Plutocracy Reborn

mbig · Jun 16, 2011

Say what you want about rates/effective rates.
The debate is MOOT if they aren't effectIVE of achieving their goal of a vibrant balanced society with a Large Middle Class. The Middle Class being what Made/Makes America.. America.

And there is NO debate Wealth Disparity is Growing.
Many Partisan Hacks on the Right feel people/middle/poor are getting Lazier. But there are easily identifiable variables that say otherwise.

Clearly the COLLAPSE of Top Marginal Rates among others (like 'Free Trade'), etc etc.
And of course the HALVING of Capital Gains/Dividends and busting of the Estate Tax by Bush was the coup de grâce.
Nonetheless the Kudlow/Hannity talking heads want MORE shifting of the Burden Down on the lower Incomes by dropping Cap Gains altogether.

However, this simply cannot go on-- not even at current/Already-won-Class-Warfare-by-the-rich-and-their-bought-congress.

http://www.businessinsider.com/plutocracy-reborn

mbig · Jun 16, 2011

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)
Historical rates (married couples, filing jointly)

Year/ Top Rate%/ Over

1913 --- 7% 500,000
1914 --- 7% 500,000
1915 --- 7% 500,000
1916 --- 15% 2,000,000
1917 --- 67% 2,000,000
1918 --- 77% 1,000,000
1919 --- 73% 1,000,000
1920 --- 73% 1,000,000
1921 --- 73% 1,000,000
1922 --- 58% 200,000
1923 --- 43.5% 200,000
1924 --- 46% 500,000
1925 --- 25% 100,000
1926 --- 25% 100,000
1927 --- 25% 100,000
1928 --- 25% 100,000
1929 --- 24% 100,000
1930 --- 25% 100,000
1931 --- 25% 100,000
1932 --- 63% 1,000,000
1933 --- 63% 1,000,000
1934 --- 63% 1,000,000
1935 --- 63% 1,000,000
1936 --- 79% 5,000,000
1937 --- 79% 5,000,000
1938 --- 79% 5,000,000
1939 --- 79% 5,000,000
1940 --- 81% 5,000,000
1941 --- 81% 5,000,000
1942 --- 88% 200,000
1943 --- 88% 200,000
1944--- 94 200,000
1945 --- 94% 200,000
1946 --- 86% 200,000
1947 --- 86% 200,000
1948 --- 82.% 400,000
1949 --- 82% 400,000
1950 --- 84.36% 400,000
1951 --- 91% 400,000
1952 --- 92% 400,000
1953 --- 92% 400,000
1954 --- 91% 400,000
1955 --- 91% 400,000
1956 --- 91% 400,000
1957 --- 91% 400,000
1958 --- 91% 400,000
1959 --- 91% 400,000
1960 --- 91% 400,000
1961 --- 91% 400,000
1962 --- 91% 400,000
1963 --- 91% 400,000
1964 --- 77% 400,000
1965 --- 70% 200,000
1966 --- 70% 200,000
1967 --- 70% 200,000
1968 --- 75.25% 200,000
1969 --- 77% 200,000
1970 --- 71.75% 200,000
1971 --- 70% 60% 200,000
1972 --- 70% 50 200,000
1973 --- 70% 50 200,000
1974 --- 70% 50 200,000
1975 ----70% 50 200,000
1976 --- 70% 50 200,000
1977 --- 70% 50 203,200
1978 --- 70% 50 203,200
1979 --- 70% 50 215,400
1980 --- 70% 50 215,400
1981 --- 69% 50 215,400
1982 --- 50% 85,600
1983 --- 50% 109,400
1984 --- 50% 162,400
1985 --- 50 % 169,020
1986 --- 50 % 175,250
1987 --- 38.5% 90,000
1988 --- 28% <8> 29,750 <8>
1989 --- 28% <8> 30,950 <8>
1990 --- 28% <8> 32,450 <8>
1991 --- 31% 82,150
1992 --- 31% 86,500
1993 --- 39.6% 89,150
1994 --- 39.6% 250,000
1995 --- 39.6% 256,500
1996 --- 39.6% 263,750
1997 --- 39.6% 271,050
1998 --- 39.6% 278,450
1999 --- 39.6% 283,150
2000 --- 39.6% 288,350
2001 --- 39.1% 297,350
2002 --- 38.6% 307,050
2003 --- 35% 311,950

It seems any attempt to return to historical Norms is "Class warfare"... when in Fact "There has been class warfare, and my side is winning" - Warren Buffett.

The above Doesn't even Include Bush's near HALVING of the Dividends/Capital Gains taxes on which the Truly Rich really Live.... and his Gutting of the Estate Tax allowing permanent wealth/classes.
That's Right.
If you make money with money.. You Pay near HALF what you did 10 years ago.
-

Helvidius · Jun 16, 2011

If you want to help the middle class and poor, tell the Fed to stop destroying the value of the dollar. That is the tax that is killing the middle and lower classes.

mbig · Jun 16, 2011

Helvidius said:
If you want to help the middle class and poor, tell the Fed to stop destroying the value of the dollar. That is the tax that is killing the middle and lower classes.

At this point, it's actually helpful to "destroy the dollar".
Having become a large Debtor nation we are 'inflating our way out'.
Paying back /will be paying back in cheaper dollars.
Makes us more price competitive too.
the Chinese of course are not happy about this, but as a country we've got little choice.

If Deficit dollars are used helping the lower incomes or stimulating jobs to reduce unemployment, then they are beneficial.
Much was used to "save the system" (an no-brainer must) and the FED Still is saving the system/greasing the wheels of commerce.
A trough virtually ALL the Big Banks and Brokers needed to feed at less they go broke.

It's easy to tell the Fed to stay out if you don't have to save the country, it's infrastructure/institutions, Jobs and are willing to tolerate a Depression.
But...

Helvidius · Jun 16, 2011

mbig said:
At this point, it's actually helpful to "destroy the dollar".
Having become a large Debtor nation we are 'inflating our way out'.
Paying back /will be paying back in cheaper dollars.
the Chinese of course are not happy about this, but as a country we've got little choice.

If Deficit dollar are used helping the lower incomes or stimulating jobs to reduce unemployment, then they are beneficial.
Much was used to "save the system" (an no-brainer) and the FED Still is saving the system/greasing the wheels of commerce.
A trough virtually ALL the Big Banks and Brokers needed to fee at less they go broke.

It's easy to tell the Fed to stay out if you don't have to save the country, it's infrastructure/institutions, Jobs and are willing to tolerate a Depression.
But...

Fed policy has been going on since 1913 and its policies since that time have caused the dollar to devalue about 98%. Hell, they are part of the reason we have trillions of dollars in debt. Destroying the dollar to pay off our debt will still cause greater hardship for Americans. I'd rather the US make serious cuts in spending and raise taxes than totally destroy the dollar. We also have intragovernmental holdings that will require payment and destroying the dollar won't help people on fixed incomes.

mbig · Jun 16, 2011

Helvidius said:
Fed policy has been going on since 1913 and its policies since that time have caused the dollar to devalue about 98%. Hell, they are part of the reason we have trillions of dollars in debt. Destroying the dollar to pay off our debt will still cause greater hardship for Americans. I'd rather the US make serious cuts in spending and raise taxes than totally destroy the dollar. We also have intragovernmental holdings that will require payment and destroying the dollar won't help people on fixed incomes.

Haven't all currencies devalued relative to a commodity basket in the last 100 years?
How's the British Pound done?

In fact, it seems a contest/Race to the bottom, between the world's two biggest economies, the US and EU (taken as a block) who's more Atrocious at running an economy as a Fiscal entity.
I give an 'F' to both.

Not the Chinese however, who Cheat by 'pegging' their currency and keeping competitive by doing so, Stealing Intellectual and Industrial information. (like 90% of their Windows OSs, Music/DVDs, Movies, Drugs, counterfeit goods)
I give them an 'A' for running a tight ship.. and lower our 'F' to F- for allowing it.
"Free trade" depends on Free Floating currencies and Int'l enforcement of basic law.

TurtleDude · Jun 16, 2011

winners win and society wins when lots of people strive to be winners. Democratic party policies have turned lots of people into dependent teat sucklers and that is not helping build the middle class.

The libs never answer this easy question

what would be happening if the RICH ARE NO LONGER GETTING RICHER?

and by that I mean those who invest wisely?

haymarket · Jun 16, 2011

TurtleDude said:
winners win and society wins when lots of people strive to be winners. Democratic party policies have turned lots of people into dependent teat sucklers and that is not helping build the middle class.

The libs never answer this easy question

what would be happening if the RICH ARE NO LONGER GETTING RICHER?

gee whiz Wally - maybe the rest of us would have more if the gap between rich and power were closer like in the Fifties and early Sixties when Leave It To Beaver was on the tube?

TurtleDude · Jun 16, 2011

haymarket said:
gee whiz Wally - maybe the rest of us would have more if the gap between rich and power were closer like in the Fifties and early Sixties when Leave It To Beaver was on the tube?

maybe if less people had been convinced by your masters that they cannot win and they are better off sitting on their asses waiting for the government check to arrive we all would be better off. Of course hard working ambitious people are less likely to vote for your handlers so I can see why you would oppose it

haymarket · Jun 16, 2011

TurtleDude said:
maybe if less people had been convinced by your masters that they cannot win and they are better off sitting on their asses waiting for the government check to arrive we all would be better off. Of course hard working ambitious people are less likely to vote for your handlers so I can see why you would oppose it

I sure would like to see the links providing verifiable information and data to support that claim.

Or is this simply more pompous pontification based on your belief system?

TurtleDude · Jun 16, 2011

haymarket said:
I sure would like to see the links providing verifiable information and data to support that claim.

Or is this simply more pompous pontification based on your belief system?

common sense-those who want a government that feeds them, clothes them and wipes their butt tend not to be striving to win. and your party caters to people who want to live as permanent babies with a nanny changing their diapers

toddwv · Jun 16, 2011

TurtleDude said:
common sense-those who want a government that feeds them, clothes them and wipes their butt tend not to be striving to win. and your party caters to people who want to live as permanent babies with a nanny changing their diapers

Right... and your party caters to parasites who suck all the blood out of a country until someone pulls them out and squishes them.

See how much fun hyperbolic generalizations can be? WEEEEEEEE!!!!

TurtleDude · Jun 16, 2011

toddwv said:
Right... and your party caters to parasites who suck all the blood out of a country until someone pulls them out and squishes them.

See how much fun hyperbolic generalizations can be? WEEEEEEEE!!!!

and just who you might be-that was really stupid for a first response to me. My party has some problems-like catering to bible thumping idiots but when it comes to wealth creation and allowing people to keep what they earn the GOP is way ahead of the party of income redistribution and socialist parasitic behavior

toddwv · Jun 17, 2011

TurtleDude said:
and just who you might be-that was really stupid for a first response to me. My party has some problems-like catering to bible thumping idiots but when it comes to wealth creation and allowing people to keep what they earn the GOP is way ahead of the party of income redistribution and socialist parasitic behavior

Way ahead? You should check your figures again. The only lead that the Republicans have is concentrating wealth into the hands of a few while poverty rises. The Republicans are like a broken record.

"Economic problems? Cut taxes for the rich."
"Tax revenue issues? Cut taxes for the rich."
"Two wars? Cut taxes for the rich."
"Can't afford to build or maintain vital infrastructure? Cut taxes for the rich?"

Reaganomics was the worst thing to happen to this country since the Great Depression. The Republicans have stated for the past 3 decades that their goal is to destroy the federal government by crippling tax revenue and mandating enormous spending. It's their "Starve the Beast" philosophy and one of the reasons why our economy was almost tossed to the slag heap the last time the Republicans had full control.

The only "wealth creation" that the Republican economic agenda seems good at creating are bubble economies and crises in the financial sectors (S&L, Subprime) that end up costing us trillions of dollars.

mbig · Jun 17, 2011

toddwv said:
"Economic problems? Cut taxes for the rich."
"Tax revenue issues? Cut taxes for the rich."
"Two wars? Cut taxes for the rich."
"Can't afford to build or maintain vital infrastructure? Cut taxes for the rich?"

Correct.
ALL other issues are secondary.
Only natural to repay their financiers/sponsers/contributors/owners.
That's the ONLY Golden rule- the only principle on which they stand-- even if they have to give little guys a break too.. they ARE there mainly to cut taxes on the rich.

Reaganomics was the worst thing to happen to this country since the Great Depression. The Republicans have stated for the past 3 decades that their goal is to destroy the federal government by crippling tax revenue and mandating enormous spending. It's their "Starve the Beast" philosophy and one of the reasons why our economy was almost tossed to the slag heap the last time the Republicans had full control.

'Reagonomics' (aka trickle down), was a Drastic perverse/worse variant of their own accusation "tax and Spend"; "NO tax and spend". Irresponsible Recipe for Deficit.
Reagonomics Followed by the similar BushIIonomics.
BOTH Resulting in the Market Crashes 6 Years in (1987/2007) when yearly stimuli were outweighed by accumulated deficits.
Having lived through both-- it was all to familiar.. and profitable.

The only "wealth creation" that the Republican economic agenda seems good at creating are bubble economies and crises in the financial sectors (S&L, Subprime) that end up costing us trillions of dollars.

It is oft said Republicans get rich under Democratic leadership and then try and protect their/gains/lower taxes under their own leaders.

haymarket · Jun 17, 2011

TurtleDude said:
and just who you might be-that was really stupid for a first response to me. My party has some problems-like catering to bible thumping idiots but when it comes to wealth creation and allowing people to keep what they earn the GOP is way ahead of the party of income redistribution and socialist parasitic behavior

It was a president in your party which gave you the system you hate and loathe in which a number of people do not pay federal income tax. You seem to complain about that more than almost anything else.

Toddwv is 100% correct - your hyperbolic over the top generalizations contribute nothing to any real discussion.

the answers to every problem are the same

"Economic problems? Cut taxes for the rich."
"Tax revenue issues? Cut taxes for the rich."
"Two wars? Cut taxes for the rich."
"Can't afford to build or maintain vital infrastructure? Cut taxes for the rich?"

Its very sad. And very much anti-American. It will not contribute to a just and sustainable society and will only push us further apart as a people and nation. When you combine this right wing extremist political solution with the loss of jobs due to technology and economic treason from international corporations, it does not bode well for our nations future.

mbig · Jun 17, 2011

The latest 'Trickle Down'

Rand Paul Explains His Support For Plutocracy: ‘There Are No Poor…We All Work For Rich People’ | ThinkProgress
By Lee Fang on Nov 3, 2010

Last night, Kentucky elected Rand Paul (R-KY), the son of Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), to the U.S. Senate. Speaking to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Paul announced his intention to do anything it takes to shield the privileged rich and corporate America. Asked if he would end the $830 billion, unpaid-for Bush tax cuts to the rich and return tax rates for the wealthiest bracket to Clinton-era levels, Paul snapped and said such a move would cause a “second great depression” and declared that “anybody who proposes such a policy really is, I think, unfit to be making decisions.”

Paul then clarified his delusional worldview by telling Blitzer that “there are no rich” and “there are no poor.” In Paul’s mind, even taxing yachts would somehow punish the working poor in Kentucky. “We all either work for rich people or we sell stuff to rich people,” concluded Rand:
PAUL: I would say that they must be in favor of a second American depression, because if you raise taxes to that consequence, that’s what will happen in this country. Raising taxes in the midst of a recession would be a disaster for our economy. And anybody who proposes such a policy really is, I think, unfit to be making decisions.
BLITZER: What if they just raised taxes on the richest, those making more than 250,000 dollars a year?
PAUL: Well, the thing is, we’re all interconnected. There are no rich. There are no middle class. There are no poor. We all are interconnected in the economy. You remember a few years ago, when they tried to tax the yachts, that didn’t work. You know who lost their jobs? The people making the boats, the guys making 50,000 and 60,000 dollars a year lost their jobs. We all either work for rich people or we sell stuff to rich people. So just punishing rich people is as bad for the economy as punishing anyone. Let’s not punish anyone. Let’s keep taxes low and let’s cut spending.

haymarket · Jun 17, 2011

This interview is simply the latest proof that Rand Paul is a right wing wacko of the worst sort and disgraces the Senate every moment by his mere presence.

Mach · Jun 17, 2011

mbig said:
If you make money with money.. You Pay near HALF what you did 10 years ago.[/b]
-

You only go back 100 years. The 100 years before they paid nearly zero. zing.

Only reason they started spending so much to begin with on your chart was due to World Wars, that arguably necessitated acting out of SURVIVAL. We're nowhere near that now, time to go back to very low federal taxes.

They pumped money out of the populace for World War, basically the entire nation produced war supplies and machines to wage war..that was a necssary evil. You and I both know that all that power was just too much for politicains...and their constituents, and they have made up reasons to keep that money in their control ever since. As most people would given that much unrestrained power. We are slowly pulling it out of their death grip...which is the correct way to go. It's human nature, I don't blame them so much as I realize they need help....our help.

Mach · Jun 17, 2011

toddwv said:
"Economic problems? Cut taxes for the rich."
"Tax revenue issues? Cut taxes for the rich."
"Two wars? Cut taxes for the rich."
"Can't afford to build or maintain vital infrastructure? Cut taxes for the rich?"

lol, $200K household income in a year isn't rich. Esp. in big cities, in their 40s.
Raise that top bracket to those making $10M/year and you'll see wider support and it might match your rhetoric (i.e. rich) Not that it's any more ethical...

Also, the imperitive to lower taxes has nothing to do with specific issues, it's fallacy. It looks like this:

Liberals want to tax and spend more.
Libertarians want to tax and spend less.

That's really all we're talking about. Republicans aren't saying lowering taxes is an answer to the made up problems that liberals claim the nation is facing. They are both simply saying what they want to occur. Liberals - raise taxes and spend...libertarians, lower taxes and cut spending. Conservatives...I really don't know what those buggers want.

shintao · Jun 17, 2011

Mach said:
You only go back 100 years. The 100 years before they paid nearly zero. zing.

Only reason they started spending so much to begin with on your chart was due to World Wars, that arguably necessitated acting out of SURVIVAL. We're nowhere near that now, time to go back to very low federal taxes.

What part of pay for your folly, don't you understand??:2wave: Your credit card needs paying off, interest is increasing your debt. Pay your bills! Didn't your dad teach you to be responsible with money?

Click to expand...

They pumped money out of the populace for World War, basically the entire nation produced war supplies and machines to wage war..that was a necssary evil. You and I both know that all that power was just too much for politicains...and their constituents, and they have made up reasons to keep that money in their control ever since. As most people would given that much unrestrained power. We are slowly pulling it out of their death grip...which is the correct way to go. It's human nature, I don't blame them so much as I realize they need help....our help.

So vote them out of office

Helvidius · Jun 17, 2011

haymarket said:
This interview is simply the latest proof that Rand Paul is a right wing wacko of the worst sort and disgraces the Senate every moment by his mere presence.

Are you going to disprove his point about the yachts, or are ad hominem attacks all ya got? It is true that at some point taxes hurt the small guy. I would be okay with raising the tax rate on the richest bracket if the top tax bracket started higher than $250,000.

haymarket · Jun 17, 2011

Helvidius said:
Are you going to disprove his point about the yachts, or are ad hominem attacks all ya got? It is true that at some point taxes hurt the small guy. I would be okay with raising the tax rate on the richest bracket if the top tax bracket started higher than $250,000.

I did not realize he had a point about yachts. What is it exactly besides we are all one people and there are no rich and no poor - which is a pile of horse puckey miles high and a continent wide.

mbig · Jun 17, 2011

mbig said:
Say what you want about rates/effective rates.
The debate is MOOT if they aren't effectIVE of achieving their goal of a vibrant balanced society with a Large Middle Class. The Middle Class being what Made/Makes America.. America.

And there is NO debate Wealth Disparity is Growing.....
Clearly the COLLAPSE of Top Marginal Rates among others (like 'Free Trade'), etc etc...."

Bill Moyers: "Welcome to the Plutocracy!"
Wednesday 03 November 2010
Bill Moyers speech at Boston University on October 29, 2010, as a part of the Howard Zinn Lecture Series.

[.........]
And what about the country? Between 2001 and 2008, about 40,000 US manufacturing plants closed. Six million factory jobs have disappeared over the past dozen years, representing one in three manufacturing jobs. Natalie Ford said to the Times what many of us are wondering: “I don’t know how without any good-paying jobs here in the United States people are going to pay for their health care, put their children through school.”

Now, if Connie Brasel and Natalie Ford lived in South Carolina, they might have been lucky enough to get a job with the new BMW plant that recently opened there and advertised that the company would hire one thousand workers .... They will be paid $15 an hour – about Half of what BMW workers earn in Germany."

In polite circles, among our political and financial classes, this is known as “the free market at work.” No, it’s “wage repression,” and it’s been happening in our country since around 1980.

They found that from 1950 through 1980, the share of all income in America going to everyone but the rich increased from 64%% to 65%. Because the nation’s economy was growing handsomely, the average income for 9 out of l0 Americans was growing, too – from $17,719 to $30,941. That’s a 75% increase in income in constant 2008 dollars.

But then it stopped. Since 1980 the economy has also continued to grow handsomely, but only a fraction at the top have benefitted. The line flattens for the bottom 90% of Americans. Average income went from that $30,941 in 1980 to $31,244 in 2008. Think about that: the average income of Americans increased just $303 dollars in 28 years.

TurtleDude · Jun 17, 2011

This post looks familiar

Bill Moyers
LOL

global economy-the new reality

whining about the rich won't change that
'taxing the rich more won't bring back high paying jobs for undereducated Factory workers

Plutocracy Reborn

onomatopoeic

onomatopoeic

Well-known member

onomatopoeic

Well-known member

onomatopoeic

warrior of the wetlands

warrior of the wetlands

warrior of the wetlands

Active member

warrior of the wetlands

Active member

onomatopoeic

onomatopoeic

Well-known member

Well-known member

onomatopoeic

warrior of the wetlands

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency