody something they don't have. Taking less from somebody is not a handout.

This nonsense that the wealthy use more government services than the average person is liberal nonsense. The rich person doesn't need the police as often if at all, they don't need Medicare, they don't need Social Security, they don't need food stamps. Yes, they pay into all that, but take nothing in return.

Corporations add to city and state taxation which is why cities and states fight to get businesses to come there. They offer tax abatements because even with the break, they make out like bandits. When a business employs hundreds or thousands of workers, each worker creates taxes for the city and state. A city with large industry areas does much better than cities that have little industry.

 

[beagle9]

Ray, liberals don’t hate the wealthy. Most liberals aspire to BE wealthy. What they hate, is skewing the economy to heavily favour the wealthy.

Spoke too soon:

In other words, tax 99% of the billionaires into extinction (and prison)

When Reagan was elected President, there was an economic balance in the US where a rising tide lifted all boats. The American economy was strong because the working and middle class had financial security and savings. Reagan changed that balance and tilted it to the wealthy. The working class stopped getting raises. Profits mattered more than people.

So what you're trying to say is that because Reagan lowered their taxes, they quit giving raises? How does that work anyway?

Reagan removed most anti-trust provisions were lifted, allowing larger and larger corporations to be created. Now almost all retail is mega-chains and big box stores. Mega corporations employ millions but the money all goes to the top and the shareholders, while the employees who generate that income receive government assistance.

Wages for low income front line workers have been stagnant since the 1980’s. Not coincidentally, government assistance programs have grown under Republicans. The number of people receiving food stamps doubled the first two years of Reagan’s administration and never declined thereafter.

No, that's completely wrong. When Reagan got in, 23 million were collecting food stamps. When he left, it was about 18 million, but nothing compared to what happened during Clinton and of course DumBama who doubled it within a few short years:

View attachment 171526

When Reagan was elected, the working class had savings. They owned 5% of the wealth of America. Not a lot to be sure, but they had a stake in things. That was gone before the outsourcing began in earnest under George W. Bush. The American middle class is shrinking and the recent tax cuts made by Trump will only accelerate that process.

W’s tax cut and refusal to raise minimum wages got the destruction of the middle class going big time. Trump just doubled down by cutting taxes with a huge deficit and full employment. Dumb and dumber.

Presidents have nothing to do with outsourcing. Outsourcing is a company decision and not a government one.

Can you explain to me how giving middle-class workers tax breaks are destroying the middle-class? How does that work exactly?

Because the breaks are going to the wealthy - over 70% of the debt created to pay for this tax cut ties to the wealthy and corporations. Middle class business owners get less of a cut than shareholders. Investing in the stock market is doing nothing for the dividends this money earns. It’s like a rich guy’s version of a government handout since the rich guys and corporations use more government services and return much less than what they use to government coffers.

Corporations use roads for transportation of goods and services and to get employees to work efficiently. They use waste treatment facilities at a higher level. They need an educated work force but they don’t want to pay for their training.

Rural areas complain about the high taxes in cities but cities with public transportation and access to jobs provide shelter for the working poor.

There’s a thread on this board about how higher wages for restaurant workers in Seattle is threatening the return of the $5 foot long sandwich. I see that as a good thing for everyone.

This campaign to keep fast food restaurant wages low so Americans can eat the worst possible food for the cheapest possible price would make for high farce if another thread didn’t make also make the claim that America was the only country in the world where poor people are fat.

Yes because fast food restaurant prices are being subsidized by EIC’s. It may be hard to find a supermarket in the ghetto but MickeyD is everywhere.

No, supermarkets can't survive in the ghetto because of the thefts committed by blacks. If it's not the shoplifting it's the armed robberies.

Our Target store--closed, our Walmart store--closed, our K-mart store--closed, all for the same reason.

A handout is when you give somebody something they don't have. Taking less from somebody is not a handout.

This nonsense that the wealthy use more government services than the average person is liberal nonsense. The rich person doesn't need the police as often if at all, they don't need Medicare, they don't need Social Security, they don't need food stamps. Yes, they pay into all that, but take nothing in return.

Corporations add to city and state taxation which is why cities and states fight to get businesses to come there. They offer tax abatements because even with the break, they make out like bandits. When a business employs hundreds or thousands of workers, each worker creates taxes for the city and state. A city with large industry areas does much better than cities that have little industry.

Otherwise the trade offs aren't being considered properly when the left goes attacking the wealthy in the ways that they do.

 

[Hal-9000]

Well.......the quickest answer is that it comes from the Democrat party and politicians. Hate people because they own businesses, hate people because they don't pay their workers enough, hate people because they get tax breaks, hate people because they have stuff the rest doesn't. It's brainwashing as usual.

But in my opinion, it must have deeper roots than politics.

Hate is usually a defense mechanism. Hate comes from fear or threat. You may hate your supervisor because he or she threatens your future with the company. Hate may come in forms of race where you feel a threat or fear for the safety of your family or investment of your home. Hate may be of gender where a person was abused by their spouse or even a stranger. It comes from somewhere. You don't wake up one morning and say "I really hate that Donald Trump. I didn't mind him yesterday, but today I wish he'd fall off a cliff."

I guess this question is really for the libs since they lead the charge in wealth hatred. If you agree with my assessment that hate derives from fear or threat, what has the wealthy done to you in the past that makes you feel this way? Or is it you were told by the Democrat party to hate wealthy people?

Well.......not all wealthy people of course. Liberals tend to give waivers to sports figures, entertainment figures, lottery winners, people that do things they enjoy instead of working for wealth. But if you went to college, worked your way up the ladder, made investments, and became wealthy through work, you are the worst creature on earth, and the Democrat party simply fuels that flame.

Wealth hatred comes from the poor who have to rationalize being poor, so they demonize anyone with more than them, this is sad because it basically programs children that they must be poor or evil. Very sad

 

[beagle9]

Well.......the quickest answer is that it comes from the Democrat party and politicians. Hate people because they own businesses, hate people because they don't pay their workers enough, hate people because they get tax breaks, hate people because they have stuff the rest doesn't. It's brainwashing as usual.

But in my opinion, it must have deeper roots than politics.

Hate is usually a defense mechanism. Hate comes from fear or threat. You may hate your supervisor because he or she threatens your future with the company. Hate may come in forms of race where you feel a threat or fear for the safety of your family or investment of your home. Hate may be of gender where a person was abused by their spouse or even a stranger. It comes from somewhere. You don't wake up one morning and say "I really hate that Donald Trump. I didn't mind him yesterday, but today I wish he'd fall off a cliff."

I guess this question is really for the libs since they lead the charge in wealth hatred. If you agree with my assessment that hate derives from fear or threat, what has the wealthy done to you in the past that makes you feel this way? Or is it you were told by the Democrat party to hate wealthy people?

Well.......not all wealthy people of course. Liberals tend to give waivers to sports figures, entertainment figures, lottery winners, people that do things they enjoy instead of working for wealth. But if you went to college, worked your way up the ladder, made investments, and became wealthy through work, you are the worst creature on earth, and the Democrat party simply fuels that flame.

Wealth hatred comes from the poor who have to rationalize being poor, so they demonize anyone with more than them, this is sad because it basically programs children that they must be poor or evil. Very sad

. Thank God it's not believed in this way by all or this nation would cease to function.

 

[Winston]

Ray, liberals don’t hate the wealthy. Most liberals aspire to BE wealthy. What they hate, is skewing the economy to heavily favour the wealthy.

Spoke too soon:

In other words, tax 99% of the billionaires into extinction (and prison)

When Reagan was elected President, there was an economic balance in the US where a rising tide lifted all boats. The American economy was strong because the working and middle class had financial security and savings. Reagan changed that balance and tilted it to the wealthy. The working class stopped getting raises. Profits mattered more than people.

So what you're trying to say is that because Reagan lowered their taxes, they quit giving raises? How does that work anyway?

Reagan removed most anti-trust provisions were lifted, allowing larger and larger corporations to be created. Now almost all retail is mega-chains and big box stores. Mega corporations employ millions but the money all goes to the top and the shareholders, while the employees who generate that income receive government assistance.

Wages for low income front line workers have been stagnant since the 1980’s. Not coincidentally, government assistance programs have grown under Republicans. The number of people receiving food stamps doubled the first two years of Reagan’s administration and never declined thereafter.

No, that's completely wrong. When Reagan got in, 23 million were collecting food stamps. When he left, it was about 18 million, but nothing compared to what happened during Clinton and of course DumBama who doubled it within a few short years:

View attachment 171526

When Reagan was elected, the working class had savings. They owned 5% of the wealth of America. Not a lot to be sure, but they had a stake in things. That was gone before the outsourcing began in earnest under George W. Bush. The American middle class is shrinking and the recent tax cuts made by Trump will only accelerate that process.

W’s tax cut and refusal to raise minimum wages got the destruction of the middle class going big time. Trump just doubled down by cutting taxes with a huge deficit and full employment. Dumb and dumber.

Presidents have nothing to do with outsourcing. Outsourcing is a company decision and not a government one.

Can you explain to me how giving middle-class workers tax breaks are destroying the middle-class? How does that work exactly?

Because the breaks are going to the wealthy - over 70% of the debt created to pay for this tax cut ties to the wealthy and corporations. Middle class business owners get less of a cut than shareholders. Investing in the stock market is doing nothing for the dividends this money earns. It’s like a rich guy’s version of a government handout since the rich guys and corporations use more government services and return much less than what they use to government coffers.

Corporations use roads for transportation of goods and services and to get employees to work efficiently. They use waste treatment facilities at a higher level. They need an educated work force but they don’t want to pay for their training.

Rural areas complain about the high taxes in cities but cities with public transportation and access to jobs provide shelter for the working poor.

There’s a thread on this board about how higher wages for restaurant workers in Seattle is threatening the return of the $5 foot long sandwich. I see that as a good thing for everyone.

This campaign to keep fast food restaurant wages low so Americans can eat the worst possible food for the cheapest possible price would make for high farce if another thread didn’t make also make the claim that America was the only country in the world where poor people are fat.

Yes because fast food restaurant prices are being subsidized by EIC’s. It may be hard to find a supermarket in the ghetto but MickeyD is everywhere.

No, supermarkets can't survive in the ghetto because of the thefts committed by blacks. If it's not the shoplifting it's the armed robberies.

Our Target store--closed, our Walmart store--closed, our K-mart store--closed, all for the same reason.

A handout is when you give somebody something they don't have. Taking less from somebody is not a handout.

This nonsense that the wealthy use more government services than the average person is liberal nonsense. The rich person doesn't need the police as often if at all, they don't need Medicare, they don't need Social Security, they don't need food stamps. Yes, they pay into all that, but take nothing in return.

Corporations add to city and state taxation which is why cities and states fight to get businesses to come there. They offer tax abatements because even with the break, they make out like bandits. When a business employs hundreds or thousands of workers, each worker creates taxes for the city and state. A city with large industry areas does much better than cities that have little industry.

If you believe wealthy use government services less than the poor you are absolutely delusional. Like the police. It is not about domestic violence calls or chasing off gang bangers. It is about the protection of PROPERTY. And I can tell you from experience. I have lived in poor rural areas and I have lived in upper class neighborhoods. In the poor rural areas I could go years without ever seeing a law enforcement officer. In the upper class neighborhoods I spoke to them weekly. Social Security, most wealthy people I know have disability insurance. Social Security is built in to those policies, without it the premium would be triple, at least. And I can assure you, no rich person refuses Medicare Part A, very few turn down Part B. Without Medicare they would be paying full retail for health services. When Donald Trump went to the doctor, he paid Medicare rates, he didn't pay full price.

But you ignore the big expenses. As Dragonlady mentioned, the highways. Corporations depend on them to move their goods, hell you should know that better than anyone. But what about the airports and air traffic controllers. The wealthy depend on those airports to land their private jets, they depend on the controllers to keep them from running in to each other. Not to mention they use commercial airlines at a far greater frequency than any poor person. And then there is defense spending, the protection of intellectual property rights, and of course, the protection of the banking system.

 

[georgephillip]

And you failed to answer my question: if the top 1% pay almost half of those income taxes for the rest of us, and that is not enough, how much should they be paying and why?

The top 1% should continue paying the same rate as they do now. Everyone earning less should see a tax cut, and all those in the top 0.1% to 0.001% should see a significant increase in their tax rates since much of their income is unearned and stems from pure speculation. In other words, tax 99% of the billionaires into extinction (and prison)

Thanks for being the poster boy for this topic.

See you leftists! Here you have it, pure hatred. So don't tell me there is no hate on the left for wealthy people.

Hate is a poor word choice to describe the contempt and infringement productive workers experience when they see government abusing the concept of "free markets" to redistribute income upward as has been occurring over the past four decades:

https://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf (pp. 9-10)

"Markets are never just given. Neither God nor nature hands us a worked-out set of rules determining the way property relations are defined, contracts are enforced, or macroeconomic policy is implemented.

"These matters are determined by policy choices.

"The elites have written these rules to redistribute income upward.

"Needless to say, they are not eager to have the rules rewritten — which means they also have no interest in even having them discussed..."

"This book examines five broad areas where the rules now in place tend to redistribute income upward and where alternative rules can lead to more equitable outcomes and a more efficient market: 1) Macroeconomic policies determining levels of employment and output.

"2) Financial regulation and the structure of financial markets.

"3) Patent and copyright monopolies and alternative mechanisms for financing innovation and creative work.

"4) Pay of chief executive officers (CEOs) and corporate governance structures.

"5) Protections for highly paid professionals, such as doctors and lawyers. In each of these areas, it is possible to identify policy choices that have engineered the upward redistribution of the last four decades."

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ray, liberals don’t hate the wealthy. Most liberals aspire to BE wealthy. What they hate, is skewing the economy to heavily favour the wealthy.

Spoke too soon:

In other words, tax 99% of the billionaires into extinction (and prison)

When Reagan was elected President, there was an economic balance in the US where a rising tide lifted all boats. The American economy was strong because the working and middle class had financial security and savings. Reagan changed that balance and tilted it to the wealthy. The working class stopped getting raises. Profits mattered more than people.

So what you're trying to say is that because Reagan lowered their taxes, they quit giving raises? How does that work anyway?

Reagan removed most anti-trust provisions were lifted, allowing larger and larger corporations to be created. Now almost all retail is mega-chains and big box stores. Mega corporations employ millions but the money all goes to the top and the shareholders, while the employees who generate that income receive government assistance.

Wages for low income front line workers have been stagnant since the 1980’s. Not coincidentally, government assistance programs have grown under Republicans. The number of people receiving food stamps doubled the first two years of Reagan’s administration and never declined thereafter.

No, that's completely wrong. When Reagan got in, 23 million were collecting food stamps. When he left, it was about 18 million, but nothing compared to what happened during Clinton and of course DumBama who doubled it within a few short years:

View attachment 171526

When Reagan was elected, the working class had savings. They owned 5% of the wealth of America. Not a lot to be sure, but they had a stake in things. That was gone before the outsourcing began in earnest under George W. Bush. The American middle class is shrinking and the recent tax cuts made by Trump will only accelerate that process.

W’s tax cut and refusal to raise minimum wages got the destruction of the middle class going big time. Trump just doubled down by cutting taxes with a huge deficit and full employment. Dumb and dumber.

Presidents have nothing to do with outsourcing. Outsourcing is a company decision and not a government one.

Can you explain to me how giving middle-class workers tax breaks are destroying the middle-class? How does that work exactly?

Because the breaks are going to the wealthy - over 70% of the debt created to pay for this tax cut ties to the wealthy and corporations. Middle class business owners get less of a cut than shareholders. Investing in the stock market is doing nothing for the dividends this money earns. It’s like a rich guy’s version of a government handout since the rich guys and corporations use more government services and return much less than what they use to government coffers.

Corporations use roads for transportation of goods and services and to get employees to work efficiently. They use waste treatment facilities at a higher level. They need an educated work force but they don’t want to pay for their training.

Rural areas complain about the high taxes in cities but cities with public transportation and access to jobs provide shelter for the working poor.

There’s a thread on this board about how higher wages for restaurant workers in Seattle is threatening the return of the $5 foot long sandwich. I see that as a good thing for everyone.

This campaign to keep fast food restaurant wages low so Americans can eat the worst possible food for the cheapest possible price would make for high farce if another thread didn’t make also make the claim that America was the only country in the world where poor people are fat.

Yes because fast food restaurant prices are being subsidized by EIC’s. It may be hard to find a supermarket in the ghetto but MickeyD is everywhere.

No, supermarkets can't survive in the ghetto because of the thefts committed by blacks. If it's not the shoplifting it's the armed robberies.

Our Target store--closed, our Walmart store--closed, our K-mart store--closed, all for the same reason.

A handout is when you give somebody something they don't have. Taking less from somebody is not a handout.

This nonsense that the wealthy use more government services than the average person is liberal nonsense. The rich person doesn't need the police as often if at all, they don't need Medicare, they don't need Social Security, they don't need food stamps. Yes, they pay into all that, but take nothing in return.

Corporations add to city and state taxation which is why cities and states fight to get businesses to come there. They offer tax abatements because even with the break, they make out like bandits. When a business employs hundreds or thousands of workers, each worker creates taxes for the city and state. A city with large industry areas does much better than cities that have little industry.

If you believe wealthy use government services less than the poor you are absolutely delusional. Like the police. It is not about domestic violence calls or chasing off gang bangers. It is about the protection of PROPERTY. And I can tell you from experience. I have lived in poor rural areas and I have lived in upper class neighborhoods. In the poor rural areas I could go years without ever seeing a law enforcement officer. In the upper class neighborhoods I spoke to them weekly. Social Security, most wealthy people I know have disability insurance. Social Security is built in to those policies, without it the premium would be triple, at least. And I can assure you, no rich person refuses Medicare Part A, very few turn down Part B. Without Medicare they would be paying full retail for health services. When Donald Trump went to the doctor, he paid Medicare rates, he didn't pay full price.

But you ignore the big expenses. As Dragonlady mentioned, the highways. Corporations depend on them to move their goods, hell you should know that better than anyone. But what about the airports and air traffic controllers. The wealthy depend on those airports to land their private jets, they depend on the controllers to keep them from running in to each other. Not to mention they use commercial airlines at a far greater frequency than any poor person. And then there is defense spending, the protection of intellectual property rights, and of course, the protection of the banking system.

That's silly.

Police in upper crust areas are bored to death. No crime means nothing to do, so they often take laser of cars or patrol streets and businesses. Cities depend highly on business revenue to make the city run. Without it, the city falls apart and that has happened to several suburbs in my area. If businesses are getting broken into or employees cars are constantly damaged, the business eventually moves out to a better location.

Transportation companies pay a ton of taxes for roads and highways. In fact, we get taxed by the mile and by how many axles the vehicle has. That's on top of diesel fuel tax which is something like 30 some cents a gallon. However those costs get passed down to our customers who have to indirectly pay them, so they actually pay more for the roads than anybody else. Nobody is doing the businesses any favors, trust me.

Most wealthy people have long-term health insurance that covers them through the remainder of their lives. They don't need SS and they don't need Medicare, and SS does not subsidize them either.

For the most part, airports are self supportive. They are not financed by cities, states or the federal government. Because businesses use the airport more, they also pay more. Nobody is getting a free ride.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And you failed to answer my question: if the top 1% pay almost half of those income taxes for the rest of us, and that is not enough, how much should they be paying and why?

The top 1% should continue paying the same rate as they do now. Everyone earning less should see a tax cut, and all those in the top 0.1% to 0.001% should see a significant increase in their tax rates since much of their income is unearned and stems from pure speculation. In other words, tax 99% of the billionaires into extinction (and prison)

Thanks for being the poster boy for this topic.

See you leftists! Here you have it, pure hatred. So don't tell me there is no hate on the left for wealthy people.

Hate is a poor word choice to describe the contempt and infringement productive workers experience when they see government abusing the concept of "free markets" to redistribute income upward as has been occurring over the past four decades:

https://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf (pp. 9-10)

"Markets are never just given. Neither God nor nature hands us a worked-out set of rules determining the way property relations are defined, contracts are enforced, or macroeconomic policy is implemented.

"These matters are determined by policy choices.

"The elites have written these rules to redistribute income upward.

"Needless to say, they are not eager to have the rules rewritten — which means they also have no interest in even having them discussed..."

"This book examines five broad areas where the rules now in place tend to redistribute income upward and where alternative rules can lead to more equitable outcomes and a more efficient market: 1) Macroeconomic policies determining levels of employment and output.

"2) Financial regulation and the structure of financial markets.

"3) Patent and copyright monopolies and alternative mechanisms for financing innovation and creative work.

"4) Pay of chief executive officers (CEOs) and corporate governance structures.

"5) Protections for highly paid professionals, such as doctors and lawyers. In each of these areas, it is possible to identify policy choices that have engineered the upward redistribution of the last four decades."

Nonsense. Do you know who is responsible for the wealth moving upwards? You are.

Not just you, but everybody here. Sometime this week like last week, you are going to transfer your money to the top. You are going to stop and buy gasoline, maybe stop at McDonald's or Burger King, you are going to pay your bill for the internet which you are using right at this moment, you may buy a new video game, cell phone or movie from pay-per-view, we all transfer our money to the top.

In this exchange, we get something in return. We get products and services many of us enjoy or even need.

Four decades....... well let's look at that.

What did we have four decades ago? Not much in comparison. I know because I was a child of the 70's. Back then, we had a landline telephone, a stereo with a cassette player, a 25" color television, and if you were lucky, a roof antenna instead of rabbit ears. Going out to eat was a treat instead of a weekly staple. Most families had one car. Want to see a new movie? Get in the car and drive to the cinema. That too was a treat.

 

[georgephillip]

Four decades....... well let's look at that.

What did we have four decades ago? Not much in comparison. I know because I was a child of the 70's. Back then, we had a landline telephone, a stereo with a cassette player, a 25" color television, and if you were lucky, a roof antenna instead of rabbit ears. Going out to eat was a treat instead of a weekly staple. Most families had one car. Want to see a new movie? Get in the car and drive to the cinema. That too was a treat.

What do you think explains this:

"Income inequality in the United States has increased significantly since the 1970s after several decades of stability, meaning the share of the nation's income received by higher income households has increased. This trend is evident with income measured both before taxes (market income) as well as after taxes and transfer payments. Income inequality has fluctuated considerably since measurements began around 1915, moving in an arc between peaks in the 1920s and 2000s, with a 30-year period of relatively lower inequality between 1950–1980.[1][2]"
Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia