Rich Getting Richer

[TurtleDude]

I didn't say anything butthurt at all. I was just pointing out how the wealthy in the United States to raise the middle class of foreign nations at the expense of the American middle class. Something you yourself agree to.

the middle class have done plenty of that themselves.

 

[obvious Child]

your arguments are poor because your main goal is trying to convince yourself you are smarter than me rather than focusing on making rational points

So no actual relevant reply by you. Just more insults. And you're reported.

Binary positions ignore reality.

 

[jambalaya]

That doesn't seem to be fundamentally true.

Take USC for instance. Back in the early 90s it was a joke school, where anyone could get in with half a brain and a heart beat. The school essentially reformed itself by charging rich students high rates while giving smart, motivated poor students free rides. By effectively "taxing" the rich it gave the poor the tools to become prosperous.

Are there cases where increased revenue from the rich doesn't help the poor? Absolutely. But that does not mean that this is a binary outcome. Your arguments are poor because you are always an absolutist with no capacity to see any shades of gray. Your arguments almost always binary. But reality is rarely so.

We have many, many government programs that give people tools to become prosperous but that doesn't mean they became prosperous. Many of them don't. Those same people could be still living off government assistance as far as we know. And what seems to be a blueprint for success on a very small scale doesn't necessarily translate on a larger scale. Also, the rich people in your USC example are voluntarily spending their money which is going directly into the private sector. Government taxes are not voluntary and don't necessarily get invested in wothwhile or profitable endeavors especially ones that actually employ people. We will never have a "small" gap between the richest and poorest people in this country and never should have. That is a no brainer. What we need to have is a larger middle class.

 

[Kali]

We should let the poor and middle class write off all their stuff on their taxes like the rich get to do. Take a trip? Write it off! Go out to eat? Write it off!

We gotta level it where it is fair for everyone

 

[liblady]

Hello. My name is Mellie.

I once was very poor and now I'm considered upper class in my community.

Thank you.

eace

P.S. That means I don't believe in the "rich get richer, poor get poorer" crappola.

a teacher is upper middle class? where? and you don't have to believe in that "crapola".......it's true the the gap is widening and we need a strong middle class to maintain our way of living. the facts can't be denied, as hard as you might try.

 

[Slartibartfast]

a teacher is upper middle class? where? and you don't have to believe in that "crapola".......it's true the the gap is widening and we need a strong middle class to maintain our way of living. the facts can't be denied, as hard as you might try.

According to the census, upper middle class can be anywhere from 62.5k to 85k (depending on the local cost of living) on the bottom to about 85k to 100k on the top end. (2006 data).

I would be surprised if a teacher was earning that much without a Ph.D. or an educational specialist degree. Especially a young one.

 

[liblady]

According to the census, upper middle class can be anywhere from 62.5k to 85k (depending on the local cost of living) on the bottom to about 85k to 100k on the top end. (2006 data).

I would be surprised if a teacher was earning that much without a Ph.D. or an educational specialist degree. Especially a young one.

exactly. but maybe she's upper middle class in her community.........appalachia, maybe.

 

[Slartibartfast]

exactly. but maybe she's upper middle class in her community.........appalachia, maybe.

It would have to be a very poor area or she is earning disproportionately more than the great majority of teachers.

 

[washunut]

It would have to be a very poor area or she is earning disproportionately more than the great majority of teachers.

What do you folks think teachers make? Do you include the summer job that many pick up?

 

[Slartibartfast]

What do you folks think teachers make? Do you include the summer job that many pick up?

Averages per state tend to be between 40 and 46k. However, multiple times Mellie has stated that she is young and has only been teaching for a few years. So I would guess her salary is somewhere between 36k and 42k even with her masters.

 

[FilmFestGuy]

the wealth stealers never explain what it would mean if the rich were no longer getting any richer

it would mean that this country has gone down the toilet. it also would mean that the rich would leave and all those suckling on the public teat would start starving since the milk would no longer flow

You guys simply don't get it.

In the 1950s, most of the 1960s, and in the 1990s - the rich got richer (with MUCH higher tax rates) - but the middle class grew as well and poverty rates declined. In the 1970s, things sucked for pretty much everyone. In the 1980's the rich got richer while the middle class and the poor stagnated or slid backwards. In the 2000s, again, the rich got richer while the middle class slid back and more people moved into poverty.

Why? When government policies concentrate wealth into fewer and fewer hands, it squeezes out the middle class. In the case of the 2000s, middle class incomes stagnated or were worse. It's the first decade that most people were worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. They also lost a great deal of the retirement funds and home values. While these things had some impact on the most wealthy, they didn't suffer because of their wealth.

The Bush Tax Cuts in combination with two unfunded wars are partially responsible for this. How? Because the tax cuts increased the amount that the top 1% took home. AND those who own the enormous companies who make their money of tax-payer funded government contracts to fight two wars are the ones who took government money to make themselves richer. This taking from the middle class and giving to the rich was worsened by the TARP act (signed by Bush - not Obama, but continued by Obama) which made Wall Street yet another area where the wealthiest Americans took taxpayer dollars to line their pockets.

You blame the single Mom in Harlem. The people who are taking money from the Middle Class are much more likely living on the Upper East Side or just outside Washington DC.

Watch the movie INSIDE JOB when it comes out and you'll understand how we've been completely rerouted to believe that it's the poor suckling at the teat of government. While they've lied to us and gotten us to believe it, the richest 1% have been taking taxpayer dollars hand-over-fist (through farm subsidies, no-bid government contracts, and by creating companies that are "too big to fail").

For instance, all the people who bitch about the bank bailouts blame Obama. Yet they want LESS regulation. Well, dip****s, it was the LACK of oversight and REGULATION that allowed these corporations to become so large that if they'd failed, they would have taken the entire economy down with them. Why were all these giant mergers approved in the first place? No one seems to care about that. But that's what Reagan's deregulation revolution brought you. When a few companies can bring down the entire nation, we have to ask how they got that large in the first place? They got that large by bribing our government to look the other way long enough to swallow up all of their competition.

The other piece of dip****tedness in this movement is the fact that people actually believe Republicans when they say they can cut the deficit AND keep the Bush tax cuts. If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you (on a no-down-payment mortgage where you don't have to declare your income).

Why did our country work so well in the 1950s when there was a 91% tax rate? It worked because the high taxes on the wealthy (and keep in mind that the top margin was MUCH higher than it is today) were used to build the Interstate Highway System, which created TONS of jobs. It was used to pay for the GI Bill, which sent veterans to college and created the most educated society the world has ever known. It was used to help veterans by houses in the suburbs - which created TONS of construction jobs.

All of that kept the economy buzzing like a buzzsaw. Now, with a 35% tax rate and the highest cash reserves and highest profits in American - big business still refuses to hire people. If they've got profits and they've got cash, why aren't the hiring? Their taxes are still at 35% (not 91% or 50% as they were under much of Reagan's time). Hell, 39.6% is nowhere near 91%, but they're still not creating jobs, are they?

The rich are shooting themselves in the foot. If they would hire people and thus create more demand for their products, they'd be getting richer - and so would everyone else. But when they refuse to hire even at a time of record profits, they stagnate their demand. Eventually, the profits will decline and eventually they'll go out of business and eventually, the hand-over-fist money will go away.

If you want the rich to keep getting richer, then tell them to start hiring people. A 2 - 4% increase in their taxes isn't really going to harm them as much as a depleted nation of people who can no longer afford to purchase their products.

 

[washunut]

Averages per state tend to be between 40 and 46k. However, multiple times Mellie has stated that she is young and has only been teaching for a few years. So I would guess her salary is somewhere between 36k and 42k even with her masters.

Wow that is low. I am pretty sure in my town the average teacher makes 50% more than that. ( at least)

 

[TurtleDude]

What do you folks think teachers make? Do you include the summer job that many pick up?

the top teachers in my local school system (an excellent system and the biggest single HS In Ohio I believe) is just shy of 95 K.

 

[TurtleDude]

You guys simply don't get it.

In the 1950s, most of the 1960s, and in the 1990s - the rich got richer (with MUCH higher tax rates) - but the middle class grew as well and poverty rates declined. In the 1970s, things sucked for pretty much everyone. In the 1980's the rich got richer while the middle class and the poor stagnated or slid backwards. In the 2000s, again, the rich got richer while the middle class slid back and more people moved into poverty.

Why? When government policies concentrate wealth into fewer and fewer hands, it squeezes out the middle class. In the case of the 2000s, middle class incomes stagnated or were worse. It's the first decade that most people were worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. They also lost a great deal of the retirement funds and home values. While these things had some impact on the most wealthy, they didn't suffer because of their wealth.

The Bush Tax Cuts in combination with two unfunded wars are partially responsible for this. How? Because the tax cuts increased the amount that the top 1% took home. AND those who own the enormous companies who make their money of tax-payer funded government contracts to fight two wars are the ones who took government money to make themselves richer. This taking from the middle class and giving to the rich was worsened by the TARP act (signed by Bush - not Obama, but continued by Obama) which made Wall Street yet another area where the wealthiest Americans took taxpayer dollars to line their pockets.

You blame the single Mom in Harlem. The people who are taking money from the Middle Class are much more likely living on the Upper East Side or just outside Washington DC.

Watch the movie INSIDE JOB when it comes out and you'll understand how we've been completely rerouted to believe that it's the poor suckling at the teat of government. While they've lied to us and gotten us to believe it, the richest 1% have been taking taxpayer dollars hand-over-fist (through farm subsidies, no-bid government contracts, and by creating companies that are "too big to fail").

For instance, all the people who bitch about the bank bailouts blame Obama. Yet they want LESS regulation. Well, dip****s, it was the LACK of oversight and REGULATION that allowed these corporations to become so large that if they'd failed, they would have taken the entire economy down with them. Why were all these giant mergers approved in the first place? No one seems to care about that. But that's what Reagan's deregulation revolution brought you. When a few companies can bring down the entire nation, we have to ask how they got that large in the first place? They got that large by bribing our government to look the other way long enough to swallow up all of their competition.

The other piece of dip****tedness in this movement is the fact that people actually believe Republicans when they say they can cut the deficit AND keep the Bush tax cuts. If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you (on a no-down-payment mortgage where you don't have to declare your income).

Why did our country work so well in the 1950s when there was a 91% tax rate? It worked because the high taxes on the wealthy (and keep in mind that the top margin was MUCH higher than it is today) were used to build the Interstate Highway System, which created TONS of jobs. It was used to pay for the GI Bill, which sent veterans to college and created the most educated society the world has ever known. It was used to help veterans by houses in the suburbs - which created TONS of construction jobs.

All of that kept the economy buzzing like a buzzsaw. Now, with a 35% tax rate and the highest cash reserves and highest profits in American - big business still refuses to hire people. If they've got profits and they've got cash, why aren't the hiring? Their taxes are still at 35% (not 91% or 50% as they were under much of Reagan's time). Hell, 39.6% is nowhere near 91%, but they're still not creating jobs, are they?

The rich are shooting themselves in the foot. If they would hire people and thus create more demand for their products, they'd be getting richer - and so would everyone else. But when they refuse to hire even at a time of record profits, they stagnate their demand. Eventually, the profits will decline and eventually they'll go out of business and eventually, the hand-over-fist money will go away.

If you want the rich to keep getting richer, then tell them to start hiring people. A 2 - 4% increase in their taxes isn't really going to harm them as much as a depleted nation of people who can no longer afford to purchase their products.

1) what was the effective tax rate then? compared to now--do some research and that confiscatory top rate didn't create an effective rate any higher than what will be around next year.

2) I love how people who don't have the skills to be rich constantly lecture those who do what the latter has to do to remain rich. I don't for a minute believe this advice is anything more than a facade for class envy.

Winners win because they have the tools to compete better. The longer the system exists, the more the most skilled competitiors will win.

3) your rants that the rich take from the middle class ignore the fact that the middle class are the single biggest consumer of government benefits and the rich subsidize that

4) and taking is a loaded term. Does U2 take from the middle class or do they merely trade with them by giving millions of fans music and receive money in return?

 

[washunut]

the top teachers in my local school system (an excellent system and the biggest single HS In Ohio I believe) is just shy of 95 K.

That seems to be a pretty good wage.

 

[TurtleDude]

That seems to be a pretty good wage.

that's the top tier-the average I believe was around 70-75

not bad at all for 9 months of work.

a couple of the teachers at my school were very wealthy-one donated his 45 years of salary to the school. Another was a teacher and an expert fly fisherman-he spent the whole summer on his family's ranch in Montana fishing. He was our CC coach and each summer several of the team members would go out there and train at high altitude.

But both guys said the summer off thing was a main reason for their choice of careers.

 

[Deuce]

1) what was the effective tax rate then? compared to now--do some research and that confiscatory top rate didn't create an effective rate any higher than what will be around next year.

2) I love how people who don't have the skills to be rich constantly lecture those who do what the latter has to do to remain rich. I don't for a minute believe this advice is anything more than a facade for class envy.

Winners win because they have the tools to compete better. The longer the system exists, the more the most skilled competitiors will win.

3) your rants that the rich take from the middle class ignore the fact that the middle class are the single biggest consumer of government benefits and the rich subsidize that

4) and taking is a loaded term. Does U2 take from the middle class or do they merely trade with them by giving millions of fans music and receive money in return?

You don't think government policy affects concentration of wealth?
Your "hahah stupid poors are just jealous" routine is getting old. People try to discuss actual economics and you just stick with the same old lines.

Instead, why don't you show us some evidence about your claims on effective tax rates?

 

[TurtleDude]

You don't think government policy affects concentration of wealth?
Your "hahah stupid poors are just jealous" routine is getting old. People try to discuss actual economics and you just stick with the same old lines.

Instead, why don't you show us some evidence about your claims on effective tax rates?

under almost any system the smartest, most ambitious and best educated people rise to the top.

do you have a solution-someone just posted a rather telling discussion on another thread proving that while the rich get richer, the poor aren't getting poorer. and numerous commentators and news stories have discussed the effective rate

btw I think its criminal that any tax rate would take more than half of someone's next dollar

everyone should pay the same rate so people like you cannot be bribed into voting for liberals by the promise that those politicians will jack up my top rate to pay for what you want

 

[Deuce]

under almost any system the smartest, most ambitious and best educated people rise to the top.

do you have a solution-someone just posted a rather telling discussion on another thread proving that while the rich get richer, the poor aren't getting poorer. and numerous commentators and news stories have discussed the effective rate

btw I think its criminal that any tax rate would take more than half of someone's next dollar

everyone should pay the same rate so people like you cannot be bribed into voting for liberals by the promise that those politicians will jack up my top rate to pay for what you want

So instead of backing up your claims about effective tax rates you just paraphrased the other 900 posts you've made on the same subject. Ok.

 

[TurtleDude]

So instead of backing up your claims about effective tax rates you just paraphrased the other 900 posts you've made on the same subject. Ok.

refute it if you can

why is it so hard for libs to answer easy questions?

I don't have any problems with the rich getting richer--its a natural result as time progresses

do you have a problem with it? and what is your solution?

 

[obvious Child]

refute it if you can

Burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Learn the concept.

 

[Deuce]

refute it if you can

why is it so hard for libs to answer easy questions?

I don't have any problems with the rich getting richer--its a natural result as time progresses

do you have a problem with it? and what is your solution?

You made several claims and refuse to support them. Sorry, I'm going to have to assume you were just talking out of your ass because you can't back it up.

 

[TurtleDude]

Burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Learn the concept.

Yawn-hypocrisy-learn the concept

 

[TurtleDude]

You made several claims and refuse to support them. Sorry, I'm going to have to assume you were just talking out of your ass because you can't back it up.

GIYLF--the stuff i post is obvious-your attempts to evade the obvious is quite pathetic

 

[ender1]

refute it if you can

why is it so hard for libs to answer easy questions?

I don't have any problems with the rich getting richer--its a natural result as time progresses

do you have a problem with it? and what is your solution?

Money and the promise of it is the best motivator we have. Thats why socialism and communism have not succedded as much as capitalism. BUT, the strongest countries have a large stable middle class.


If your looking for the concern when you start having a vast gap between the super rich and very poor all you have to do is look at the French between the early 1700s and mid 1800s. It does not end well for the rich.