• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The 1% will own more than the 99% by 2016, report says

TurtleDude said:
uh that fails
Click to expand...
Got it, a record of a point in time does not, cannot, exist....and at that point in time captured wealth cannot be understood to exist in a finite amount......because as you so eloquently stated:

"uh...."
 
ludin said:
sure you can try and take a snapshot but it is already out of date by the time you try and process it.
Click to expand...
You just admitted that finite amounts of wealth exist at a point in time.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Geez, you people can't hold anything still, there either is or is not at any single point in time a finite amount of captured wealth on this planet.

So which is it?
Click to expand...

What is wealth? We can create an infinite number of numbers on a computer and call it money. It doesn't matter if the Mona Lisa sells for a buck at the dollar general or a trillion dollars to somebody--there is only 1 Mona Lisa.
 
Declan said:
What is wealth? .
Click to expand...
There is a process of repeating a word until it becomes just the utterance of meaningless tones. I sincerely hope you are not also going down this absurd path as the others are.
 
ludin said:
good thing we can always add more pie. something you still don't seem to get.
Click to expand...

We have been adding more pie for 30 years and nearly all of it has gone to the top 5%. That's what share of total income increases mean.

 
Gimmesometruth said:
There is a process of repeating a word until it becomes just the utterance of meaningless tones. I sincerely hope you are not also going down this absurd path as the others are.
Click to expand...

It is an important point. The top 1% that will own "half the wealth", will they own half the land? Will they own half the water? As I said before, there is only one Mona Lisa so what does it matter if the price for it is $1 as opposed to $100 as opposed to $1,000,000,000.00? Isn't the "wealth" that the Walton heirs own contingent on how much money the next person is willing to buy it for? Surely you do not think that the property and cash registers and warehouses full of pickles is why their "wealth" is what it is?
 
Great idea.
Will the lobbyists allow the government to do so? Will government give up power?

Certainly not voluntarily.
 
That's because you define "liberalism" as anything that is contrary to your world view, and you don't understand the influence of money on political decisions.

It take a lot of money to brainwash idiots, you know.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You just admitted that finite amounts of wealth exist at a point in time.
Click to expand...

strawman. way to ignore the rest of the post but that is what you people do.
 
iguanaman said:
We have been adding more pie for 30 years and nearly all of it has gone to the top 5%. That's what share of total income increases mean.

Click to expand...

yet people can still buy houses, cars, TV, they still get their pay checks etc ...
why? because we can simply add more to the pie as we need to as the economy grows.
 
ludin said:
yet people can still buy houses, cars, TV, they still get their pay checks etc ...
why? because we can simply add more to the pie as we need to as the economy grows.
Click to expand...


Nothing defines "american exceptionalism" better than prolonged economic stagnation for 95%
 
JANFU said:
The Bush tax cuts- some say the rich benefited - some say middle class did- who received what?
I used a family of 4 - differing incomes.
I thought that would make it easier.
Click to expand...



From your link:

"4. Increased take-home pay for middle-class workers: While much of the perks from the Bush tax cuts flowed to the top, they also helped middle-class earners, who kept more of their earnings because of reduced tax rates. This was especially important in the last decade, since median wages stagnated, and it may be one reason why Democrats so readily pushed to extend most of the Bush tax cuts. This chart is based on data from the Congressional Budget Office. The red line shows the pre-tax average income of the middle quintile of income earners. As you can see, it is pretty flat in the 2000s. (Median income -- as opposed to average -- actually declined.) The blue line shows, however, that taxes were taking less money out of middle-class paychecks after the Bush tax cuts were put in place, offsetting some of the slow wage growth."


I am not sure what you are trying to point out here or what you are trying to argue.
 




Sorry, I don't consider newsmax a source.


But stop and think about what you posted.


we know NJ has a 68% home ownership rate.


How many are middle class in NJ vs how many are upper class?


Follow the logic and hopefully you will see where your point doesnt make much sense.
 
JANFU said:
Well poor people pay taxes and consume goods. So one way or another can you tell me how the money you received was in some way NOT from a poor person.
Nope.
Thank you
Click to expand...




Poor people pay very little in taxes and reap the rewards of a welfare state.


 

It is totally relevant since many here put faceless names to graphs and charts. You are doing well, I am doing well and both of us are on those graphs thus no rich person hurt us at all so why is it so important to raise taxes on them other than to punish them for their successes? You think it is the role of the govt. to create equal outcome?
 
Dibbler said:
Don't worry about it. The new Republican majorities in both houses have YOUR best interests in mind.

Click to expand...



hmmmm.


$Alan Grayson's net worth: 16.69 million

Grayson is the 21st wealthiest member of Congress, according to Roll Call, with a net worth of $16.69 million. He reportedly has a serious knack for stocks, which was what ultimately brought down Chapman's scheme.Dec 9, 2013

BTW, his "income" comes from capital gains.


If this little bitch was serious, why hasn't he written a check to the treasury?


ruling class hypocrite.
 

If they own something the rest of us....ALL of us....need, then yeah, a select few owning most or all of it DOES matter.
 

No, what I am trying to do is get you to think. There is nothing but the individual responsible for not achieving that upper class. It isn't nonsense at all because I am part of those graphs and part of the history of workers. Now tell me why you want to punish rich people for their success? Wealth is an individual thing and I know a lot of people who meet the definition of middle class that are very wealthy in so many things. There isn't a rich person out there that has any affect on my life whatsoever
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Again, for hard of understanding, I never said a pie does not grow, I said at any point in time, there is a finite amount.
Click to expand...

Which is and entirely worthless observation.
 
Here's the thing. It doesn't really matter how much rich people own. It really doesn't. What matters is that there is a means for everyone else other than the rich to gain ownership of the things they need or want. And what's happening is, fewer and fewer people are controlling those means. And they aren't the best stewards, as was glaringly obvious in 2008. Their interests don't aline with the rest of ours. When they own the banks, and due to mismanagement, crash our entire economy, that's a problem. When they own the farms, and due to greed and further mismanagement, those farms close, that becomes a problem. When they own the stores and factories, and greed compels them to replace american workers with foreigners with no rights, or with robots, WITHOUT passing their savings from doing so onto the consumer, that becomes a MAJOR, CATASTROPHIC freaking problem.

I could give two ****s about how many ferrarris one rich guy owns. What I care about is, when he owns so much within our economy that I personally need, and when his treatment of those things makes MY life demonstrably harder or worse. The wealthy are stacking the deck, because they have the MEANS to. Through both major parties, they are killing anything even remotely resembling a free economy, that is, one in which the might CAN fall, to be replaced by the next guy in line.

ONE company owns about 50% of ALL of our potable water, and they are constantly buying more spring and aquafer land. ONE guy runs that company. If he runs that company into the ground, do you think failure will be an option?

ONE company controls the bulk of all agriculture in this country. Do you think that's OK?
 
jmotivator said:
Which is and entirely worthless observation.
Click to expand...

No it's not, because it debunks the myth that there is never "not enough" due to economic growth.

The idea that there is infinite wealth, or resources, that our economy can just grow, flies in the face of science.
 


It's not about punishment. It's about making our society solvent, while improving our economy, and preparing for the future.


Also, there are PLENTY of rich people who have an affect on your life, personally....you're just not thinking broadly enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…