A graphic appreciation of America's postwar economic evolution

[NatMorton]

Why am I surprised you won’t address a single thing.

Being Brainwashed into believing that complete and total predatory and unfettered capitalism doesn’t have Any drawbacks doesn’t count as economic analysis.

You shouldn’t be surprised because, generally speaking, I find comments with gratuitous accusations of Nazism to be comments not to be taken seriously. If you want a serious discussion on economic matters with me I’d say first raise your game.

 

[Dayton3]

Oh, you had the whole Nazi avatar thing going for awhile.

No I did not. I had an avatar that had a vague resemblance to a symbol the Nazis once used. I never used an actual Nazi symbol

 

[Jetboogieman]

No I did not. I had an avatar that had a vague resemblance to a symbol the Nazis once used. I never used an actual Nazi symbol

Point being, nazism and economics don’t really go together and judging by your statement that the poor would blow any additional income they had at the race tracks, it says to me you know nothing of economics beyond the ignorant bumper sticker logic most American Conservatives possess.

 

[Jetboogieman]

You shouldn’t be surprised because, generally speaking, I find comments with gratuitous accusations of Nazism to be comments not to be taken seriously. If you want a serious discussion on economic matters with me I’d say first raise your game.

Care to actually address anything I brought up or is any criticism of unfettered and predatory capitalism too much for any American Conservative to actually address.

 

[NatMorton]

Care to actually address anything I brought up or is any criticism of unfettered and predatory capitalism too much for any American Conservative to actually address.

Sure. Generally speaking, the concept of “predatory capitalism” from the left is hyperbole. When pushed to explain it those who use the term typically resort to some silly straw-man about “unrestrained capitalism” as if that were either a real thing or a thing that conservatives support.

If I look back to your post 187, it’s not serious economic analysis. It’s a grab-bag of Progressive talking points that reads like a freshman poly-sci major’s list social grievances. It’s mostly gibberish. So if you have a specific point to make, make it and and we can discuss. If you’re here to pretend those who support conservative economic policy are evil, I’d say don’t waste the keystrokes or find some friendly echo chamber where you can post that nonsense.

 

[bluesmoke]

Wealth is not "distributed", it is created and earned.

I am using "distribution" in the inclusive context of both distribution and redistribution. Most of my focus is, technically, on redistribution. But I address both as inextricable from the other and thus choose the term most root of the two. Booth distribution and redistribution is a form of distribution. Much of what you earn is redistributed. In fact, FIT isn't even yours to begin with. The US govt owns it. You're effectively borrowing it for free until it's paid. You are earning Payroll Taxes for the US govt. It never touches your fingers. You don't own it or your FIT. Hard to sync-up earning what you don't own. But you believe whatever makes you feel right.

 

[NatMorton]

I am using "distribution" in the inclusive context of both distribution and redistribution. Most of my focus is, technically, on redistribution. But I address both as inextricable from the other and thus choose the term most root of the two. Booth distribution and redistribution is a form of distribution. Much of what you earn is redistributed. In fact, FIT isn't even yours to begin with. The US govt owns it. You're effectively borrowing it for free until it's paid. You are earning Payroll Taxes for the US govt. It never touches your fingers. You don't own it or your FIT. Hard to sync-up earning what you don't own. But you believe whatever makes you feel right.

No, you are using both "distribution" and "redistribution" in the "I cannot acknowledge that wealth is created and earned" sense.

The challenge before us is not how to distribute more to lower income earners. It's how can lower income earners earn more. The solutions to these two problems are very different.

 

[aociswundumho]

*looks around and sees billions in dark money and legally bribed politicians and political parties that serve only the wealthy and billionaires

We all see it. There are 12,000 registered lobbyists in DC, and probably another 12,000 that aren't registered. We all know they offer money in return for political favors. Why do politicians have political favors to sell? Because the state has its filthy fingers in everybody's pie, and you like the state having control over just about everything. You and nearly everyone reading this believes the openly corrupt government must "make the rules", even though we all observe that the rules are for sale to the highest bidder.

 

[NatMorton]

We all see it. There are 12,000 registered lobbyists in DC, and probably another 12,000 that aren't registered. We all know they offer money in return for political favors. Why do politicians have political favors to sell? Because the state has its filthy fingers in everybody's pie, and you like the state having control over just about everything. You and nearly everyone reading this believes the openly corrupt government must "make the rules", even though we all observe that the rules are for sale to the highest bidder.

I don't think they'll ever get it. Our friends on the left first want to give government more and more authority over every corner of the economy and then, channeling their inner Claude Rains, act surprised that money is being targeted to influence the amassed power.

"I'm shocked, shocked to find that big money lobbying is going on here!"

 

[Dayton3]

Point being, nazism and economics don’t really go together and judging by your statement that the poor would blow any additional income they had at the race tracks, it says to me you know nothing of economics beyond the ignorant bumper sticker logic most American Conservatives possess.

Didn't you think the "blow it at the tracks" comment was posted sarcastically? But it had an element of truth because it has been my experience that one of the big failings that poor people have is that they spend "found money" recklessly.

 

[weaver2]

We all see it. There are 12,000 registered lobbyists in DC, and probably another 12,000 that aren't registered. We all know they offer money in return for political favors. Why do politicians have political favors to sell? Because the state has its filthy fingers in everybody's pie, and you like the state having control over just about everything. You and nearly everyone reading this believes the openly corrupt government must "make the rules", even though we all observe that the rules are for sale to the highest bidder.

Who is this evil, corrupt "Government"? Are you talking about Congress that creates the programs, services, laws? Is this "Government" the Civil Service that carries out the directions of Congress? Are you talking about the President? the Supreme Court? the Department of Justice? Can you tell us exactly who "The Government" is?

 

[TurtleDude]

Not if there is a real labor correction due to massive strikes and increased unionization.

You think companies gave workers vacations or weekends due their kindness? No, workers fought and won those things.

globalization and mechanization is undercutting the ability of labor to do that

 

[Yes_Minister]

globalization and mechanization is undercutting the ability of labor to do that

If that were true, conservatives wouldn't complain about the Great Resignation.


Not all businesses rely on that, you can't send Amazon warehouses or Walmart stores off shores and humans can still do things robots can't.

 

[TurtleDude]

If that were true, conservatives wouldn't complain about the Great Resignation.


Not all businesses rely on that, you can't send Amazon warehouses or Walmart stores off shores and humans can still do things robots can't.

you didn't refute my claim since I didn't say it was possible for all forms of labor. Outsourcing-say prostitution or mechanizing it, would be rather silly, for example

 

[Yes_Minister]

you didn't refute my claim since I didn't say it was possible for all forms of labor. Outsourcing-say prostitution or mechanizing it, would be rather silly, for example

Claiming outsourcing or mechanization would undercut labor action or strikes is not the same as saying those things would make labor action or strikes futile. If that were the case conservatives wouldn't complain about the Great Resignation and Bezos wouldn't engage in union busting. Clearly those things are still effective tools, if Bezos didn't have to fear unionization he wouldn't campaign against it.

How Amazon Crushes Unions (Published 2021)

In a secret settlement in Virginia, Amazon swore off threatening and intimidating workers. As the company confronts increased labor unrest, its tactics are under scrutiny.

www.google.com

What do you suggest, workers lay down and let Bezos threat them like robots?

 

[bluesmoke]

No, you don’t understand what I said.

I understand $50,000 is what you implied as poverty level. Answer that.

 

[NatMorton]

I understand $50,000 is what you implied as poverty level. Answer that.

I used that as an example. I’m open to ideas on what a better level would be.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I used that as an example.

So he did understand what you said.

QED.

 

[bluesmoke]

I understand it’s not “equitable,” but I fail to see why it should be or how you could possibly make it equitable without damaging the economy and leaving everyone with less.

Tax the rich and large corps, not small biz, as in the past when they effectively paid more taxes than now and more in proportion compared to the avg American and those with less. The rich were already increasing wealth and large corps enjoying historic after-tax corp profits before they were gifted with the Trump/Rep tax giveaway. Plus, make the MW a LW, being COL by region with annual COLA.

 

[bluesmoke]

I used that as an example. I’m open to ideas on what a better level would be.

You were wrong. It's up to you to support YOUR idea. Not me. Without your providing what exact "flat tax" system will work, your claim is unfounded and need not be debated further. $50K per yr is not poverty level. You're full of BS and expect me to fix it for you.

 

[bluesmoke]

No, you are using both "distribution" and "redistribution" in the "I cannot acknowledge that wealth is created and earned" sense.

The challenge before us is not how to distribute more to lower income earners. It's how can lower income earners earn more. The solutions to these two problems are very different.

Income is also called "pre-distribution". It's all a form of distribution. Whatever terminology you want to bring into meaningless argument, MW needs to be increased and taxes on the higher incomes and large corps, not small biz, need to be more progressive as in the past and more progressive where the max FIT % is capped though the higher incomes go up with no limit. The FIT % should continue to rise as do the income levels and not be capped. Same with payroll tax.

 

[NatMorton]

Tax the rich and large corps, not small biz, as in the past when they effectively paid more taxes than now and more in proportion compared to the avg American and those with less. The rich were already increasing wealth and large corps enjoying historic after-tax corp profits before they were gifted with the Trump/Rep tax giveaway. Plus, make the MW a LW, being COL by region with annual COLA.

Gibberish.

 

[bluesmoke]

Are federal and state subsidies to individuals factored into that graph?

You have been given evidence of fact to support a claim that you can't refute. It's up to you to counter with your own evidence. So, you're the one with the burden of proving that "federal and state subsidies" are a significant factor that would refute the claim. Otherwise, the claim stands unrefuted. Do you own homework.

 

[NatMorton]

You were wrong. It's up to you to support YOUR idea. Not me. Without your providing what exact "flat tax" system will work, your claim is unfounded and need not be debated further. $50K per yr is not poverty level. You're full of BS and expect me to fix it for you.

What are you struggling with? The flat tax would not be applied to the first $X of income earned. I am open to what “X” should be. I would aim for something just north of the poverty level. I might index by state or region given in that “X” in, say, NYC and Nebraska are very different. But the concept remains the same: you’re not taxed on earnings needed for subsistence. After that, you pay the same number of pennies on the dollar as everyone else. This is not that complex.

 

[NatMorton]

Income is also called "pre-distribution". It's all a form of distribution. Whatever terminology you want to bring into meaningless argument, MW needs to be increased and taxes on the higher incomes and large corps, not small biz, need to be more progressive as in the past and more progressive where the max FIT % is capped though the higher incomes go up with no limit. The FIT % should continue to rise as do the income levels and not be capped. Same with payroll tax.

You can describe income as “pre-distribution” if it suits you. I do not given it’s an absurd term and implies a kind of “income bread line” where the forces that be dole out small bills to the needy along with a bowl of thin soup. It’s passive nonsense. Income is earned.

We all have an obligation to contribute to the funding of our government. Why you think some with means some should pay and some with means should not is anyone’s guess.