| Author | Message | ||
     Strokizator |
I'm not jealous of your benefits package, I'm simply stating the simple fact that your employer can no longer afford them. No amount of whining will change it. Please explain how the rich created this problem. And as far as "working hard" goes, I doubt most public employees know the meaning of hard work. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Why would I be jealous of your benefits package? I PAID for them. In fact, I paid for both YOURS and MINE. How generous is that, and I'm not even rich. | ||
| Sifo |
Union_man, If I was taking from you for my benefit would you see me as the enemy? As a public employee you are paid for by the public. Should the public not have a say in how much we pay for you? I say we should. It's your union that makes it an adversarial relationship. Take the union out and realistic negotiations can take place based on realistic supply and demand, just like the rest of the hard workers in America. | ||
| Court |
>>.Somehow I STILL, am uncomfortable calling her a looter and a moocher. If you called anyone that . . you stood alone. You've exhausted your faux credibility with this sort of chicanery. Welcome to the only country in the world where anyone, regardless of citizenship, ability to pay, or social cast, can walk in an Emergency Room and receive the best medical treatment in the world. Our system has flaws, no doubt. But you, along with the folks who thought we were stupid and that we'd accept the "you have to read it to know what's in it" . . . lack both the ability to comprehend the nature of the challenges we face nor the leadership or wisdom to bring about the requisite change. There are tough problems but we are, with all our collective flaws, scars and mistakes, the most compassionate country in the world. We'll get'er solved but while we're working on it ponder that old adage . . . "if you're not part of the solution, you are part of the problem". Thanks for letting me know you were smart. | ||
| Union_man |
Please explain how the rich created this problem. Tax breaks for the rich, exporting middle class and manufacturing jobs to third world countries...Strokizator, shut off Fox News and look around. The top 400 richest people in this country make more money than the entire bottom 50% of the rest of us. Trickle down Regan-omics is a failure! Nothing ever "trickled down", the rich are self serving and greedy. The gap between the have's and the have not's is larger now than ever. I see you have "Contractor" listed as your profession...who could afford to hire you if they were paid at Mexican or Indian wages? | ||
| Sifo |
Pretty much the same failed arguments that have Aussie couldn't support. Are we really expected to have the same dishonest conversation again? Bring something new to the discussion. | ||
| Sayitaintso |
The top 400 richest people in this country make more money than the entire bottom 50% of the rest of us. Wealth distribution is an altogether different issue/subject. Back OT: I wonder if anyone/everyone would feel different about unions if every state was a right to work state. As it stands I am more or less pro union but only inasmuch as employees are not forced to be members but are allowed to do so (or not) of their own free will. | ||
| Hootowl |
"Tax breaks for the rich, exporting middle class and manufacturing jobs to third world countries...Strokizator, shut off Fox News and look around." Shut off just about every other news outlet and look around. Who pays the most tax? Who pays none? Who gets more back than they put in? When you decide to cut the tax rate, who do you give a tax cut to? The people who don't pay any? That's not a cut. When I hear "tax cuts for the rich" as the cause of all our problems, I am forced to conclude that the speaker is either being fed a line, or is one of the ones doing the feeding. The mantra of "tax cuts for the rich" is getting really really old. Chanting it is not going to make it true. "A slightly more fair tax rate for the rich" would be more accurate. | ||
| Hootowl |
And no...I'm not rich. But I am fair minded. I don't think ANYONE should have to pay more than 15% of their income to the government. 35% is robbery, plain and simple. | ||
| Sifo |
When I hear "tax cuts for the rich" as the cause of all our problems, I am forced to conclude that the speaker is either being fed a line, or is one of the ones doing the feeding. The mantra of "tax cuts for the rich" is getting really really old. Chanting it is not going to make it true.  We've just had dozens of posts going back and forth discussing just that, and it comes down to a dishonest argument. I'm still waiting for someone to explain Keynesian economics in a way that makes the least bit of sense when you look at the details. | ||
| Sifo |
Tax breaks for the rich Why lead with something so easily disproven? Who do you think pays the taxes in this country?  | ||
| Sifo |
shut off Fox News and look around Why is that this is a standard attack too? Aussie said the same thing to me out of the blue. I guess it's easier to spew propaganda than to address real issues. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Union man, please shut off Michael Moore and do some thinking for yourself. He is a red meat class baiter of the worst kind. Talk about hypocrite. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Whoever created that chart Sifo posted started out with the answer they wanted, and massaged facts and figures to get it. It's got a very odd skew in several categories to come up with the "curve" it paints. First, it should't be "share in income". It should be pure and simple amount. If I have $10 in gas, and you have $100 in gas, $10 of your gas is still $10 of my gas. In other words, just because I am a millionaire (I wish) doesn't make my $1 worth less to me than your $1. That would have a HUGE change in that bar graph. Secondly, why "stack" them like that? The 10% includes the 5%. The 25% includes the 10% and the 5%. Why not just put the bar length for the people in that interval? It is gerrymandering the categories to try and make the middle look fatter when it isn't. The chart seemed to go out of it's way to bend approaches and definitions to create the plot they wanted... (Message edited by reepicheep on March 28, 2011) | ||
| Sifo |
Whoever created that chart Sifo posted started out with the answer they wanted, and massaged facts and figures to get it. It's got a very odd skew in several categories to come up with the "curve" it paints. First, it should't be "share in income". It should be pure and simple amount. If I have $10 in gas, and you have $100 in gas, $10 of your gas is still $10 of my gas. In other words, just because I am a millionaire (I wish) doesn't make my $1 worth less to me than your $1. What's wrong with using a percentage? Is it really so difficult to understand that the top 25% of earners pay 85% in taxes? It also shows the same group earns 66% of the income. That would have a HUGE change in that bar graph. The ONLY thing that would change is that you would have to calculate the percentages yourself. Secondly, why "stack" them like that? The 10% includes the 5%. The 25% includes the 10% and the 5%. Why not just put the bar length for the people in that interval? It is gerrymandering the categories to try and make the middle look fatter when it isn't. It clearly states what it's showing. There's nothing I see that's being hidden. The chart seemed to go out of it's way to bend approaches and definitions to create the plot they wanted... Please post a chart of your own that shows things differently. (Here's a hint. If it's an honest chart, you can't find it.) | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Odd how the real numbers are reflected in that chart with the facts of the tax payment situation in the US appearing to be massaged in such a way as to skew the outcome the the end result someone sought. Almost like the designers of our tax system wanted to create 50% of our population as a zero liability voter base in order to ensure their position of power. Reep, maybe you prefer raw data: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html Currently, the bottom 50% pay less than 3% of the total tax bill with the top 10% paying 70% of the bill. There isn't much more you can say about that. The graph and the underlying data is designed to show how unequal our tax system is, how much the top already pays and how false the "rich not paying their fair share" really is as a premise. I am still waiting to have someone tell me, what do tax breaks for the poor look like? | ||
| Sifo |
Reepicheep, perhaps this is more to your liking?  Maybe this one?  How about this?  They all show basically the same thing, the rich paying the vast majority of the tax burden. | ||
| Sifo |
I am still waiting to have someone tell me, what do tax breaks for the poor look like? LOL! That was shown in my last chart where the burden goes below zero! | ||
| Strokizator |
Let's all hate the rich but I've got to ask you, when's the last time anyone asked a poor man for a job? Yeah, I'm a contractor and if it weren't for the "rich" and the evil corporations building warehouses, shopping centers, offices buildings and such, I wouldn't have much of a job. As a matter of fact, they're not building much right now and I don't have much of a job but I still don't hate anyone; not you and certainly not "the rich". And I don't do any govt construction work either. I dislike the red tape, the prevailing wage laws and mooching off the system. | ||
| Aussie2126 |
Sifo; Very simialar chart to what you posted on March 24th. My answer then... Sifo: that chart needs one more column. How much of the economy do the rich now control. Going from memory but since 1980 the top 25% increased their holdings 281% while the bottom 25 increased 16% - did not even match inflation. Sorry that they are now paying less but that happens in those circumstances. I since have looked up what the numbers are - In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 38.3% of all privately held stock, 60.6% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top 10% have 80% to 90% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America. another way: As of 2007, The top 20% of Americans own 93% of America’s financial wealth, leaving just 7% for the bottom 80%. The top 1% of the US population earned an average of more than 33 times as much as the lowest 20 percent, in 1979. In 2000, that had grown to more than 88 times as much as the lowest twenty percent. Not envious (OK it would be fun) but the simple fact is the person that owns an asset should pay the taxes on it. The top twenty percent own 93% -- it would seem fair that they pay 93% of the expenses. If I drink 93% of the beer then I would expect to pay 93% of the tab. Certainly not what is happening and why they skew the numbers how they want them to turn out | ||
| Cowboy |
Strokizator---Be patient It want be long before the democrats and unions run the rest of the jobs out of the coountry and they will be hunting you for a job. | ||
| Aesquire |
Just an Observation. The War on poverty. Our poor are now better off than the rich were, in my lifetime, as far as having cool toys, multiple tv's, have the potential for being better fed, ( potential, because, until Michelle becomes Queen, you can still make choices as to what you eat. Some choices will be bad. I'm going to have popcorn, later, and I will use Peanut oil, and Butter. My Body, My choice. ) with better cars, and better medicines and treatment. Even criminal trespassers in our society get better medical treatment than many 3rd world dictators. ( unless like Castro, they Import a doctor from a civilized nation. ) Looked at with a hard enough squint, looks like we're winning that one. Except, we keep jacking the "poverty line" to ensure that thousands of Govt. dole workers stay on the job. At this point if they just gave the money to the people they help with massive and ever growing bureaucracy, they'd be even better off. The current system is specifically designed to keep the folk on the dole there, forever, by giving them just enough of our money to keep them dependent. I have extensive experience with folk on welfare. The rules make it very very hard to keep getting a check from Uncle, and get a job worth having. The transition from subject to citizen takes great courage and work, and is actively discouraged by (some)social workers. I'm curious when the "poverty line" and "evil rich" that some fools here have been conditioned to hate will have the same income. ?? War on Drugs. Nixon was confronted with a problem of narcoterrorism being practiced on U.S. troops in Vietnam. His plan was govt. supported treatment to help vets and other users to get off drugs. That's not how it works now. Now it's a multi billion $ industry, that cost thousands of lives a year. A dozen or so of those are drug overdoses. The rest is turf war. Best example of why the War On Drugs will never end? The Columbian drug Lord who stayed in the Lincoln Bedroom after giving a $50k+ donation, back 2 admin's ago when they rented the room out for big donors. He sure didn't try to bribe the Prez to make Cocaine legal, but to ensure he kept his govt. supported monopoly. Tax breaks for the rich, exporting middle class and manufacturing jobs to third world countries... I agree with the issue of bad tax law encouraging businesses to export the jobs. We don't seem to agree on the why and how. and... finally, what tax breaks for the rich? Kennedy's, back in the Space age? Regan's, back in the 20th century? Obama's, for the folk that pay him huge bribes? Like his proposed FBI director? Those rich? | ||
| Doerman |
How do you figure, Aussie? Taxing assets? As an example, homeowners should pay an additional tax on the value of the property? Keep in mind, capital used to form an asset has been taxed already. Taxing assets is taxing it twice. Taxing the gains of converting (selling) an asset, that occurs already. Or did I misunderstand. | ||
| Sifo |
Keep in mind that many assets are already taxed. Real estate, yachts, airplanes, and other luxuries are taxed beyond just the sales tax. So Aussie, what the hell is your point anyway? The wealthy are wealthy? No sh!t. What you don't seem to understand (I know you don't understand this from many conversations with people using your argument) is that wealth isn't a pie that is divided up. Wealth is something that is created. If I create wealth, it takes nothing away from another's wealth. Why do you insist on using wealth and economy interchangeably? Each word has it's own meaning. You've been corrected on this multiple times already. Now you interchange wealth and income. Those words too have specific and unique meanings. Are you really this unable to grasp the meaning of words? An alternate explanation is that you are simply being dishonest in your argument. | ||
| Reepicheep |
That top chart on your second post was it Sifo, that was my point. When it comes time to split a restaurant tab, sell a motorcycle, buy a house, or pay a speeding ticket, it's dollars out of pocket, not percentage of income. Which that top chart shows. The "rich" are carrying the country. If we can't give them justice in how much of their income we confiscate, we should at least give them thanks and respect, not grief. The most obvious chart would simply have a plot of % of total taxes collected from each income bracket, and it would go negative (to show the rich are paying into a system where the poor actually get money handed to them called "taxes"). | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
{Sifo: that chart needs one more column. How much of the economy do the rich now control. Going from memory but since 1980 the top 25% increased their holdings 281% while the bottom 25 increased 16% - did not even match inflation. Sorry that they are now paying less but that happens in those circumstances. The "rich" also saw their holdings decline by 60% in the last downturn. The wealthy lost $10.2T dollars in 2008 alone. $6.9T of the $10.2T was NOT home equity but was lost in the market. Again the "rich" carry more than their fair share. In order for your analysis to be completely thorough, you need to add one more facet: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be /Us_savings_rate_history.jpg The US savings rate has been steadily declining since the 80's. Part of the reason that the bottom 16% hasn't gained as much as they were too busy consuming their seeds instead of planting them. You can't increase your holdings if you aren't in the game. The "poor" in the US choose what they spend their money on, and it isn't long term savings/investment. It isn't a zero sum game. The wealthy didn't have gains at the cost of the poor. The lower 50% could have had gains as well, but they didn't choose to save and invest. 46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. 80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning. Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person. The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.) Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars. 97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions. 78 percent have a VCR or DVD player. 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception (Which I don't even have) 89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/221932/poor -politics/robert-rector There are 37M "poor" in the US. The bottom 16% make up 48M. So the "poor" in the US still had gains even though there was less sacrifice than we see elsewhere in the world. Wonder what the foreclosure market would have looked like had these folks saved for their house before signing on the line. I suspect significantly different. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I believe we need to give a weighted vote based upon percentage of the tax bill paid. If you pay 650 times the tax percentage of the bottom tax payers, your vote should count 650 times. If you are a net recipient of the government (receive more than you pay in), you can't vote until you are in the black. I can guarantee it would be the shortest trip to a flat tax you've ever seen. | ||
| Dalton_gang |
"we need to give a weighted vote based upon percentage of the tax bill paid" Love it Ft. I have always thought that. | ||
| Sifo |
It would be adequate (and possibly Constitutional if that matters any more) to just not allow those on the dole to vote. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
It would prevent generational governmental dependency. Pretty sure Obama wouldn't have been elected without the "free stuff" electorate. We might have to also rethink government employees and collective bargaining. I say reinstate collective bargaining for ALL government employees, state and Federal. In return, you lose your right to vote as long as you are employed by the government. That way, those who are going to receive the benefits are also not voting for those will provide them. Same goes for elected officials. All benefits must be voted on by ballot referendum. Congress can't vote their own benefits in. I think we may be onto something here. |
