quote:The simple truth is that the wealthy in the United States — the people who have made almost all the income gains in recent years — are undertaxed compared with everyone else.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Three issues....
I have doubts about some of them, but at least Cameron cared enough about reducing his country's deficit that alongside the cuts, he also proposed an increase in the value-added tax from 17.5% to 20%. Imagine: a fiscal conservative who really is a fiscal conservative.
Can you imagine a 20% VAT here in the U.S.? The 'poor' would be rioting...
But this is not actually an argument against the stimulus. On the contrary, studies showing that the stimulus created or saved up to 3 million jobs are very hard to refute.
Horsesh!t, they haven't been able to prove anywhere NEAR that number...
Then there's the very structure of our government. Does any other democracy have a powerful legislative branch as undemocratic as the U.S. Senate?
When our republic was created, the population ratio between the largest and smallest state was 13-to-1. Now, it's 68-to-1. Because of the abuse of the filibuster, 41 senators representing less than 11% of the nation's population can, in principle, block action supported by 59 senators representing more than 89% of our population. And you wonder why it's so hard to get anything done in Washington?
The Senate was created that way ON PURPOSE. To prevent the mob rule that a Legislative Branch based on House of Reps concept. The smaller states wouldn't have accepted anything that didn't give them equal voting rights. That's why the dual system was created.
Idiot....
Posted by glassman on :
The Senate was created that way ON PURPOSE. To prevent the mob rule that a Legislative Branch based on House of Reps concept. The smaller states wouldn't have accepted anything that didn't give them equal voting rights. That's why the dual system was created.
Idiot....
actually? the Senate was appointed by the state legislatures when our system was created
furthermore? the filibuster rule was not in the Constitution, it is a rules system implemented and designed by the Senate itslef... there was no cloture rule at all..
the Supreme court flatly stated that the Senate only needs a 50/50 vote on anything,
BUT!
the Senate created a 2/3 rule to end cloture (debate) on a bill. Originally the rule only said 2/3 of those present, so a Senator had to actually hold the floor by being there...
that was rule 22
that rule was changed again to make the 60 vote rule cuz these effers are lazy... they didn't actually want to have to work (hold the floor) to maintain debate...
"cloture rule 22" was invoked in 1917 and the 60 vote rule only came into being in 1975... that allowed the effers to actaully have filibuster without doing the hard lifting (lazy effers!)
tell me again about mob rule? idiot? hmmmm...
yep we live in a Republic but the founders had NOTHING whatsoever to do with filibuisters and cloture and 3/5ths or 2/3 majrotites to END debate... they prolly would think it's idiotic like i do..... the votes were originally ot be 50/50 by appointees of the state and not to be voted in general elections
the same people that created the 18th ammendment (prohibition) are the ones that created rule 22... and it's bullcrap.
Posted by glassman on :
But this is not actually an argument against the stimulus. On the contrary, studies showing that the stimulus created or saved up to 3 million jobs are very hard to refute.
Horsesh!t, they haven't been able to prove anywhere NEAR that number...
LOL... the money was just burned right the ashes were spread and that's it all gone?
fisrt off, peopl forget that about 1/4 to 1/3 of the stimulus was actually TAX CUTS..
* $264 billion Spent * $155 billion In process * $162 billion Left to spend * $163 billion Tax cuts issued * $49 billion Tax cuts remaining
Updated weekly (last update: July 27, 2010) Source: Government Agencies and ProPublica Research
i am so amused that when there's a moratorium on deepwater drilling in the gulf involving 33 rigs out of some 30,000 total rigs that "conservatives" suddenly understand how one dollar can pass thru so many hands with a "multiplying effect" on the economy and jobs created, but when it comes to trying to blame Obam for soemthing they suddenly forget it again...
33 rigs total were told to stop drilling and wait, that somehow equates to over a hundred thousand jobs lost? too ironic too ironic by a mile... Fox Liars repeat eh same thing over and over again so much that to some people perception really is their reality... but it's not Reality.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
SF
How do you defend the finding that the top 400 households in America paid a measly 16.6% tax rate in 2007?
I acknowledge there are irregularities in the jobs counting that was done with the stimulus but show me some info that proves it was substantially less that 3 Million jobs created.
Personally I wish Dionne had stayed out of the Senate on that article. Different topic completely to my mind.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Sorry, nodded off for a minute...
Glass, thanks for the history lesson....
But it doesn't dispute anything I wrote.
The smaller states were afraid that the more populous states (read slave owning states) would dictate national policy. Because of this, they demanded that they be given equal voting rights, which of course the larger states would have nothing to do with. This deadlock was what caused the two house system to be adopted. By numerical equality in the Senate and by number of reps in the House an equilibrium was sought. True, both sides have added innummerable rules of conduct not found in the Constitution (see Rangel's current ethics issues), but that doesn't change the Founder's wisdom in this form of Republic based government.
If we had a ruling body based soley on population, smaller states would literally not have a voice. Using the House of Reps model, California with its 53 reps could literally dictate policy to the Nation by overridding the will of the populations of Alaska, Deleware, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Arkansas, Kansas, Mississippi, Iowa, and Oregon....and STILL have 3 more votes...
If you got them, Texas, New York and Florida inline...they would rule over all 46 other states. Four state making policy for all...
THAT is why we have a Senate.
As for the number of jobs 'created of saved'? We've been over this many times. The counting system used has changed several times and they STILL haven't found one that they can hold out and say that it proves they've helped that many families. None of them, Glass.
The Rigs? My beef is that the Federal Government thinks that it's ok to simply shut down privately owned rigs with no reason other than they 'might' have issues.
That sounds alot more like a Dictatorship then a Constitutional Republic.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Big, how much was that 16% in dollars? What percentage of the total Federal Income does it represent? How much of that money did they see in return via government services?
Now, before Glass starts with his 'they benefit more from the system and should pay more' lines, let me ask a question:
The very same system that they benefited from, was it not available to everyone else?
We've already looked at stats that show that the bottom 40% of wage earners get more back on their returns than they pay in comparing ALL forms of federal taxes paid. They are literally being given the 'rich' and 'middle class's money. Even though ALL are the beneficiaries of American freedoms.
quote:I acknowledge there are irregularities in the jobs counting that was done with the stimulus but show me some info that proves it was substantially less that 3 Million jobs created.
That's my point, Big, I can't. Noone can. Noone has hard numbers to look at. They can't prove they accomplished that much, but noone else can argue with them due to lack of data. To say that voodoo was used to get that number is not that big of an exageration.
Posted by glassman on :
But it doesn't dispute anything I wrote.
au contraire. the House allowed unlimited debate until just before the civil war... filibustering has nothing to do with the Republican form of Govt....
mob rule was a concern but you have to remember these were very wealthy men who watched Britain abolish slavery in 1772, long before the Constitution was finalised....
if they had wanted rule 22 or the even more lax rule we have now? they would have written a 2/3 rule in the Constitution... it's that simple, instead they originally worte
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State,chosen by the Legislature thereof,for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
tie votes... nothing about 2/3s that came much later...
the 17th ammendment (right before prohibition again ) cahnged the "appointment" rules to general elctions..
that was the Republican form they envisioned...
the article as written was correct, the Senate has much more power today than it did then...
[ July 29, 2010, 21:54: Message edited by: glassman ]
Posted by glassman on :
The smaller states were afraid that the more populous states (read slave owning states) would dictate national policy. Because of this, they demanded that they be given equal voting rights, which of course the larger states would have nothing to do with.
LOL, i cannot beleive you opened this can of worms...
our Founders decreed that a slave would count as 3/5ths of person for representatives even tho a slave was not considered a citizen or voter...
the Abolition in England had already shown the way things were going...
The three-fifths compromise, Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution: “ Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
The three-fifths ratio, or "Federal ratio" had a major effect on pre-Civil War political affairs due to the disproportionate representation of slaveholding states. For example, in 1793 slave states would have been apportioned 33 seats in the House of Representatives had the seats been assigned based on the free population; instead they were apportioned 47. In 1812, slaveholding states had 76 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 instead of 73. As a result, southerners dominated the Presidency, the Speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War.
more proof of how effed up the system you seem to think is so great really was...
keep in mind that the electoral college was elected based on those numbers too.. that's how they controlled the presidency..
yeah, let's return to the good ole days dude...
Posted by glassman on :
LOL, a little deeper digging uncovers that Delaware was the main state concerned about having less representation than the other more populous states.
and they were slave-owners....
in fact? Tenn (slave owning) was the least populated and there was not much of a differnce in populations bewtween slave owning and non-slave-owning in the first states... Connecticut had more people people than either North or South Carolina, VA had the most people...
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Big, how much was that 16% in dollars? What percentage of the total Federal Income does it represent? How much of that money did they see in return via government services?
Now, before Glass starts with his 'they benefit more from the system and should pay more' lines, let me ask a question:
The very same system that they benefited from, was it not available to everyone else?
We've already looked at stats that show that the bottom 40% of wage earners get more back on their returns than they pay in comparing ALL forms of federal taxes paid. They are literally being given the 'rich' and 'middle class's money. Even though ALL are the beneficiaries of American freedoms.
That's bs rationalization SF. So a family of four subsisting (yes, I used the word subsisting) on 50k per year gets enough credits that they don't pay into federal income taxes. The income tax only brings in approximately 45% of all tax income. The rest is made up in individual taxes for gas, home, consumables, etc. Even they pay into government services.
Now...If I were in charge of the world the lowest you could get on credits would be 0. Some of the credits out there actually push beyond zero so that some are making a profit from the federal income tax. You are right, that is wrong. That money however is a drop in the bucket. A few hundred here, a few hundred there. One of the 1000 cuts that can bleed a body to death perhaps but first lets look at the slash across the carotid artery of America.
quote: "the gaps in after-tax income between the richest 1 percent of Americans and the middle and poorest fifths of the country more than tripled between 1979 and 2007,"
There is term for this. It is called wealth concentration. While it is great for the families that are included it is devastating to national economics. You want to know why the top 400 have to pay more than their fair share? It is because they have more than their fair share of the nation's wealth. Simple as that; and no that is not socialist, that is realism.
There is a big danger in wealth concentration that can be seen for those with the eyes to look. You see...it is fairly well known that for the last 30 years middle class incomes have flatlined against inflation while the top 10 percent have seen double digit gains. But did you know that between 1990 and 2004 most of the top 10 percent stagnated themselves?? The only group that grew during that time period was the super rich. The top 1 percent, which saw a 3% increase in accumulation of national wealth while the bottom 9 joined the rest of us in flatlining.
You wanna know why we are in a recession? It is partly to blame on foolish derivatives trading. It is partly to blame on fraudulent mortgage and MBS activities. It is partly to blame on the exuberance of optimism in the market. It is partly to blame on institutions take larger and lager risks while cutting their reserves held for emergencies.
It is also partly because nearly 50% of this nations entire wealth resides in the hands of 10% of its citizens, 20% of that held by the top 1%.
When wealth is so super concentrated as this the structures meant to support the national economy can buckle under with any dint or ding. And in case you didn't notice we got one hell of a ding. Bush and Obama have turned on the printing presses at the Treasury and it is working as evidenced by the lack of inflation despite the large additional flow to the money supply but unless the top 1% are cut off from their accumulation patterns that is only a short term solution (one that has caused the government to go deep in debt.)
So yes. I want to be unfair. I want to make sure the super rich pay more than their fair share of the taxes that keep this country great and in return I will allow them to remain super rich in a great and functioning nation. The alternatives are all of them self destructive.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
quote:LOL, i cannot beleive you opened this can of worms...
our Founders decreed that a slave would count as 3/5ths of person for representatives even tho a slave was not considered a citizen or voter...
.....
more proof of how effed up the system you seem to think is so great really was...
keep in mind that the electoral college was elected based on those numbers too.. that's how they controlled the presidency..
It only seems that way to the unintiated, Glass.
The 3/5ths compromise was a limit on slavery and slave states. It brought the Southern States onboard and gave the North time to grow and eventually vote slavery as illegal entirely. By the time the Civil War started, this 'eventual majority' had become a reality. The election of Abraham Lincoln, through Northern backing, and even with absolute Southern disapproval, showed that the North was going to run the national policy. Tarriffs on goods imported to the South (imposed by a congress lead by Northerners) and other issues contributed. The sectional interest division is what caused the war as much as the idividual issue of slavery.
As for the Constitution being racisit\pro slavery? Frederick Douglas (far more qualified to answer than either of us) stated it thusly:
"Take the Constitution according to its plain reading," he challenged the Rochester Ladies Anti-Slavery Society on July 5, 1852, in Rochester, New York. "I defy the presentation of a single pro-slavery clause in it." In fact, Douglass told the crowd gathered to hear his Independence Day address, "Interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a glorious liberty document."
quote:So yes. I want to be unfair. I want to make sure the super rich pay more than their fair share of the taxes that keep this country great and in return I will allow them to remain super rich in a great and functioning nation. The alternatives are all of them self destructive.
Wow, Big...that's so, um, big of you...I mean, it's not just anyone that's willing to be unfair with other people's money.
Wealth concentration is inevitable when dealing with finite resources. You CANNOT change that. There will always be those that know how to manage resources and those that don't. We have become a society that thrives on 'keeping up with the Jones''. Our consumerism is what has laid us low. We take in more than we produce. That is the recipe for disaster that has hurt us the most...as a government, and as individuals.
Be careful with what you wish for, Big. Confiscatory taxation is the prelude to confiscation 'for the good of the whole'.
Marx would be proud.
Posted by glassman on :
wow, you would love to live in the South. WTF school did you learn this in? Does the professor wear a pointy white hat? You seem to be indicating that the South was somehow suckered into the United States? Thats bogus as hell. The Virginians and the Pennsylvanians were the people that pulled the US together. The North had many more free people that actually voted and the South was who needed the Senate AND the 3/5ths compromise to keep some power.
The 3/5ths compromise was a limit on slavery and slave states.
this is unadulterated bs. as i pointed out earlier? Britain had already freed every slave in 1772. The movement was real and gaining steam.
what you fail to grasp is that a slaveowner was able to buy 3/5's of an advantag in Congress with every slave. The slave could not vote, but they counted toward the power the slaveowner weilded in Congress.
the fact that the South did not grow as well as the North is not due to politics at all.
it is due to the fact that the Summers are absolutely brutal without AC the insects are merciless without window screens.. Yellow fever and Malaria were very common. The landowners/slaveowners ran their states like thier own little countries managing to control every element of trade that existed in their locations. They stifled free trade instead of promoting it. People chose not to live there.
I have alot of family on both sides going back in VA and NC to the 1700's, NJ and MD in the late 1600's. I have seen receipts for quality land at 40 cents per acre in populated areas of NC in the late 1700's. The price of a feild slave at the time was 400$ (and no that was not in my families receipts, i had to look that up seperatley) So one feild slave was worth 1000 acres of quality farmland.... these were very wealthy people that owned slaves. In other words your average person did not own a slave. It has always been a mystery to me how the Rich southernors convinced all the "regular" dirt farmers to go die for them. My study of it shows that the average Southernor didn't beleive that the Northerners were really "up" for the fight. It was a major misjudgement.
BTW? i have many great-greats that fought on the Confederate sdie of the Civil War. And they were not officers. So my curiosity is not simply academic, i am truly curious about my ancestors.
have you studied the tax implications of the 3/5ths yet? that's why the North was willing to allow them to have it. The taxes were based on populations.
In the Continental congress each state had an equal vote.
Posted by glassman on :
There will always be those that know how to manage resources and those that don't.
this is truly naive.
exploitation of resources is the correct word, not management.
management is Government by definition.
Management in all business areas and organizational activities are the acts of getting people together to accomplish desired goals and objectives. Management comprises planning, organizing, staffing, leading or directing, and controlling an organization (a group of one or more people or entities) or effort for the purpose of accomplishing a goal. Resourcing encompasses the deployment and manipulation of human resources, financial resources, technological resources, and natural resources.
A government is the organization, or agency through which a political unit exercises its authority, controls and administers public policy, and directs and controls the actions of its members or subjects.
the real question simply comes down to one of whether you want your leaders to be "chosen" by the few or the many. someone has to choose who will lead whatever the endeavor.
i have seen way too many people get to be in charge by being the biggest a-hole and not the most competent to trust the few to choose.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Glass, you are lumping decades of time together as though nothing changed during it.
At the time of the Revolution, the South 'needed' their slaves and the North 'needed' the South to fight against the British. That is why the various compromises were made. The fact that the British had become anti-slavery both drove the South into the Union and kept the Brits out of the Civil War later so that they would not be seen as supporting slavery.
I'll find the exact numbers later, but if you get a minute look at the Lincoln's election and the electoral college results. Even though EVERY SOUTHERN STATE voted against him he still won. That was the last straw for the South...they knew that the North could (and would) legislate an end to slavery and their way of life, and there was nothing they could do to stop it.
By the way, nice dodge on Douglas.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
That's no more than wordplay, Glass.
It's well established that between 70-75% of lottery winners are broke within 5 years.
Why is that?
Because just HAVING resources isn't enough...you have to know how to UTILIZE them too.
That difference is why there are rich and poor and there always will be.
Posted by glassman on :
North 'needed' the South to fight against the British.
where are you getting this crap from?
the South was Thomas Jefferson and George Washington and James Madison... They led the damn Revolution.
you are nothing more than an apologist.
The fact that the British had become anti-slavery both drove the South into the Union
and the North? They were PIRATES and SMUGGLERS who were almost all on the list to be hung on sight by the Brits.
look them up individualy. they were dumping the Tea in Boston Harbour because the Brits were cracking down on smuggling. The SMUGGLERS were the ringleaders.
sheesh man.... our history is not Glorious. It is what it is. They were people with people strenghts and people weaknesses, nothing more.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: That's no more than wordplay, Glass.
It's well established that between 70-75% of lottery winners are broke within 5 years.
Why is that?
Because just HAVING resources isn't enough...you have to know how to UTILIZE them too.
That difference is why there are rich and poor and there always will be.
now that we agree on.
but exploitation of resources needs regulation by people not motivated by direct profit from the exploitation, and that is my point. Otherwise the exploiters end up taking everything and leaving nothing for the FUTURE.
we all know that . (except the far right) Posted by glassman on :
By the way, nice dodge on Douglas.
i've never studied much about him, but i would have to assume he was playing political game in that statement.
he was wrong. the 3/5ths compromise is pro-slavery, and we both know that. It clearly and Constitutionally recognises that institution.
have you covered the Dred Scott decision yet? that was 1857....
the South did lose it's political power simply because the North was grwoing faster, and i gave you several good reasons for it. We take malaria nd yellow fever for granted here in the USA today mostly because the swamps were drained..
Posted by glassman on :
Dred Scott case: the Supreme Court decision 1857
In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permiting slavery in all of the country's territories.
The case before the court was that of Dred Scott v. Sanford. Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, had appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of being granted his freedom.
Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery and intent on protecting southerners from northern aggression -- wrote in the Court's majority opinion that, because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The framers of the Constitution, he wrote, believed that blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."
Referring to the language in the Declaration of Independence that includes the phrase, "all men are created equal," Taney reasoned that "it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . . ."
women were excluded too... this what forms the basis for the "progressives" today and why i ahve left he GOP prolly forever the way things look right now.
i proudly consider myself to be progressive on this issue. I am conservative on fiscal issues and the GOP has not proven itself to be fiscally conservative EVER.They left me with nothing to hang my hat on.
Posted by glassman on :
Thomas Jeffereson on the development of the 3/5ths compromise: , the southern states would be taxed "according to their numbers and their wealth conjunctly, while the northern would be taxed on numbers only."
he wrote this because The three-fifths ratio was not a new concept. It originated with a 1783 amendment proposed to the Articles of Confederation. The amendment was to have changed the basis for determining the wealth of each state, and hence its tax obligations, from real estate to population, as a measure of ability to produce wealth. The proposal by a committee of the Congress had suggested that taxes "shall be supplied by the several colonies in proportion to the number of inhabitants of every age, sex, and quality, except Indians not paying taxes.
quote:i've never studied much about him, but i would have to assume he was playing political game in that statement.
You should take a few mins...because he wasn't.
quote:he was wrong. the 3/5ths compromise is pro-slavery, and we both know that.
We're going to have to agree to disagree here. It was the only compromise that would allow both Slavers and Abolitionists to united as a Nation. It was truly intended to only be temporary until the Nation could address the issue later. You should seriously look at Douglas and his case for this idea, Glass. He was a former slave and legal scholar far closer to this than you or I.
quote:the South did lose it's political power simply because the North was grwoing faster,...
For whatever reasons, Glass, the North was becoming more populous. That gave them more votes in the electoral college and in the House. This is absolutely why they broke from the Union. They KNEW that slavery was finished through Constitutional means.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Oh, and as for Taney...
He was from a SLAVE OWNING FAMILY...
No wonder he ruled as he did...
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Oh, and as for Taney...
He was from a SLAVE OWNING FAMILY...
No wonder he ruled as he did...
and that is my point. people always work in their own interest. that interest is never in other peoples interest, whether it be political or financial. Slavery was a business propositoin that was very profitable to a small few. Very few in fact, but it was extremely profitable. New Orleans was wealthier than New York city in terms of bank deposits just before the Civil War. The area around Natchez MS was the wealthiest area in the country
the abolition of slavery is one of the few issues in history where people showed interest in other people's better interests...
this is why we end up having to make political compromises and looking to judges for fair rulings that take the larger picture into account.
this is why laissez faire economics in fact DO NOT WORK! They are very nice sounding theory that mathces evolution, but evolution has no planning.
AT&T? i owned stock in them before they split up as result of the antitrust laws.... today we have real competition in communications. we could not hae had cell phones without ATT being broken up...ATT would never have allowed it...
Captialism tries to destroy itself over and over again and i am a Capitalist, but i recognise that capitalism unchecked and unregulated is just as devastating as communism is.
too much regulation is bad too, but deciding what is too much and what is not enough is the hard part...
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
quote:too much regulation is bad too, but deciding what is too much and what is not enough is the hard part...
At least here we agree. Posted by glassman on :
so, back to the Senate? the compromise was not about samll northern states being afraid of larger southern states, there was little to no differnce in their populations. The Senate was not intended to be used for a 2/3 majority either. that came much later...the 1900's WW1 to be precise. The increase in the power of the Feds is primarily due to having to fight wars, and people like Al Capone and other gangsters taking over local govenrmnets and corrupting them...
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
The Senate was not simply a North\South state issue, Glass. It was a Large\Small state issue. From the article above:
When our republic was created, the population ratio between the largest and smallest state was 13-to-1. Now, it's 68-to-1.
As to the 2\3rds issue: From Section 5 of the Constitution:
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
The Senate has the right (Constitutionally speaking) to set up any rules or procedures that it wishes. (shrug) Whenever it was started, noone has moved to change it yet.
The Fed's Powers have long since overstepped it's Constitutionally set bounds. Liberal use of the Supremecy and Interstate Commerce clauses have worn away nearly all State Rights as well as the 10th Amendment. Posted by glassman on :
The Fed's Powers have long since overstepped it's Constitutionally set bounds. Liberal use of the Supremecy and Interstate Commerce clauses have worn away nearly all State Rights as well as the 10th Amendment. [Frown]
i agree abolutley. but the reasons it has happened have ben in general for the common good.
Liberal use? yes, but Conservatives have used it oo (just a pun)
seriously? the drug laws are all uncostitutional- the began about the same time as the Federal Reserve, and the 2/3 rule in the Senate and Prohibition... the temperance movement was a very "righteous" bunch of twits...
but then when you discover stats like 1/2 the population was either addicted to a patent medicine (laudanum or cocaine) or alcohol at the turn of th centruy? you begin to try to understand what's behind the rampant Federalism.
to be honest? i hate it, but also hate the idea that Al Capone could literally take over the northen midewest by use of pure terrorism tactics....
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
I'll agree that federal drug laws are probably unconstitutional. But unless individual state constitutions bar it, the 10th amendment should provide a valid basis for state specific bans.
Part of me wants to have some kind of protection from companies putting physically addicting substances in products, but I'm not sure where to draw that line specifically.
Prohibition was doomed from the start. Well intentioned though it was, people in general didn't consider drinking enough of a public threat for it to be enforceable.
Posted by glassman on :
as for Frederick Douglas? i may try to find time to read his autobigraphy, but i see in the Constitution a definite intent to institutionalise slavery. i beleive he was simply trying to bring his ideas forward without coming on like John Brown did. self-interst is often a good thang and it's also a good idea to avoid the noose
I've fished at Harpers Ferry many times and the fact hat John was hanged for treason is kind of interesting since he was hero to many......
the irony that Lee and JEB Stuart captured him is esp. tasty Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
quote:So yes. I want to be unfair. I want to make sure the super rich pay more than their fair share of the taxes that keep this country great and in return I will allow them to remain super rich in a great and functioning nation. The alternatives are all of them self destructive.
Wow, Big...that's so, um, big of you...I mean, it's not just anyone that's willing to be unfair with other people's money.
Wealth concentration is inevitable when dealing with finite resources. You CANNOT change that. There will always be those that know how to manage resources and those that don't. We have become a society that thrives on 'keeping up with the Jones''. Our consumerism is what has laid us low. We take in more than we produce. That is the recipe for disaster that has hurt us the most...as a government, and as individuals.
Be careful with what you wish for, Big. Confiscatory taxation is the prelude to confiscation 'for the good of the whole'.
Marx would be proud.
Bah! You refuse to look at the whole just as you refuse to admit any type of insurance at all is socialism in practice disguised as capitalism by letting ING take 20% of the top.
Wealth concentration is inevitable you say.
I say liquidity is essential in a democratic society. If this inevitable trend of concentration continues unabated then our beautiful country of freedom runs a terrible risk of morphing into an oligarchy. Only has another 20% or so to go and the top 10 will have a choke hold on the nation resources.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
I meant to say plutarchy, not oligarchy. My apologies.
Posted by glassman on :
I say liquidity is essential in a democratic society.
touche!
also consider the Chinese method we are watching right now shows how wealth concentration works. The State is literally collecting all the cream off the top and is using it as a weapon. The tip of the spear is all that we are feeling right now, and if we do not act swiflty and with strong purpose we will be fully skewered in the next decade. The wealthy here care only about themselves the Chinese are not allowing any "extra wealth" in the population the govt has it all-- about 2.5 trillion$ which is equivalent to all the wealth held in private industry in the uS right now. LOOK OUT! i've been pointing at this for years and people do not beleive me. .
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
(sad laugh)
Do neither of you see the irony in those statements?
quote:Bah! You refuse to look at the whole just as you refuse to admit any type of insurance at all is socialism in practice disguised as capitalism by letting ING take 20% of the top.
The difference, Big...is choice. Here, insurance is an option, not a mandate...oh, wait...it's not even optional now...(sigh)
Socialism is FORCED upon one. Capitalistic insurance is a CHOICE.
quote:Wealth concentration is inevitable you say.
Yes, I do. And History supports the view. NO civilization has overcome this...not a single one.
quote:I say liquidity is essential in a democratic society.
Here we can both agree...the question is how that liquidity is achieved\encouraged.
quote:If this inevitable trend of concentration continues unabated then our beautiful country of freedom runs a terrible risk of morphing into an oligarchy. Only has another 20% or so to go and the top 10 will have a choke hold on the nation resources.
Here we diverge again, sad to say. Consumerism will prevail. They will buy toys, services, goods, etc. That has to be produced and paid for. Produced by whom? Paid for to whom? That exchange of wealth is what keeps the capitalistic nature of our economy alive.
Now, on to Glass...
quote:also consider the Chinese method we are watching right now shows how wealth concentration works. The State is literally collecting all the cream off the top and is using it as a weapon.
This is exactly what you both seem to be calling for here. The Government, which knows best of course, will take the 'cream off the top' (or in other words tax the @#$#$ out of the rich), and use it as it sees best. Whether that's to help friends' businesses or subsidize business sectors that they believe should get it, or simply to supply bread and circus to the masses...
You are calling for the Gov. to take a large measure of wealth out of the economy to put it back where elected officials (many who have NO business experience whatsoever) decide.
What you are decrying in the Chinese system...you are calling for here...
Irony...or insanity?
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Wealth concentration is inevitable you say.
Yes, I do. And History supports the view. NO civilization has overcome this...not a single one.
but SF, you do realise that no "civilization" has lasted either?
Posted by glassman on :
Now, on to Glass...
quote:also consider the Chinese method we are watching right now shows how wealth concentration works. The State is literally collecting all the cream off the top and is using it as a weapon.
This is exactly what you both seem to be calling for here. The Government, which knows best of course, will take the 'cream off the top' (or in other words tax the @#$#$ out of the rich), and use it as it sees best. Whether that's to help friends' businesses or subsidize business sectors that they believe should get it, or simply to supply bread and circus to the masses...
You are calling for the Gov. to take a large measure of wealth out of the economy to put it back where elected officials (many who have NO business experience whatsoever) decide.
What you are decrying in the Chinese system...you are calling for here...
Irony...or insanity?
you missed my comparison.
the Chinese Govt is not spending that money.
our govt does the exact opposite. We run a deficit because, and this is bipartisan, it creates more liquidity, offers a safe places to save money at better rates than a bank savings account and once more creates liquidity.
all the jobs that are "gone" from our economy can be counted right in the Chinese cash reserves... every single one.... the fact that our own Corporations have just alittle bit more than the Chinese in cash reserves (2.3 tr$ to 2.75 tr$) shows you why we don't have jobs...
those dollars are the owners to do with as they please, but takingthem in taxes is one way to get them "back in circulation" now do not suggest that i want to see all that money take in taxes, i am simply supplying information to ponder.
i do KNOW for a fact that people who claim they are "scared" of what the govt will do so they won't spend are FOS. They don't know what ANYBODY will do. Tomorrow? Oil could become a thing of the past if cold fusion were discovered... Is that going to stop people from investing in oiltoday? NOPE, and we are much closer to getting cold fusion that most people think...
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Glass, I get your point. Honest. And to a point I even agree. Dollars horded do noone any good...
However, those horded Chinese dollars(yuen) ensure that they will not have to borrow cash from other nations( and thus become dependant on them). I do not condone how they are aquiring this horde, however there is room for the arguement for having one.
My purpose in using your post on it was to show how the confiscatory nature of the Chinese is just a 'logical conclusion' of the same policy that Big seems to be espousing. That is: that for the good of the whole, individuals need to forgo their right to property not essencial to their sustenance.
That is the end of this class warfare path...and always has been whenever its been tried.
Posted by glassman on :
My purpose in using your post on it was to show how the confiscatory nature of the Chinese is just a 'logical conclusion' of the same policy that Big seems to be espousing.
their cash reserve are heavily favored in dollars (not their own currency)
actually i cannot explain how they have accumulated their horde.
their marginal (advertised) tax rates are not much different from ours.
Table of Income Tax Rates in China for an Individual in 2010
# The table relates to income from a salary. Income from other business is taxable at 5% - 35%. Income from personal services is taxed at 20%-40%. # Passive income such as interest and royalties is taxable at a standard rate of 20%.
the issue is that they are not running on a deficit and we are.
they are NOT creating liquidity and we are. they are using our liquidity against US.
they are NOT a FREE Socirty and we are.
they do not have Democracy we do
they do not have general elections and we do...
i would suggest that they provide little to no services to their people. I don't think the avg American would like living there either.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Someone who thinks they are overtaxed? CHARLIE RANGEL, the chairman of the house ways and means committee Which overseas tax law. A leftist who intentionally evaded his tax responsibilities.
Sheesh then another one comes out:
WASHINGTON – A second House Democrat, Rep. Maxine Waters of California, could face an ethics trial this fall, further complicating the election outlook for the party as it battles to retain its majority.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
This is a good thing Cash.
We want more of that. For far too long our elected officials on both sides of the isle have been playing tag with tax law. We need more investigations and I think you should ponder why so many have started over the past two years when we heard very little about such investigations in 90's and '00's...
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: (sad laugh)
quote:If this inevitable trend of concentration continues unabated then our beautiful country of freedom runs a terrible risk of morphing into an oligarchy. Only has another 20% or so to go and the top 10 will have a choke hold on the nation resources.
Here we diverge again, sad to say. Consumerism will prevail. They will buy toys, services, goods, etc. That has to be produced and paid for. Produced by whom? Paid for to whom? That exchange of wealth is what keeps the capitalistic nature of our economy alive.
Bought by whom, Seek? Bought by whom? 80% of our society holds less than 7% of our nation's financial wealth now and has been losing ground for the past 3 decades (with one exception thanks to Clinton). Who is going to fuel the consumerism you say is going to keep our democracy functional? The 60 Million that make up the top 20? Oh wait...they have started losing wealth due to the over-concentration of the top 1% too. Can 30 Million consumers keep a democracy of 300 Million healthy? Can 3?
No Seek.
I do not want the government to have the bulk of the country's net worth to play with.
I do not want any small group or organization to have the bulk of the country's net worth held tight.
I thought I made this clear. I want an egalitarian society for America, not an oligarchy, or a plutarchy. Government controlled socialism (also known as government controlled economics) leads to these forms of governing just as surely as a having any minority group with an overwhelming control of national assets does.
There are some areas however like medical care, social security, and national security where it just makes sense to have everyone a part of the system. Part of what makes America beautiful. You may never make it big but you'll have the chance here. And even if you don't you will be protected and not be forgotten when you sicken or age. Beautiful.
You say consumerism will keep the country from over concentrating. It just ain't so SF. It will lead to a weak lower and middle class bowing their heads to the decisions and desires of the wealthy elite. We are nearly there already.
Table 1: Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the United States, 1983-2007 Total Net Worth Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent 1983 33.8% 47.5% 18.7% 1989 37.4% 46.2% 16.5% 1992 37.2% 46.6% 16.2% 1995 38.5% 45.4% 16.1% 1998 38.1% 45.3% 16.6% 2001 33.4% 51.0% 15.6% 2004 34.3% 50.3% 15.3% 2007 34.6% 50.5% 15.0%
You'll notice the big jump in wealth concentration from 1983 to 1989 for the top 1 percent. That's the '81 Regan tax cuts for you.
You might also notice that blip from '95-98 for the lower 80%? That was after the '93 Clinton tax hike.
Looking at the more recent past...
quote: So far there are only tentative projections -- based on the price of housing and stock in July 2009 -- on the effects of the Great Recession on the wealth distribution. They suggest that average Americans have been hit much harder than wealthy Americans. Edward Wolff, the economist we draw upon the most in this document, concludes that there has been an "astounding" 36.1% drop in the wealth (marketable assets) of the median household since the peak of the housing bubble in 2007. By contrast, the wealth of the top 1% of households dropped by far less: just 11.1%.
(P.S. You should thank me Seek. I have just linked you to a source that should give you ample ammo if you decide to pull key points. Doesn't matter, I like the discussion even if I find you frustratingly stubborn sometimes.)
You say consumerism will keep the country going...and it might. It will not keep the country a democracy with equal representation. It can't. The bottom half of society has been losing ground against the top for decades and soon they will be relegated to working to create the freedoms of America for the privileged rather than participating in America.
Oh and CCM...about that inheritance tax you always complain about. A study in 2000 found that 92% of American inherit....Nothing. nada. Zip. Zilch. from their parents death. Only 1.6% of Americans inherit more than $100,000. The exclusion amount will never be lower that $1 Million from this point on and has never been lower than 675k that I have been able to find.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Part 1:
quote:I like the discussion even if I find you frustratingly stubborn sometimes.)
Love you too, Big.
quote:P.S. You should thank me Seek. I have just linked you to a source that should give you ample ammo if you decide to pull key points
Thank you...I intend to pull key points, because this 'study summation' is far less revealing that I think the authors would have us believe.
Let's start first with the two tables you posted from the article and compare the first and last data entries:
Table 1: Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the United States, 1983-2007 Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent 1983 33.8% 47.5% 18.7% 2007 34.6% 50.5% 15.0%
Financial Wealth Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent 1983 42.9% 48.4% 8.7% 2007 42.7% 50.3% 7.0%
Let's play a game...do you see what I see?
A full quarter century later, 4 presidential administrations, and ALL the world events\economic changes and, VIOLA!
The top 1% gained a whopping 0.8% share of net wealth and LOST 0.2% in terms of financial wealth (also referred to in this document as "non-home wealth" -- which is defined as net worth minus net equity in owner-occupied housing).
If you allow for a margin of error of plus or minus 1% (generous in any study) you get a statistical change of NOTHING for 24 years.
The next 19% gained nearly all of what was lost from the bottom 80%. But even that is less than 3% and 2% respectively. Again, if you allow for the margin of error, it's yet again possible for a 2% and 1% change in wealth redistribution in over 24 years.
Much of the rest of the article, specifically the asset catagory differences, are painfully obvious observations so I won't address them unless there's a specific point you want to contend.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Part 2:
I delved into the source material for the article and found something you might find interesting Big...
(this is page 45 of the .pdf file with the periods in for formatting)
Now, add that to two little facts:
U.S. Population in 1983: 233,791,994 U.S. Population in 2007: 302.2 million (est)
That's an approximately 30% increase in population. Compare that population increase to the percentage increases in households with worth higher than 1, 5, and 10 million dollars: 201.7%, 493.8%, and 598.3% respectively.
Look at that, Big. More people are getting wealthy (as a percentage of the population) instead of less as a superconcentration of wealth model would suggest.
Add this to the 'death tax' data you cited, that only 1.6% inherit more than $100,000 from parental demise. That means the rest of the wealthy are making their wealth during their own lifetime.
Thus, MORE people are entering the wealthy classes (top 20%), as a percentage of population, and doing so under their own power, not from inherited money.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Part 3:
Egalitarian:
–adjective 1. asserting, resulting from, or characterized by belief in the equality of all people, esp. in political, economic, or social life. –noun 2. a person who adheres to egalitarian beliefs.
And I thought that I was supposed to be the naively idealistic one here, Big.
Economic egalitarianism CANNOT exist. Primarily because motivation, education, and capability is not equal among men or women. Those with more of any of the three are, by that virtue, more likely to acquire more wealth. Not necessarily through any dishonesty or illegality, simply by means of being more disposed to success in the economic arena.
quote:Government controlled socialism (also known as government controlled economics)
And yet, that is exactly the result of laying the 'lion's share' of the tax burden on the few. You are stating that instead of allowing market forces to rule the economy. You are saying that the Government should TAKE the money they WANT and spend it how they choose. Instead of taxing the economy in some 'fair' manner(ie flat tax, consumption tax, etc) and setting your budget based on that amount, you seem to be advocating for a system where the government spends enough to guaranty a quality life for all(and then some) and then TAKING what is needed to achieve it from those who have earned that wealth (see part 2) to pay for those who haven't.
In what possible way is that NOT forced Socialism?
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Here is what I dont like, I dont like how serious financial crimes go unpunished. Where as if one of us did the equivalent locally it would be hell on earth.
Posted by glassman on :
Thus, MORE people are entering the wealthy classes (top 20%), as a percentage of population, and doing so under their own power, not from inherited money.
whoa dude, i am in the top 20% and i am not a memebr of the wealthy class...
Posted by glassman on :
Government should TAKE the money they WANT and spend it how they choose.
so who gets to choose? do you see the problem yet?
the GOP and the Dems are fighting over who gets to choose. the "contract with America" was not worth the paper it was written on...
i don't think anybody really beleives that the govt should take 90% of anybody's money. on the other hand? my grandparents were more than ready to nuke the Russkies, invade the Nam and korea to stop communism, and that cost alot of money to be able to do... those taxes were going to what they wanted....
the Bush people decided to fund a world war too, they decided to create a New World Order. Remeber that? it was only 5 years ago...
Obama's people are spending the "extra" money they are spending now ON TOP OF what the New World Order people wanted to spend on domestic plans....
everybody finally recognises the overspending problem, the problem is to decide what is to be given up.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
quote:everybody finally recognises the overspending problem, the problem is to decide what is to be given up.
FINALLY!!!
That is what needs to be addressed, Glass. What do we NOT pay for...not how do we get more cash to pay for everything we will have to pay for IF NOTHING CHANGES.
Posted by glassman on :
nonetheless? the money is spent and committed.
we have to pay for it NOW!
raising taxes BACK to pre-Bush levels is not even in doubt, and that is why they sunsetted the taxes when they did it.
they were bunch of greedy punks with thier hand in the cookie jar, the cookies are gone and there's a note in it that says bake more, and the ones that cut those taxes wrote the note.
Posted by raybond on :
Quote by Glassman
they were bunch of greedy punks with thier hand in the cookie jar, the cookies are gone and there's a note in it that says bake more, and the ones that cut those taxes wrote the note. -------------------------------------------------
Best thing you have ever said Glassman.
I had to say after reading your posts both you and seeking freedom plus a few more that all of you had a vision of youselves as a god bestowing advise and cures for the nation on the little people.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Are we really undeserving of the wealth we create?
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Are we really undeserving of the wealth we create?
Only if you're really good at it. Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Are we really undeserving of the wealth we create?
could you create it without govt? nope.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
That can be pretty broad glass. You know I think the Republicans and Democrats should cut some deals. I think for the Republicans to be for allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, and in return the Republicans get something important to them approved by the Dems. A 1 for 1 deal. Both sides get something done, right?
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: That can be pretty broad glass. You know I think the Republicans and Democrats should cut some deals. I think for the Republicans to be for allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, and in return the Republicans get something important to them approved by the Dems. A 1 for 1 deal. Both sides get something done, right?
i'm not a big fan of the govt "getting stuff done" cash. I think there's things we need the Govt for and there's things they should stay out of. They should stay out of our house and our body for starters. Thats clearly stated in the Constitution.
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
supported by Oath means that a liar goes to jail... no less. Perjury.
random piss testing? sheesh that's a clear violation, but the SCOTUS upheld it.
the GOP wrote the new tax code and set the sunset provision. letting it expire is just plain not doing anything, there's nothing to "trade", and that's the way the GOP wrote it. Why would they do that? They allowed the so-called assault weapons ban to sunset too.... the people who wrote that made it with sunset clause as well...
the Patriot Act was alos a sunset law that got revised
anytime they do a sunset provision? thet's redflag IMO... sometheing ain't right and they know it...
to be honest? i think a sunset clause ought to be in every single law, say ten years, that way they would be revised with the times regularly anyway, but the way things are today ? a sunset law should be considered fishy...
as i said before? i was looking at the new code when it came out and thinking these guys expect to inherit alot of money in the next few years. Daddy and Mommy Bush came to mind right off.....
i never expected it to last, even tho i am against "death taxes" in principle. If you pay your taxes all your life? Dying is taxing your inheritors income. At worst they should tax it like Capital Gains. I know that's a fairly unsympathetic view about losing a loved one, but there were Founders that didn't like inheritance much either because it reminded them of Europe. In Europe the eldest son usually inherited. That's how Royalty worked and we were trying hard to get away from those concepts....
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Are we really undeserving of the wealth we create?
could you create it without govt? nope.
that really is the key to what makes America Great.
I give my signature to many Bills with which my Judgment is at variance.... From the Nature of the Constitution, I must approve all parts of a Bill, or reject it in total. To do the latter can only be Justified upon the clear and obvious grounds of propriety; and I never had such confidence in my own faculty of judging as to be over tenacious of the opinions I may have imbibed in doubtful cases. George Washington, letter to Edmund Pendleton, September 23, 1793
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Here is what I dont like, I dont like how serious financial crimes go unpunished. Where as if one of us did the equivalent locally it would be hell on earth.
Agreed C. Agreed.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Part 1:
quote:I like the discussion even if I find you frustratingly stubborn sometimes.)
Love you too, Big.
quote: Let's start first with the two tables you posted from the article and compare the first and last data entries:
A full quarter century later, 4 presidential administrations, and ALL the world events\economic changes and, VIOLA!
The top 1% gained a whopping 0.8% share of net wealth and LOST 0.2% in terms of financial wealth (also referred to in this document as "non-home wealth" -- which is defined as net worth minus net equity in owner-occupied housing).
If you allow for a margin of error of plus or minus 1% (generous in any study) you get a statistical change of NOTHING for 24 years.
The next 19% gained nearly all of what was lost from the bottom 80%. But even that is less than 3% and 2% respectively. Again, if you allow for the margin of error, it's yet again possible for a 2% and 1% change in wealth redistribution in over 24 years.
I knew you'd bite on that at the least. However, both of the three year periods in which there was in increase in wealth in the bottom 80% for financial wealth (1.1% rise in 1992 which is statistically insignificant if we are using a 1% margin of error and 2.1% in 1998) came directly after a federal minimum wage increase and within a couple years the slide continues. The Fed has learned how to put speed bumps out but the trend is obvious. Unless....are you suddenly a proponent of minimum wage increases SF? Is that why you don't find this concentration trend alarming?
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Part 2:
I delved into the source material for the article and found something you might find interesting Big...
(this is page 45 of the .pdf file with the periods in for formatting)
Now, add that to two little facts:
U.S. Population in 1983: 233,791,994 U.S. Population in 2007: 302.2 million (est)
That's an approximately 30% increase in population. Compare that population increase to the percentage increases in households with worth higher than 1, 5, and 10 million dollars: 201.7%, 493.8%, and 598.3% respectively.
Look at that, Big. More people are getting wealthy (as a percentage of the population) instead of less as a superconcentration of wealth model would suggest.
Add this to the 'death tax' data you cited, that only 1.6% inherit more than $100,000 from parental demise. That means the rest of the wealthy are making their wealth during their own lifetime.
Thus, MORE people are entering the wealthy classes (top 20%), as a percentage of population, and doing so under their own power, not from inherited money.
Huh? Since when does 20% represent more than 20%? There are more millionaires on that we agree. There are also more $100aires. For every 1 that has joined the top 20% in the population 4 have joined the bottom 80. That's statistics for you.
Indeed, you make my point of wealth concentration for me. Based on the very chart you post it is easy to see that those who have millions are growing in millions much quicker than those who have $100,000's are. There is a chevron of acceleration (similar to what you find in Mario Kart) where once you pass your first million wealth accumulation becomes much faster and easier. I do not begrudge that. However, once you pass that marker as your ease of making money increases so should your tax burden. Lets face it. You aren't working harder for that money, your money is working harder for that money. If anything it has allowed you to work less.
Posted by glassman on :
If anything it has allowed you to work less.
what people also take for granted, that i have seen first hand in multiple third world countries is that keeping wealth in other places requires one to have very different view of the value of life.
Pablo escobar is very good ezample. the guy was not just vicious he was blood thirsty. He thought nothing of executing people on the spot for any perceived slight, petty theft or simply renegging on a "deal? death, and that's how he had to be to accumulate his wealth. The fact hat he was in thedrug biz is really irrelevant since this only magnifies the need for him to take care of all of his own business.
now, i'm not suggesting we should be as "limp" as we are here and now esp. about white collar crimes... but i dont think we wnat to get to hwere Mexico is right now either.
this ability to value human life so highly is only available thru a "community agreement" that really comes right from our govt.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot:
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Part 1:
quote:I like the discussion even if I find you frustratingly stubborn sometimes.)
Love you too, Big.
quote: Let's start first with the two tables you posted from the article and compare the first and last data entries:
A full quarter century later, 4 presidential administrations, and ALL the world events\economic changes and, VIOLA!
The top 1% gained a whopping 0.8% share of net wealth and LOST 0.2% in terms of financial wealth (also referred to in this document as "non-home wealth" -- which is defined as net worth minus net equity in owner-occupied housing).
If you allow for a margin of error of plus or minus 1% (generous in any study) you get a statistical change of NOTHING for 24 years.
The next 19% gained nearly all of what was lost from the bottom 80%. But even that is less than 3% and 2% respectively. Again, if you allow for the margin of error, it's yet again possible for a 2% and 1% change in wealth redistribution in over 24 years.
I knew you'd bite on that at the least. However, both of the three year periods in which there was in increase in wealth in the bottom 80% for financial wealth (1.1% rise in 1992 which is statistically insignificant if we are using a 1% margin of error and 2.1% in 1998) came directly after a federal minimum wage increase and within a couple years the slide continues. The Fed has learned how to put speed bumps out but the trend is obvious. Unless....are you suddenly a proponent of minimum wage increases SF? Is that why you don't find this concentration trend alarming?
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Part 2:
I delved into the source material for the article and found something you might find interesting Big...
(this is page 45 of the .pdf file with the periods in for formatting)
Now, add that to two little facts:
U.S. Population in 1983: 233,791,994 U.S. Population in 2007: 302.2 million (est)
That's an approximately 30% increase in population. Compare that population increase to the percentage increases in households with worth higher than 1, 5, and 10 million dollars: 201.7%, 493.8%, and 598.3% respectively.
Look at that, Big. More people are getting wealthy (as a percentage of the population) instead of less as a superconcentration of wealth model would suggest.
Add this to the 'death tax' data you cited, that only 1.6% inherit more than $100,000 from parental demise. That means the rest of the wealthy are making their wealth during their own lifetime.
Thus, MORE people are entering the wealthy classes (top 20%), as a percentage of population, and doing so under their own power, not from inherited money.
Huh? Since when does 20% represent more than 20%? There are more millionaires on that we agree. There are also more $100aires. For every 1 that has joined the top 20% in the population 4 have joined the bottom 80. That's statistics for you.
Indeed, you make my point of wealth concentration for me. Based on the very chart you post it is easy to see that those who have millions are growing in millions much quicker than those who have $100,000's are. There is a chevron of acceleration (similar to what you find in Mario Kart) where once you pass your first million wealth accumulation becomes much faster and easier. I do not begrudge that. However, once you pass that marker as your ease of making money increases so should your tax burden. Lets face it. You aren't working harder for that money, your money is working harder for that money. If anything it has allowed you to work less.
sure. Productivity is the supposed goal, or guidepost. And once that worked. That is, productivity increased and peeps got rewarded.
But then, sometime in the 70s I think, productivity was still going up, yet income went flat then decreased.
So what our economy rewards now is control of money; ie, not only cash but also how much margin can you swing.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Sorry, Big, it seems I'm not making my point clear, let me try to put it another way. First, let's set up some 'givens' to work with. If you disagree with one of my 'givens' let me know so we can use them clearly in our discussion.
Given 1: In the 24 years represented on the above data chart the top 1% stayed aprox. the same. (given a 1% moe)
Given 2: The most significant change in wealth distribution was from the bottom 80% to the second 19%. Using financial wealth(non primary residence wealth) as an indicator, this is less than a 2% (or as low as 1% given a 1% moe) change in wealth distribution.
Given 3: Population in America grew by 70 million people or roughly 30% during that time.
Given 4: The number of those 'worth' 1, 5, and 10 million dollars grew far faster (as a percentage of the population) than the population did in general.
Given 5: Those 'worth' 1, 5, and 10 million dollars are well within the top 20% category.
Posted by glassman on :
Given 3: Population in America grew by 70 million people or roughly 30% during that time.
Given 4: The number of those 'worth' 1, 5, and 10 million dollars grew far faster (as a percentage of the population) than the population did in general.
wealth is realtive tho,
and how much value did the dollar lose?
in 1960 a loaf of bread was literally a nickle....
in 1966 my parents bought a house for 16,000 that recently sold for a half million...
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
I don't believe that's relevant to this discussion, Glass. We're working with percentages of total U.S. wealth. The millionaire listings were supposedly 'equalized' to value in '95 dollars if I remember correctly.
Posted by glassman on :
still, being a millionaire today is not nearly the same as being one was in 1980....
the recent drop in overall wealth since 2007 has changed those figures dramatically too...
most wealth is "stored" in home equity, down and stock equity down... and it's down from since 2000 to 2003 depending on which indexes you use....
Posted by glassman on :
Depending on how it is calculated, a million US dollars in 1900 is equivalent to 2006 US dollars of [8]
* $24,766,584.77 using the Consumer price index, * $21,224,697.05 using the GDP deflator, * $114,128,571.43 using the unskilled wage, * $162,813,054.25 using the nominal GDP per capita, * $641,531,874.47 using the relative share of GDP,
Thus one would need to have a little over twenty million dollars today to have the purchasing power of a US millionaire in 1900, or more than a hundred million dollars to have the same impact on the US economy.
now consider that the largest part of that inflationary pressure is since 1970....
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
I'm not disputing any of that, Glass. However, the current 'wealth distribution' discussion is based on a percentage of over all wealth. True, a millionaire isn't what it used to be; but being a millionaire still puts you above 80% of the population, economically speaking. That is what my given #5 is all about.
Posted by glassman on :
being a millionaire puts you in the 2.5 % bracket:
The number of U.S. households with a net worth of $1 million or more, not including first homes, fell by 2.5 million to 6.7 million in 2008, according to the Spectrum Group report, as reported by Reuters.
After the 27 percent drop, the number of millionaires is at the lowest level since 2003, when the millionaire population stood at 6.2 million.
oops, i used population instead of households... theres 105 million households so its more like 6%
however the avg household is 3 people...
Posted by glassman on :
Household net worth fell from 2007 to 2009 by a total of $17.5 trillion or 25.5%. This was the equivalent loss of one year of GDP.[5] By the fourth quarter of 2009, the household net worth had recovered by a growth of 1.3 percent to a total of $54.2 trillion. An additional growth of 21 percent is needed just to bring the value to where it was before the recession hit in December 2007.
In 2004, the wealthiest 25% of US households owned 87% ($43.6 trillion) of the country’s wealth, while the bottom quartile held no net wealth at all.[3] The middle 50% of the country held 13% or $6.5 trillion of the total household net wealth.[3] The previous data are taken from analysis of the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) which over samples wealthy households. This over sampling more accurately represents the true wealth distribution [since most of the wealth is concentrated at the top]. This data shows that the top 25% of American society holds on average a net wealth of $1,556,801 which is 33 times more than those of the lower middle class, or the 25th-50th percentile.[3]
now consider that only the top 6% actually has 1 million in net worth and you begin to see how wide the top 25% is....
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Good information, Glass. Thanks.
Still, I'm going to wait till tomorrow to see if Big or anyone else challenges\has issue with any of my 5 'givens'. If not, I'll continue with them as the basis for my view.
Posted by glassman on :
can you restate your view? i think you are saying that in America there is still opportunity, and i don't think people disagree, but that opportunity is getting slimmer rather than bigger...
as to Bigs view? i beleive he is saying that wealth is becoming more concentrated which is true IF you look at liquid assets and not homes....
even tho the top 20 to 25% is getting bigger? the top 1% is getting alot more...
even before the 2007 "crash"? the middle class was not getting better pay than they were before Bush took office. It really was th top 1% whose pay was increasing so much that it made the average or median pay higher, but when you drop the top 1% the average pay was dropping...
i followed this closely as we analysed how home prices could not keep inflating the way they were, home prices are direclty linked to what people can actually afford and the disparity was buggin' the heck out of me...
wealth and pay are two different things....
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
More than 30 US billionaires have pledged to give at least half of their fortunes to charity as part of a campaign spearheaded by Warren Buffett, the investor, and Bill Gates, the Microsoft founder.
The list of those signing up, posted on The Giving Pledge’s website, includes many names familiar in business and philanthropy, such as Michael Bloomberg, New York’s mayor, Ted Turner, the media mogul, Barry Diller, the chief executive of IAC, and David Rockefeller
The financial sector is well represented, with the former Citigroup chairman Sandy Weill and his wife Joan, David Rubenstein, the co-founder of the Carlyle Group, Pete Peterson, the co-founder of the Blackstone Group, Ron Perelman, the investor, and Julian Robertson, the hedge fund manager, on the list.
Mr Buffett and Mr Gates and his wife Melinda launched the campaign in June and have been encouraging other wealthy people to sign the pledge.
“We’ve really just started, but already we’ve had a terrific response,” said Mr Buffett. He was “delighted” by the response “and that so many have decided to not only take this pledge but also to commit to sums far greater than the 50 per cent minimum level”.
Some of the signers said they had already planned to give away the majority of their money before Mr Buffett and Mr Gates.
“Many years ago, I put virtually all of my assets into a trust with the intent of giving away at least 95 per cent of my wealth to charitable causes,” wrote Larry Ellison, the Oracle co-founder, in one of many letters posted on the website.
“Until now, I have done this giving quietly ... So why am I going public now? Warren Buffett personally asked me to write this letter because he said I would be ‘setting an example’ and ‘influencing others’ to give. I hope he’s right.”
Mr Rubenstein, who is about to turn 61, began devoting energy to philanthropic endeavours at the age of 54. He currently donates to a range of causes including in education, health, the arts and history.
Almost as interesting as the list of those who signed the pledge was those who chose not to. While Mr Peterson, Blackstone’s co-founder, appeared on the list, his partner Steve Schwarzman does not. Both men made billions when Blackstone went public.
The Giving Pledge does not accept money, but asks billionaires to make a moral commitment to give away their wealth to charity.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Sorry, Big, it seems I'm not making my point clear, let me try to put it another way. First, let's set up some 'givens' to work with. If you disagree with one of my 'givens' let me know so we can use them clearly in our discussion.
Given 1: In the 24 years represented on the above data chart the top 1% stayed aprox. the same. (given a 1% moe)
With reservation of the caveat that there were large fluctuations within the 24 year time frame I accept this given.
quote: Given 2: The most significant change in wealth distribution was from the bottom 80% to the second 19%. Using financial wealth(non primary residence wealth) as an indicator, this is less than a 2% (or as low as 1% given a 1% moe) change in wealth distribution.
I don't like the moe unless it is used both ways but yes I accept that the greatest distribution was from the bottom 80 to the second 19.
quote: Given 3: Population in America grew by 70 million people or roughly 30% during that time.
Agreed though I still don't see why this has relevance to you.
quote: Given 4: The number of those 'worth' 1, 5, and 10 million dollars grew far faster (as a percentage of the population) than the population did in general.
Indeed, which I think proves my point that wealth among the wealthy is concentrating at an exaggerated pace.
quote: Given 5: Those 'worth' 1, 5, and 10 million dollars are well within the top 20% category.
Absolutely. I still don't understand your point. You do understand that no matter if the population of the country grew by 30% the top 20% can not represent more than 20% of the nation right?
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
quote:Agreed though I still don't see why this has relevance to you...Absolutely. I still don't understand your point.
That's because I haven't laid out my trap, err, view yet.
I'll try to get time today if the machines play nice, otherwise I'll post tonight when I get home. All 5 points are relevant though, imo.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Sorry for not getting this out last night. Been gettting things ready for my baby girl's b-day party on sunday.
I'm going to try a different approach to make my point. Let's look at the premise, that wealth in the U.S. is concentrated in the top 20% of income earners and that this concentration is increasing.
My view on this? Yes...and yes(with a mild qualification)...and it's a good thing.
Let's be clear on what kind of economic system we're talking about:
Capitalism definition
An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy. Investors in these private companies (i.e. shareholders) also own the firms and are known as capitalists.
It is a system designed to encourage and reward economic skills\skilled laborers. This reward is primarily through wealth accumulation. If you are exceptionally good at a desired skill or simply in the accumulation and use of wealth itself, a capatilistic system will reward you with more money.
According to Wiki/Census Bureau 2004 the top 20% encompass nearly 22,629,000 households, earn a minimum of $88,030 and have two income earners per household. Add this to the data that Big provided that these individuals own 85% of all wealth in the U.S. as of 2007.
So, 20% own 85% of all wealth.
Let's add two other facts: US Census stats put the post high school education levels in the U.S. at about 27.7% with BS degrees or higher. Since that includes the less marketable degrees like fine arts majors(lol, Glass); this is not a guaranteed measure of success, but it does increase the 'likely' earning potential.
With this, add the aforementioned fact that only 1.6% of Americans inherit more than $100,000. That means that that rest of the top 20% earned their money themselves.
Based on these facts: we have less than 20% (guesstimate) of the population with post highschool education in marketable skills and we have 20% of the population that owns 85% of the country's wealth....odd that those two numbers are simlilar...
Maybe not so odd when one considers that education level is one of the prime factors in desireable job aquisition and thus earning potential. If a household has two income earners, each with a BS degree or higher education, it is almost guaranteed to place it within this 'wealthy' quintile.
For the next part of this discussion, is this concentration of wealth good\bad and getting more or less concentrated I want to first compare us to the rest of the world. One measure of wealth inequality is what's called a Gini coeffiecient. It ranks from 0 to 1. 0 being entirely equal distribution (everyone has the same wealth) and 1 being total inequality (one person holds all wealth).
I agree with your argument if this was a capitalist society. But it's not. We are a society based on debt. There is no possible way for any of us to aquire enough to ever be free of debt.. Ask Wesely Snipes.
The disparity of wealth whether real or fake in this nation is not getting better.. The working class is falling further from freedom every day.
The only answer is to bring forth a system based upon the purest form of capitalism. Base our currency on something tangible.. be it gold, silver, french fried frog nuts for all I care.. Anything but corporate issued debt notes.
This will not happen without some major event out of the control of the rulers of our society.. Pray for an asteroid.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: Capitalism is not what we practice here though.
I agree with your argument if this was a capitalist society. But it's not. We are a society based on debt. There is no possible way for any of us to aquire enough to ever be free of debt.. Ask Wesely Snipes.
The disparity of wealth whether real or fake in this nation is not getting better.. The working class is falling further from freedom every day.
The only answer is to bring forth a system based upon the purest form of capitalism. Base our currency on something tangible.. be it gold, silver, french fried frog nuts for all I care.. Anything but corporate issued debt notes.
This will not happen without some major event out of the control of the rulers of our society.. Pray for an asteroid.
I think that super sleeper volcano in Yellowstone would do the trick.
Posted by Relentless. on :
lol, yeah heard they had a small earthquake there last week that had all the conspiracy nuts twitching.
Whatever it is, it would have to be big.. If not we'll be forced into a caste system much like what was depicted in the book Brave New World.
I'd almost be willing to argue we are in that system now only loosely organized in comparison.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
I think it was National Geogrpahic that had a special on it. It was good.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
ok...that's a good argument seek.
I'm gonna digest for a bit and get back to you.
Running on low sleep at the moment.
Posted by glassman on :
the problem SF is that even tho the top 20% own 85% of the wealth it's the top 10% that own 71%,
hence my point that i am in the top 20% and while i am not complaining? i am most definitely not wealthy... i am also not one of those people that thinks i have been unfailry treated, i could be in the top 5% right now with a little better luck (for lack of better word) even tho i really don't like the word luck.
the problems really are that the top 1% has been increasing it's concentration of liquid wealth and their abiltiy to manipulate markets.
the top 1% own 38%, or over half of what the top 10% owns... the wealth does concentrate and it ends up being replaced intot he economy by paper dollars simply to keep the poor in the economy.
Freedom really does mean the right to choose NOT to participiate in the economy. it's only been since the depression that we have drawn the majority of the rural peoples in tot eh economy. prior to that? most rural dwellers had to struggle to pay their land taxes. They still had what they NEEDED to survive. The difference today between need and want is very different from what it was in the 1920's.
the mere fact that these guys and gals in the uppermost 1/4%ile are planning to redistribute their own wealth ought to give you pause. They have played the (capitalist) game and won and moved on....
they are becoming "little govenrmnets" of their own and choosing for the,selves how to manipulate not just markets, but society in general. now add tot hat fact that they all tend to be Liberals and you may not like what they do with that power that they have accumulated.
Taxing them puts that power back into the Republican form of power. Remember we are not a Democracy.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
I'm going to try a different approach to make my point. Let's look at the premise, that wealth in the U.S. is concentrated in the top 20% of income earners and that this concentration is increasing.
My view on this? Yes...and yes(with a mild qualification)...and it's a good thing.
Like I said Seek, you made a pretty good argument there. I acknowledge your points that a two income household with well educated workers can likely expect to get into the top 20% of earners in America sometime in their working lives.
I also accept that our wealth distribution doesn't look too bad when compared with many 2nd and 3rd world countries.
I would say that for the greatest nation on earth to be using the economics of say, Sierra Leone- where many of the poor have literally only the clothes on their backs, to validate their ratio's probably isn't a worthwhile gesture but I get your point.
It doesn't validate the argument that the rich should pay a lower tax rate than the middle class though just as ....WOAH...sorry...got really distracted by the 'Make my Baby' banner for a sec...That's a weird one.
It doesn't validate the argument that the rich should pay a lower tax rate than the middle class though just as translating that percentage into a dollars number doesn't.
Indeed, the way our capitalist economics system is set up at the moment we 'Have To' make government mandated wage increases and social payments to the lowest tiers because the private sector is not putting enough money back there for the system to be stable on that alone.
Perhaps that will change when Buffet's 50% friends divest themselves into the charities of America. Until then I challenge you to find one of them who would state that a 40% tax rate would cause an undue burden on their business and leisure lifestyles.
I'm not looking for a 0 on the Gini ratings nor do I believe in the right to income without qualification as the article you quoted in your new thread states. I do believe is sustainable models. I think you would too. Once set up sustainable models need very little tweeking from governing forces.
Posted by glassman on :
wealth and income are two different things...
a household income of only 90K$ puts you in the top 20%...
160K$ puts you in the top 5%
200K puts you in the top 3%....
In 2001 the top 1% earned 14.8% of all income and paid 34.4% of federal income taxes.
however, if you add on social security that changes because SS has ceiling of around 100K$:
In 2001 the top 1% earned 14.8% of all income and paid 22.7% of all federal taxes.
now remember that this was before the tax cuts...
it would be nice if the lowest half of wage earners could pay taxes, but after they pay SS? they just don't have much money left to pay them with. They often get an earned income credti to displace the SS taxes they did pay..
Posted by glassman on :
some newer figures: In 2007, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 40.4 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 22.8 percent of adjusted gross income. Both of those figures—share of income and share of taxes paid—are significantly higher than they were in 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes.
AGI is bad number to use tho. One of the resaons its so bad is because the more money you make? the more (as a percentage ) deductions you have available...
In sum, between 2000 and 2007, pre-tax income for the top 1 percent of tax returns grew by 50 percent, while pre-tax income for the bottom 50 percent increased by 29 percent. All figures are nominal (not adjusted for inflation).
there's the flat proof of wealth concentration increasing,
Including all tax returns that had a positive AGI, taxpayers with an AGI of $160,041 or more in 2007 constituted the nation's top 5 percent of earners. To break into the top 1 percent, a tax return had to have an AGI of $410,096 or more, the first time that this threshold has exceeded $400,000. These numbers are up significantly from 2003 when the equivalent thresholds were $130,080 and $295,495.
In order for one to break into the top 0.1 percent, one would need an AGI of over $2.15 million.
quote:I'm not looking for a 0 on the Gini ratings nor do I believe in the right to income without qualification as the article you quoted in your new thread states. I do believe is sustainable models. I think you would too. Once set up sustainable models need very little tweeking from governing forces.
Before I continue with this one, Big, I would like a little clarification on your post.
If you were 'king for a day', what changes do you think would make our current economic situation 'sustainable'?
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
If I were king for a day we would be in a monarchy and I'd have a whole lot of things to change.
First off I'd make everyone wear faux-fur coats and declare August 12th Bigfoot appreciation day. Then I would install body sized hairdryers in all government buildings and give government funding to the 'Big and Tall' store. Then I would send a brochure about the Great Lakes to my friend Nessie and...well...enough of that.
Seriously though? We have too many mega businesses. They should never have been allowed to grow so large and now they need to be broken apart. Reduce the amount of companies that have Multi-Billion dollar quarterly earnings and you reduce the amount of corps that think 80Mil+ in compensation for its head is not an unreasonable number when compared to revenues. This will increase the number of businesses which will create jobs, not just Walmart level jobs but executive and middle management level jobs as well.
More businesses will increase competition in the marketplace and as there won't be the giants of industry ready to stomp on anyone who doesn't allow themselves to be bought out that will lead to more innovation and customer centered economics (i.e. lower prices, better service).
More jobs, more competition, fewer high paid CEO's equals the percentage that is holding the largest concentration of wealth increases from the top 20% to the top 25% maybe even 30%. This in turn will increase the amount of individuals able to pay for goods which will increase consumerism which will create more Walmart level jobs and increase the amount of wealth trickling down to the lower percentages. Does it stop the poor from being poor? No, but having wealth spread through out a larger portion of our society will stabilize the liquidity of our economy and allow more in-roads for those who seek to grow. I would like to see the lists eventually have to get down into the top 40% before they could have 80-85% of all US wealth accounted for.
Next our stocks, bonds, commodities, and derivatives. The road to wealth that is paved in gold and littered with the corpses of the naive, the foolhardy, the ignorant, the arrogant, and the prey of the snakes that lie in the grass waiting for the starry eyed and unwary.
Our beautiful marketplace is out of control. Large amounts of derivatives that no one knows exactly what they are. Large percentages of commodities bought and sold by those who never have any intention of taking possession. Large amounts of stock and stock options gifted to executives as a ploy to reduce tax basis. In-and-out milli-second trading, naked shorts, junk bonds, mbs packages made specifically to fail. All of this, ALL of it is antithetical to why the market exists.
Regulation is, of course, necessary. However, to regulate one must have a regulator which costs money and one must trust that the regulator is diligent. In order to ensure diligence the regulator must be regulated by someone who oversees his work. That regulator must also be watched and his work evaluated. Enter: Bureaucracy.
How oh how do you keep a well maintained market without the piles of paper pushers which proved oh so ineffective in warding off the schemes that helped crash our economy? Remove a part of the profit motive and try to instill a sense of ownership in investors. Tier capital gains to size of profit and the snakes will be less inclined to make grand schemes. Oh, you worked with Goldman Sachs to sell an MBS package specifically designed to fail and made Billions when it crashed? Well, we will be taking 40% of that now and our investigators will be taking to you about the other 60% soon. You bought 10,000 barrels of crude? Good for you! It will be delivered on September 23. You can put it back on the market again if you like after you have taken ownership of it.
Oil ran up and crashed because a group of investors saw the profit in running it and crashing it. The stock market crashed because a group of seasoned investors saw the profit in crashing it and did it. The housing market crashed because our government allowed it to be run up and a group of investors saw the profit in crashing it. If you structure the system to instill ownership and remove the quick profit motive from large investors then they will work with the market, not against it.
That ought to be enough to bite on for the moment. I'll leave off there for now.
Posted by glassman on :
i always suspected you Neanderthals were a little brighter than the homo sapiens...
Posted by T e x on :
good post, 'Foot
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
quote:If I were king for a day we would be in a monarchy and I'd have a whole lot of things to change.
First off I'd make everyone wear faux-fur coats and declare August 12th Bigfoot appreciation day. Then I would install body sized hairdryers in all government buildings and give government funding to the 'Big and Tall' store. Then I would send a brochure about the Great Lakes to my friend Nessie and...well...enough of that.
August 12th isn't Bigfoot appreciation day?!?!?
What the hell have I been celebrating then?
On the serious note, at the risk of sounding like Glass and Tex's echo, that's a good set of ideas. I like some of them but I think others ignore the fact that we're part of a global economy now. Today promises to be busy but I'll try and continue this discussion tonight when I get home.
.....faux-fur coats? Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Ok, finally got a second to sit down and continue this one, so here goes...
quote:Like I said Seek, you made a pretty good argument there. I acknowledge your points that a two income household with well educated workers can likely expect to get into the top 20% of earners in America sometime in their working lives.
Think about that for a moment, Big. By definition, what has this example family demonstrated as what it values?
Two income household vs single wage earner + child rearing parent?
Well educated workers vs high school drop outs?
In this example they have shown, through their own examples, that this is a family that values hard work, education and achievement. All three are needed to achieve the top quintile in a society that rewards such via monetary compesation. Statistically speaking, this family is nearly assured such a place.
quote:I would say that for the greatest nation on earth to be using the economics of say, Sierra Leone- where many of the poor have literally only the clothes on their backs, to validate their ratio's probably isn't a worthwhile gesture but I get your point.
There is an unanswered question hiding in that statement though, Big. How did the U.S. attain that 'greatest nation on earth' status(as it relates to this discussion)? Would a forced 'equalization' of wealth have helped or hindered that rise? Would it help us or hinder us from here forward? I'll come back to this, but keep these questions in mind.
Let's go back to given number 4:
Given 4: The number of those 'worth' 1, 5, and 10 million dollars grew far faster (as a percentage of the population) than the population did in general.
The top two of these categories are within the top 1% for the U.S. Now compare that to the chart about what happened to the top 1% during those same years. They (top 1%) LOST .2% of the share of total wealth. How then, did the number of households worth $5 million increase by 500% and those worth $10 million increase by 600%?
The only answer that allows for both these facts is that money from the ultra-rich (high end 1%) was distributed via market principles to these households (mid to low end 1%). This displays a 'spreading' of the wealth rather than a concentration. Granted this is still among the top 1%, but this shows a gradual homogenization of wealth within this group rather than a slow exclusion.
Ok, so what explains the shift in wealth from the bottom 80% to the second 19% over that same period of time?
Let's add a couple more educational facts to the mix and see if that helps us figure it out:
Did you know that the 18–22-year-old full-time undergraduate student represents only 16% of the higher education population?
Today's students:
40% study part time.
40% attend two-year institutions.
40% are age 25 or older.
58% are age 22 or older.
Fewer and fewer young students are going to college. Those seeking higher education are those that are already established wage earners seeking to improve their abilities\marketability. This expands the wage earning potential of those already within this 19% and thus pulls more of the wealth into it. Hence we see a move of total wealth percentage into this group during the years in question.
Just for fun, let's look at some Labort stats from 2009 for the younger age group:
In October 2009, 70.1 percent of 2009 high school graduates were enrolled in colleges or universities, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. This was a historical high for the series, which began in 1959. Recent high school graduates not enrolled in college in October 2009 were more likely than enrolled graduates to be in the labor force (70.0 compared with 42.1 percent).
Those entering the workforce were nearly twice as likely to NOT have any higher education nor even enrolled in attaining it. Those attempting to achieve it were half as likely to be out earning while learning. This again means less money making potential for those entering the workforce for this age group, AGAIN shifting the wealth percentage upward.
The 'wealth concentration' that is being belabored so greatly is not some evil capitalistic conspiracy to enslave the poor. It is a natural and inevitable shift of control of wealth to those that are educated\skilled from those that aren't. The world is shifting from a labor based economy to a knowledge based economy. The automazation(is that even a word?) of our factories is an obvious indicator of this trend. This shift, if allowed to progress naturally (without government interference), will reward the skilled\educated. That reward is wealth control.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
lol Seek
Minor point- Less than 50 years ago it was considered family values to have mom at home raising the children and the family supported on father income alone.
Besides, I agree it is better to have two parents raising a child than one.
Getting into crazy time here. May not be able to respond in a timely manner for a while but I will try.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
I still agree with the minor point, Big. That's why my wife and I decided that she would work from home while the kids are young so they don't grow up in daycare. She has turned down several job offers that would have doubled what she makes now...at the cost of sending the kids to daycare. We made the choice and we make our budget according to that choice/our values. (Shrug)
No rush on the response, last week has been full and I start fall semester next week so I understand busy. Posted by glassman on :
The top two of these categories are within the top 1% for the U.S. Now compare that to the chart about what happened to the top 1% during those same years. They (top 1%) LOST .2% of the share of total wealth. How then, did the number of households worth $5 million increase by 500% and those worth $10 million increase by 600%?
The only answer that allows for both these facts is that money from the ultra-rich (high end 1%) was distributed via market principles to these households (mid to low end 1%). This displays a 'spreading' of the wealth rather than a concentration. Granted this is still among the top 1%, but this shows a gradual homogenization of wealth within this group rather than a slow exclusion.
Ok, so what explains the shift in wealth from the bottom 80% to the second 19% over that same period of time?
SF, you are mixing apples and oranges so much that it is impossible to even clarify the argument anymore.
for starters? earning power is not wealth.
being in the top 20% of wage earners in not the same as being in the top 20% of wealth holders. holding wealth takes a lifetime, being in the top 20% of earners takes only a couple years of grad school...
as to the top 1 % losing .2% of the total wealth? that is statistically irrelevant. It most certainly does not show " a 'spreading' of the wealth rather than a concentration."
the number of millionaires adn multimillionaires increasing is more a display of real inflation. housing was doubled from 1992 to 2003 and is now back to 2003 levels... that's more or less the same across the inflatioanry board.
you are setting up a paper tiger in this claim:
The 'wealth concentration' that is being belabored so greatly is not some evil capitalistic conspiracy to enslave the poor. It is a natural and inevitable shift of control of wealth to those that are educated\skilled from those that aren't. The world is shifting from a labor based economy to a knowledge based economy
the "truth of the claims against concentration of wealth are in this chart right here:
the facts are simple, Americas "Golden Age" occurred when CEO's made less money compared to their employees.
the arguments are not about "evil capitalism" the arguments are about what works for the WHOLE ECONOMY" which as raybond pointed out makes us sound like "Gods" arguing.
the argument against paying CEO's too well is very simple. They can make enough money in a couple years to actually walk away away witht heir golden parchutes and the company can be damned to hell from their actions as CEO and it is happening with regularity, not just to specific co's but to our whole Country....
this is not about wealth re-distribution versus Capitalism. It is about how Capitalism can work in the BEST possible way for the Country as a whole.
After all? That is the job of Govenrment. To look after the whole Country , not just the wealthy.
The honest truth is that we do not want to have a Lottery mentality. Whether the Lottery is a box of pingpong balls with numbers on them or getting the cherry job is absolutely irrelevant.
When a CEO has no choice but to dedicate his/her whole professional career/life to making Co. successful they will take a longer term aproach to the value of the company. The fact is that in Captialism the goal is always to make profit right? Profits come short term or long term and our tax code should be set up to encourage LONGTERM profitability to insure that our Country and its economy is stable.
You must ask yourself this: Is The United States a Casino or is it a Productive Nation? Right now? We are a Casino. Ths sad part is that in legit casinoes? The State Regulators always require the house to keep enough cash in house to cover every single chip (cash) on hand to cash out every single chip issued....
the US does not even do that and hasn't since the Fed was created.. But when people start preaching to me about he Founders and how Great they were? I have no choice but to point out that they did not cover the chips either.....
Posted by glassman on :
The world is shifting from a labor based economy to a knowledge based economy.
i seperated this out because it deserves it's own topic.
this idea is a myth.
the lie begins when you try to define labor. Thomas Edison put it very well.
Being busy does not always mean real work. The object of all work is production or accomplishment and to either of these ends there must be forethought, system, planning, intelligence, and honest purpose, as well as perspiration. Seeming to do is not doing. Thomas A. Edison
and again:
Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration. Thomas A. Edison
labor is not properly defined if you try to make it a white collar V blue collar issue.
Scientists (i am intimately familiar with their world) are Labour, they wear white lab coats so what? they are still part of the Labour pool today, even among scintists we have White Collars versus Lab Coats....
the Lab Coats make more than the Janitor does, but their bosses (often not scientists at all) are the ones that still make 100 or more time what they do... it's a different pay scale, but the relativity is still the same.
In oil? When you have non-engineers making 100 times what the engineers amke? (we do) You get the bosses beleiving they are better than the engineers, their big paychecks actually convince them that htey know more than they do. That's how you get BP oil spills and other sad facts of life....
that's the real evil.... it's not Captitalism, it's misappropriating value of benefits to certain "workers" (white collar labor) and making their position the equivalent of pulling the insidecard to fill the Straight Flush.
I have friends in overalls whose friendship I would not swap for the favor of the kings of the world. Thomas A. Edison
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
quote:SF, you are mixing apples and oranges so much that it is impossible to even clarify the argument anymore.
for starters? earning power is not wealth.
I think they are both inherently related, Glass. You literally cannot aquire the latter without a solid form of the former. The greater your earning potential is over your mandatory needs the more you are 'able' to aquire\hold\grow wealth. If you are barely earning enough to make ends meet, you really don't have a great deal of opportunity to expand.
quote:being in the top 20% of wage earners in not the same as being in the top 20% of wealth holders. holding wealth takes a lifetime, being in the top 20% of earners takes only a couple years of grad school...
Again, Glass, you are highly unlikely to ever find yourself in the latter group unless you first move yourself into the former group.
quote:as to the top 1 % losing .2% of the total wealth? that is statistically irrelevant. It most certainly does not show " a 'spreading' of the wealth rather than a concentration."
Alone that is true. Thankfully for my position, I did not use that fact alone to make my point. As Big was nice enough to point out earlier, 20% cannot ever be more than 20%. If the population only grew 30%, and the number of households worth $5 million and $10 million increased by 500% and 600% respectively without changing the total net worth of the top 1% (which they belong to), the numbers dictate that the money came 'down' the chain...not 'up'. That is a distribution of wealth, not a concentration.
quote:the "truth of the claims against concentration of wealth are in this chart right here:
The CEO pay scale is seriously out of touch with reality, Glass. I'll concede that one mostly without qualification. However, it's an extreme example though. Let's go back to my Gini ratings link and see two other pieces of information there:
If you compare the average income in the poorest 10% to the average of the richest 10% you only get a factor of 15.9. Not the 300ish that you show on your chart. If you expand that commparison to include the poorest and richest 20% that number drops to only 8.4x. Remember that both these comparisons include those in abject poverty as well as the multi-billionaires.
Are there 'rich' people like Buffet and Gates? Sure. But they are by far the extremes. Are examples such as the CEO pay comparisons maddening for most people? Sure. But they are used by many to show what is meant to be understood as the rule rather than the exception. And that's just not the case.
quote:After all? That is the job of Govenrment. To look after the whole Country , not just the wealthy.
The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. -John Adams
This is why I'm in favor of a flat tax over a progressively increasing tax. If you're going to accept the fact that we must give of our income to sustain this great nation, so be it. But do so in a manner that doesn't punish success nor allow any to benefit from that freedom without contributing to it.
quote:You must ask yourself this: Is The United States a Casino or is it a Productive Nation? Right now? We are a Casino.
No, we're not, Glass. We're becoming a bread line. We're being told that we must 'equalize' things for it to be 'fair'. Our system was never meant to be fair. It was meant to give everyone a fair 'chance'.
Posted by glassman on :
i'll tel you what, when you are ready to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges? i'll respond.
you are making this into nonsense trying to compare wealth to income, your reasons do not matter, they are very differnt and they do not exchange freely in this discussion. The US Govt does not tax wealth, except upon death, and i disagre with death taxes.
If you compare the average income in the poorest 10% to the average of the richest 10% you only get a factor of 15.9. Not the 300ish that you show on your chart. If you expand that commparison to include the poorest and richest 20% that number drops to only 8.4x. Remember that both these comparisons include those in abject poverty as well as the multi-billionaires.
you are not even grasping what real wealth is and i cannot make you grasp it.
the CEO's and hedge fund managers that pay the lowest taxes are not 10%ers... they are 1%ers and up- i am in the top 10% on income and the top 20% of wealth and i am NOT WEALTHY.
remebr that we are talking about why the rich are not overtaxed...
i don't know how else to put this, but you seem to me have an unusually low expectation of what wealth really is...
Posted by glassman on :
The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. -John Adams
and what is it the poor are needing protecting exactly? they do not have anything to steal.
Posted by glassman on :
Our system was never meant to be fair. It was meant to give everyone a fair 'chance'.
then you beleive we are a Casino too, and quite frankly i have no respect for that concept or people that hold it.
this is the "no regulations" mantra and that is in fact Anarchy....
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Our system was never meant to be fair. It was meant to give everyone a fair 'chance'.
then you beleive we are a Casino too, and quite frankly i have no respect for that concept or people that hold it.
this is the "no regulations" mantra and that is in fact Anarchy....
No, Glass, I don't believe we're a Casino. If I had to come up with a metaphor for this thread I'd say the U.S. is a business. It asks what you can do, offers you a job based on that and a paycheck to match it.
In other words, if you got skillz, we pay you to use them. If you don't got skillz; well, we pay you accordingly.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
quote:and what is it the poor are needing protecting exactly? they do not have anything to steal.
So, just because everyone doesn't benefit 'to the fullest extent' equally it means we shouldn't protect anyone?
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
quote:the CEO's and hedge fund managers that pay the lowest taxes are not 10%ers... they are 1%ers and up- i am in the top 10% on income and the top 20% of wealth and i am NOT WEALTHY.
Really, Glass? You're not wealthy compared to who? Those 'evil' 1%-ers? Or the other 90% of the country? How hard is this recession hitting you? Are you eating out of garbage cans yet? Had the sell the family car to pay the rent?
Seriously, Glass? What do you consider 'wealthy'?
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
quote:the CEO's and hedge fund managers that pay the lowest taxes are not 10%ers... they are 1%ers and up- i am in the top 10% on income and the top 20% of wealth and i am NOT WEALTHY.
Really, Glass? You're not wealthy compared to who? Those 'evil' 1%-ers? Or the other 90% of the country? How hard is this recession hitting you? Are you eating out of garbage cans yet? Had the sell the family car to pay the rent?
Seriously, Glass? What do you consider 'wealthy'?
to be honest? the recession has not hit me much at all. i called the very top right here when we hit it. i bailed. my losses when the market tanked were nothing. We bought our house in '05 and instead of mortgaging ourselves to the hilt we bought about half what we could have afforded; primarily due to the fact that i was already skeptical about the housing runup.
the only thing i can complain about is that my price points on my products have dropped considerably. I anticipated this and made more less expensive products, rather than fewer higher priced products so my sales are up. I don't find it as gratifying to make less expensive peices cuz they are not as challenging, but that's hardly something to complain about is it?
seriously? this is a result of hard work, planning and paying attention to details.
but no i am not wealthy. i would be right now, were it not for two twists of fate where i simply made the wrong choice. actually i guess it's three chances i've had to make it that i've completely blown so far... no big deal, this is America and i'll keep on trying. EVEN IF they raise my taxes. LOL... get it? i'm in the game, and sorry but i like the game, and i won't complain if it get's a little tougher...
when you can earn 100grand per yer after taxes on your investments without serious risk you are wealthy IMO.
that would basically take about 2.X million in CD's or a little less in tax free bonds...
1.5 million in power co stocks would also do the trick, but it's a little more risky... there's farmers here that are very wealthy because they have their land paid for, but they are risking a million year to make two.
these evil CEO's and hedge fund mangers as you put it, are making 5 million per year and up. So, basically in one year they are able to retire on thier income from their pay and retire as welthy people. One year. Thats the "lottery" i speak of. I am not suggesting they are evil people, i am suggesting thatthe system we have DRIFTED into over the last two decades promotes and encourages evil behaviour.
there are about 3 million millionaires (cashwise) in the US,
there are almost 10 million millionaire households in the US out of about 100 million households... but liquidating a millionaire household is difficult right now, and if we were to allow fannie and freddie to collpase? the number would drop dramatically.... because house prices will collapse
Obama has suggested raising taxes on couple making over 250K or indivduals making over 200K...
that raise is only 3%. This is not redistribution of wealth. Those households making that much money are in the top 1.5% of income earners.
if you equate that to wealth? the top 1.5% would have 5 million in wealth. you keep telling us this number of people grew rapidly and i keep telling you that we just printed so much more money that they grew their wealth... So many more people have 5 million dollars because of infaltion. The top 1.5% has always been the top 1.5%.
how many years does it take you, earning 250K per year, to put 5 million aside? raising their tax by 3% may make that figure an extra year, or three...
one more thing? i've been around enough corporate people to know what it takes to be a CEO, and i don't have it. I don't like to lie.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
quote:and what is it the poor are needing protecting exactly? they do not have anything to steal.
So, just because everyone doesn't benefit 'to the fullest extent' equally it means we shouldn't protect anyone?
huh? if you want laws to respect property? you have to pay to have them enforced. since 70 o r80 percent of the wealth is in the hands of the top 10%? they should pay equitably for the sytem that protects that wealth.
The French Aristocracy learned that lesson as did the Russian....
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Were Up]](graemlins/wereup.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
