The Declining Wealth of the Bottom 90%

[horn4life 3755]

2 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Bullshit, it’s a 1% problem shared by “both sides”  Democrat run NY has almost completely evaporated their middle class as well as California.  Wake the fuck up  

In 2015 the middle class took home just 13.5 percent of all state income, an anemic figure that's dead last in the nation, underlining why they've been continually priced out of the Big Apple and the American Dream.

But in contrast it's an unprecedented boom time for our top 20 percent of earners, who accounted for a staggering 54.2 percent of all earned income in New York last year.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishcentral.com/opinion/cahirodoherty/new-york-city-middle-class-gone-wealthy.amp

After factoring for costs of living, California is the poorest state in the union. An average of 14 percent of Americans live below the poverty line by census measures. Compare that with the 19 percent of Californians who live below the poverty line and the situation is clear

Despite having just 12 percent of the national population, California represents nearly a third of all Americans on welfare. Federal taxpayers shell out more than half of the $6.7 billion in the California Work Opportunities and Responsibility to Kids program. In Texas, 6 percent of families in poverty receive welfare. In California, the figure is 66 percent. Can you guess where the poverty rate is lower? Not California.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/opinion/finance/412928-middle-class-is-disappearing-in-california-as-wealth-gap-grows%3famp

Both sides are guilty as fuck and it takes some extreme blinders to think otherwise. 

Your team is not the good guy, they have replaced defending the middle class with trickle up poverty and focus on the poor. They have replaced the African American progress with illegal immigrant progress because they now out number the African american population within the United States.  

No one’s hands are clean, and the ability of the Devil to convince the world he doesn’t exsist seems to work well with you. 

I understand that a LOT of people do not understand the macro effects of cutting top tax rates for the wealthiest Americans.  It is nothing more or less than a reallocation of wealth to those with the greatest ability to shoulder the financial burden of funding our government.  There is a reason that Deficits have skyrocketed under Republican Presidencies.  Because the POLICY itself does not work!!!!  My "team" is the American people, I was a card carrying Republican, I began to move toward the Dems simply because while their economic policies are far from perfect they are simply not a redistribution of wealth to FURTHER enrich the richest.  The Dems err in trying too much to help the poorest in some cases, I will give you that.  HOWEVER there is a VASTLY greater economic and tax benefit via the effects of money multiplying in making this error.  It's simply math.  You give a poor or lower middle class person additional dollars they spend every single penny, and mostly in their local economy.  I will move toward the GOP when facts, and actual fiscal conservatism become something the GOP again cares about.

IT is also a fallacy to point to California's extremely high cost of living as your "evidence" when pointing to Texas in the same breath.  Unless you do not understand cost of living?  I could give you a tutorial here is you would like? 😉

The biggest problem for the middle class is a tax policy that has shifted to placing more burden on the middle class, in order to remove burden from the most wealthy in the class. There is a reason that the GOP always pretends to twilight these gifts to the wealthy with a future expiraiton date in their legislation. A date that never comes for the wealthy but always comes for the middle tax relief.  The reason? Because the scoring on plans without an expiration clearly show the monsterous holes in the budget caused without the fake expriation.  It sells the flawed tax poliy much better than using honest numbers.

It's like listening to GOP congressmen criticize the "Obama Stimulus" package that was necessary to help boost the economy after the Bush's destruction of the economy. This happened after years of nearly singularly bragging as a GOP talking point about home ownership gains.  WOnder why the mortgage industry was not properly supervised and regulated? It would have removed this singular talking point. The "Obama Stimulus" was a necessity ONLY because the GOP controlled congress PUNTED the costs of funding the recovery into Obama's Presidency.  Obama cleaned up the mess, and yes there were massive deficits that came with it.  Of course the GOP's man contribution was the insistence of adding... you guessed it... tax cuts for the wealthy into the bill. From Memory I believe nearly half of that massive stimuls package was tax cuts.  INFRASATRUCTURE building would have been a much, much better stimulus, but the only way to get stimulus in the GOP mind is... yep you guessed it... tax cuts.

It is also important to note that while Obama did preside over a masisve increase in the debt and deficits, he also provided an economy strong with massive job job creation.  Something Trump inherited. Yet Trump has been unable with the help of complete control of the GOP of all levers of the Federal Government to match Obama's employment numbers. (now don't get excited here ding dongs) you don't get to compare Obama's first days in office after inheriting the Republican orchestrated disaster of not regulating the banking and mortgage businesses (that was their one economic talking point). You compare Obama's last 21 months (or now 22 months) with Trump's 21 months after taking office.  

It is impossible to find a Trump supporter than believes Obama created more jobs in the same about of time at Trump has.  But it's the truth.

Overall the biggest problem is the embrace of one party of a tax policy that simple does not, and never has worked.  It's an expensive policy that adds to the debt, while at the same time moving nearly all the burden for funding Social Security, medicare and medicaid onto the middle class.  Because as I pointed out the rich don't pay into those systems as their income is not catagorized as income the way it is for the working class.

You could actally fix the problem and fund the goverment.  Simply call ALL increase in annual wealth as income, and tax it the same way the overly burdened middle class does.  THEN guess what... with the wealthy sharing this burden, the lower in middle classes burden would be reduced.  Then they lower and middle classes could actually stimulate the economy with each and every dollar given back to them by making the wealthy pay their way like the middle class does

 

Edited December 24, 2018 by horn4life

[BrickHorn 18194]

^^^^ Great post.  The GOP has been pushing trickle down economics under various brand names for decades.  It never worked to stimulate the economy or reduce deficits.  

Why does the GOP keep banging its head against the same wall?  Is the whole party stupid?  I don’t think so.  I think they know exactly what they’re doing. It was never the goal to reduce deficits or help the middle class.  It was always the goal to give more money to their super wealthy backers, and tax cuts for the rich certainly achieve that goal.  

That’s why Republicans continue to push the exact same solution under different names and supported by slightly different crackpot theories (trickle down, stimulus, etc.). They don’t need it to actually benefit the middle class; they just need to trick the middle class into believing that a policy designed solely to benefit the rich will actually benefit them.  And it has worked, over and over again.  Insane, really.

[SaucyJack 3487]

1 hour ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Sorry Commrade.  

Quite the opposite  

Its also a great argument that Democratic policies lead to failure and a change in leadership is needed. 

The more they “redistribute” the worse they make the problem.

Poor Hugo

Edited December 24, 2018 by SaucyJack

[SaucyJack 3487]

Trump on Putin:  “I’ve been nice to him. He’s a competitor. . . . He’s not my enemy. And hopefully, someday, maybe he’ll be a friend. It could happen.”

[horn4life 3755]

1 hour ago, BrickHorn said:

^^^^ Great post.  The GOP has been pushing trickle down economics under various brand names for decades.  It never worked to stimulate the economy or reduce deficits.  

Why does the GOP keep banging its head against the same wall?  Is the whole party stupid?  I don’t think so.  I think they know exactly what they’re doing. It was never the goal to reduce deficits or help the middle class.  It was always the goal to give more money to their super wealthy backers, and tax cuts for the rich certainly achieve that goal.  

That’s why Republicans continue to push the exact same solution under different names and supported by slightly different crackpot theories (trickle down, stimulus, etc.). They don’t need it to actually benefit the middle class; they just need to trick the middle class into believing that a policy designed solely to benefit the rich will actually benefit them.  And it has worked, over and over again.  Insane, really.

IF the math worked and the rich created the jobs predicted I would be all for it.  This is not to say some jobs are not indeed produced, but never enough to offset the costs.

I can also easily admit that the Democratic party does not have completely clean hands here. A lot of bad legislation has been indeed bipartisan- if your consider a handful of votes from the other party bipartisanship in a 400+ member congress.  My belief is that this particular tax policy MORE THAN ANY OTHER SINGLE FACTOR has led to the decline of the Middle class.

There are a lot of fixes around the edges, but the tax policy that has been implemented at the behest of primarily the GOP has been the primary driver in this redistribution of wealth into the hands of the richest and out of the middle class.

 

Edited December 24, 2018 by horn4life

[pyrohornIII 4809]

1 hour ago, horn4life said:

I understand that a LOT of people do not understand the macro effects of cutting top tax rates for the wealthiest Americans.  It is nothing more or less than a reallocation of wealth to those with the greatest ability to shoulder the financial burden of funding our government.  There is a reason that Deficits have skyrocketed under Republican Presidencies.  Because the POLICY itself does not work!!!!  My "team" is the American people, I was a card carrying Republican, I began to move toward the Dems simply because while their economic policies are far from perfect they are simply not a redistribution of wealth to FURTHER enrich the richest.  The Dems err in trying too much to help the poorest in some cases, I will give you that.  HOWEVER there is a VASTLY greater economic and tax benefit via the effects of money multiplying in making this error.  It's simply math.  You give a poor or lower middle class person additional dollars they spend every single penny, and mostly in their local economy.  I will move toward the GOP when facts, and actual fiscal conservatism become something the GOP again cares about.

IT is also a fallacy to point to California's extremely high cost of living as your "evidence" when pointing to Texas in the same breath.  Unless you do not understand cost of living?  I could give you a tutorial here is you would like? 😉

The biggest problem for the middle class is a tax policy that has shifted to placing more burden on the middle class, in order to remove burden from the most wealthy in the class. There is a reason that the GOP always pretends to twilight these gifts to the wealthy with a future expiraiton date in their legislation. A date that never comes for the wealthy but always comes for the middle tax relief.  The reason? Because the scoring on plans without an expiration clearly show the monsterous holes in the budget caused without the fake expriation.  It sells the flawed tax poliy much better than using honest numbers.

It's like listening to GOP congressmen criticize the "Obama Stimulus" package that was necessary to help boost the economy after the Bush's destruction of the economy. This happened after years of nearly singularly bragging as a GOP talking point about home ownership gains.  WOnder why the mortgage industry was not properly supervised and regulated? It would have removed this singular talking point. The "Obama Stimulus" was a necessity ONLY because the GOP controlled congress PUNTED the costs of funding the recovery into Obama's Presidency.  Obama cleaned up the mess, and yes there were massive deficits that came with it.  Of course the GOP's man contribution was the insistence of adding... you guessed it... tax cuts for the wealthy into the bill. From Memory I believe nearly half of that massive stimuls package was tax cuts.  INFRASATRUCTURE building would have been a much, much better stimulus, but the only way to get stimulus in the GOP mind is... yep you guessed it... tax cuts.

It is also important to note that while Obama did preside over a masisve increase in the debt and deficits, he also provided an economy strong with massive job job creation.  Something Trump inherited. Yet Trump has been unable with the help of complete control of the GOP of all levers of the Federal Government to match Obama's employment numbers. (now don't get excited here ding dongs) you don't get to compare Obama's first days in office after inheriting the Republican orchestrated disaster of not regulating the banking and mortgage businesses (that was their one economic talking point). You compare Obama's last 21 months (or now 22 months) with Trump's 21 months after taking office.  

It is impossible to find a Trump supporter than believes Obama created more jobs in the same about of time at Trump has.  But it's the truth.

Overall the biggest problem is the embrace of one party of a tax policy that simple does not, and never has worked.  It's an expensive policy that adds to the debt, while at the same time moving nearly all the burden for funding Social Security, medicare and medicaid onto the middle class.  Because as I pointed out the rich don't pay into those systems as their income is not catagorized as income the way it is for the working class.

You could actally fix the problem and fund the goverment.  Simply call ALL increase in annual wealth as income, and tax it the same way the overly burdened middle class does.  THEN guess what... with the wealthy sharing this burden, the lower in middle classes burden would be reduced.  Then they lower and middle classes could actually stimulate the economy with each and every dollar given back to them by making the wealthy pay their way like the middle class does

 

Another part of this equation is the reduction in services we receive.  Infrastructure, schools, VA, colleges, emergency services, law enforcement and other general services provided by the government have their budgets cut back to balance the loss of income from these tax cuts.     And it isn't just on a national level, obviously, but this pervades the entire country.  They all follow the lead of the GOP in DC.   Huge shortfalls being covered by fundraisers, higher tuition costs, tollroads, etc.   

[G650 14107]

19 minutes ago, horn4life said:

IF the math worked and the rich created the jobs predicted I would be all for it.  This is not to say some jobs are not indeed produced, but never enough to offset the costs.

I can also easily admit that the Democratic party does not have completely clean hands here. A lot of bad legislation has been indeed bipartisan- if your consider a handful of votes from the other party bipartisanship in a 400+ member congress.  My belief is that this particular tax policy MORE THAN ANY OTHER SINGLE FACTOR has led to the decline of the Middle class.

There are a lot of fixes around the edges, but the tax policy that has been implemented at the behest of primarily the GOP has been the primary driver in this redistribution of wealth into the hands of the richest and out of the middle class.

 

This is truth.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

54 minutes ago, horn4life said:

IF the math worked and the rich created the jobs predicted I would be all for it.  This is not to say some jobs are not indeed produced, but never enough to offset the costs.

I can also easily admit that the Democratic party does not have completely clean hands here. A lot of bad legislation has been indeed bipartisan- if your consider a handful of votes from the other party bipartisanship in a 400+ member congress.  My belief is that this particular tax policy MORE THAN ANY OTHER SINGLE FACTOR has led to the decline of the Middle class.

There are a lot of fixes around the edges, but the tax policy that has been implemented at the behest of primarily the GOP has been the primary driver in this redistribution of wealth into the hands of the richest and out of the middle class.

 

The trickle down concept only works if the investor re invests a % of the capitol gains back in to the business to grow it, and compensate employees better.  The tax rate reduction should be tied to how much is left to trickle down instead of simply capturing.

[Brisketexan 104628]

The trickle down concept only works if the investor re invests a % of the capitol gains back in to the business to grow it, and compensate employees better.  The tax rate reduction should be tied to how much is left to trickle down instead of simply capturing.

And it might have been....if that was the actual goal.
Spoiler: it wasn’t. This last round was just a plain old gift back to the top 1% at the expense of a skyrocketing deficit.
I used to believe in trickle down. It made sense at first glance. But we’ve now tried it in a dozen iterations, and it’s always failed. I decided to quit being Charlie Brown to the trickle down Lucy a while back. The football is never there when it comes time to kick. And that’s by design.

[happyfunball 481]

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

And it might have been....if that was the actual goal.
Spoiler: it wasn’t. This last round was just a plain old gift back to the top 1% at the expense of a skyrocketing deficit.
I used to believe in trickle down. It made sense at first glance. But we’ve now tried it in a dozen iterations, and it’s always failed. I decided to quit being Charlie Brown to the trickle down Lucy a while back. The football is never there when it comes time to kick. And that’s by design.

Tie the rates to a reinvestment format, and it can work.

[Brisketexan 104628]

Tie the rates to a reinvestment format, and it can work.

Could be.
But that won’t ever happen. Because that isn’t the point.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13414]

47 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Could be.
But that won’t ever happen. Because that isn’t the point.

Yep.  Because if the point of tax breaks was to create jobs, then tax breaks would be applied to job creation.   Not the other way around.    

[pacman 7330]

https://www.unitedwayalice.org/in-the-news/study-43-percent-of-americans-can-t-afford-basics-like-food-housing

 

Forty-three percent of American households are unable to afford basics

[Nivek 16861]

https://www.unitedwayalice.org/in-the-news/study-43-percent-of-americans-can-t-afford-basics-like-food-housing
 

Forty-three percent of American households are unable to afford basics

Take away their homes and the numbers look better. Boom!

[Brisketexan 104628]

5 minutes ago, pacman said:

https://www.unitedwayalice.org/in-the-news/study-43-percent-of-americans-can-t-afford-basics-like-food-housing

 

 

 

And this is where the stats become reality.

There's arguments above of "real adjusted dollars" and all that shit.  That's noise.  Let's talk about what reality is.  Reality is 1) what your income has to go to, and 2) what money you have left over and what you can buy with it.  In other words, because dollars are fungible with what they can be exchanged for, we can and should couch income in terms of fungible items -- e.g., people used to get monthly pay equal to 3X their monthly housing cost.  Now, they only get paid 2.4X their monthly housing cost.

Certain large-ticket costs have gone up dramatically (outpacing any wage growth): housing, health care, and higher education.  Once the average family pays for those items, they have LESS buying power left over than they did 40 years ago (the buying power to acquire a car, take a vacation, etc.).

We spend a shitload of time ranting against socialism, or capitalism, or globalism, or automation, or the death of unions, or whatever your pet rant is.  But the whole point of this thread is that all of us should pause, take a deep breath, and look at the rising flood of inequality that threatens to swamp us all.  History tells us in simple terms that a huge disparity is not sustainable, and ends in collapse/violence/etc.  The water is rising, and right fast.  Telling the folks who have been taking it in the shorts for the last few decades to keep bailing, while the folks living in the fancy housing on the high ground sip cocktails and talk about how people just need to work harder, does jack shit to fend off the flood.  And when the folks in the low land get flooded out, they are coming for your high ground, and they'll take it however they need to. 

Solving this problem is in EVERYONE'S best interest.  It would be smart if we could start looking at solutions unencumbered by our pre-existing biases (meaning that some of the solutions are likely to be more "socialist" than those on the right like, and some of the solutions will be more "capitalist" than those on the left would prefer, and we need to have the spine to just go with those solutions).

But we won't.  We're too wedded to team and talking points.  We'll accuse each other and argue about this shit as the last bit of the ship bubbles and sinks beneath the water.

[G650 14107]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

And this is where the stats become reality.

There's arguments above of "real adjusted dollars" and all that shit.  That's noise.  Let's talk about what reality is.  Reality is 1) what your income has to go to, and 2) what money you have left over and what you can buy with it.  In other words, because dollars are fungible with what they can be exchanged for, we can and should couch income in terms of fungible items -- e.g., people used to get monthly pay equal to 3X their monthly housing cost.  Now, they only get paid 2.4X their monthly housing cost.

Certain large-ticket costs have gone up dramatically (outpacing any wage growth): housing, health care, and higher education.  Once the average family pays for those items, they have LESS buying power left over than they did 40 years ago (the buying power to acquire a car, take a vacation, etc.).

We spend a shitload of time ranting against socialism, or capitalism, or globalism, or automation, or the death of unions, or whatever your pet rant is.  But the whole point of this thread is that all of us should pause, take a deep breath, and look at the rising flood of inequality that threatens to swamp us all.  History tells us in simple terms that a huge disparity is not sustainable, and ends in collapse/violence/etc.  The water is rising, and right fast.  Telling the folks who have been taking it in the shorts for the last few decades to keep bailing, while the folks living in the fancy housing on the high ground sip cocktails and talk about how people just need to work harder, does jack shit to fend off the flood.  And when the folks in the low land get flooded out, they are coming for your high ground, and they'll take it however they need to. 

Solving this problem is in EVERYONE'S best interest.  It would be smart if we could start looking at solutions unencumbered by our pre-existing biases (meaning that some of the solutions are likely to be more "socialist" than those on the right like, and some of the solutions will be more "capitalist" than those on the left would prefer, and we need to have the spine to just go with those solutions).

But we won't.  We're too wedded to team and talking points.  We'll accuse each other and argue about this shit as the last bit of the ship bubbles and sinks beneath the water.

I plan on being Sheriff Brody shooting from the mast of the Orca thank you very much.

[Brisketexan 104628]

3 minutes ago, G650 said:

I plan on being Sheriff Brody shooting from the mast of the Orca thank you very much.

Everyone plans on being Brody.

Reality is....you're gonna be Captain Quinn....

[G650 14107]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Everyone plans on being Brody.

Reality is....you're gonna be Captain Quinn....

Eh, I've got a lot of capital and a high proficiency with firearms and explosives, so probably not. But you are right, and I'm amazed how many people dont see what we are creating. 

[staboner 4959]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

And this is where the stats become reality.

There's arguments above of "real adjusted dollars" and all that shit.  That's noise.  Let's talk about what reality is.  Reality is 1) what your income has to go to, and 2) what money you have left over and what you can buy with it.  In other words, because dollars are fungible with what they can be exchanged for, we can and should couch income in terms of fungible items -- e.g., people used to get monthly pay equal to 3X their monthly housing cost.  Now, they only get paid 2.4X their monthly housing cost.

Certain large-ticket costs have gone up dramatically (outpacing any wage growth): housing, health care, and higher education.  Once the average family pays for those items, they have LESS buying power left over than they did 40 years ago (the buying power to acquire a car, take a vacation, etc.).

We spend a shitload of time ranting against socialism, or capitalism, or globalism, or automation, or the death of unions, or whatever your pet rant is.  But the whole point of this thread is that all of us should pause, take a deep breath, and look at the rising flood of inequality that threatens to swamp us all.  History tells us in simple terms that a huge disparity is not sustainable, and ends in collapse/violence/etc.  The water is rising, and right fast.  Telling the folks who have been taking it in the shorts for the last few decades to keep bailing, while the folks living in the fancy housing on the high ground sip cocktails and talk about how people just need to work harder, does jack shit to fend off the flood.  And when the folks in the low land get flooded out, they are coming for your high ground, and they'll take it however they need to. 

Solving this problem is in EVERYONE'S best interest.  It would be smart if we could start looking at solutions unencumbered by our pre-existing biases (meaning that some of the solutions are likely to be more "socialist" than those on the right like, and some of the solutions will be more "capitalist" than those on the left would prefer, and we need to have the spine to just go with those solutions).

But we won't.  We're too wedded to team and talking points.  We'll accuse each other and argue about this shit as the last bit of the ship bubbles and sinks beneath the water.

Pretty much. Humans are too stupid and selfish to avoid repeating history. 

republicans. sigh. there is some racism, so xenophobia, some general hatred of the rest of the world, some wildly hypocritical Christianity, and some mind-numbing world views to consider when looking at the modern day republican party and all the different factions that make it up. but one thing it isn't is politically conservative. And one thing it is - whether its the extremely rich or the poor wearing "fuck your feelings" tshirts at trump rallies - its being short-sighted and selfish. And that can never last. Everyone knows that will run out and you will be left with nothing. but alas here we are. The folks screaming "balanced budget" are enabling the rich to get richer and fuck the whole country over, and they are getting it done with a devil as POTUS, one who is disguised as a wealthy NY democrat elitist. 

what a time to be alive

[Nice Guy Eddie 13414]

i believe that if you spoke with any high wealth individual about the rising wealth inequality, I imagine most of them would agree that it's a problem and it won't solve itself.   But i would also assume they would be skeptical of any govt solution.  Sure the govt could take half (or more) of their wealth when they die, but does that wealth flow into the hands of the 90% or just another living wealthy person?

 

[MissingInAction 24824]

Everything will be fine until the day I can no longer afford hookers and blow.

[Brisketexan 104628]

24 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

i believe that if you spoke with any high wealth individual about the rising wealth inequality, I imagine most of them would agree that it's a problem and it won't solve itself.   But i would also assume they would be skeptical of any govt solution.  Sure the govt could take half (or more) of their wealth when they die, but does that wealth flow into the hands of the 90% or just another living wealthy person?

 

Well, as just an example of an alternative approach....look at what we did with education.

1) we had tax revenue that went directly into the budgets of public universities.  This helped keep tuition costs low.

2) THEN, we slashed funding.  So public universities needed to raise tuition.  But how could people afford this now-higher tuition?

3) Simple, we'll drastically expand the guaranteed student loan system.  Folks can now borrow those extra dollars and pay the new, higher tuition.

4) unintended consequence: any time you increase the money supply to purchase a particular item, the cost of that item inflates like the dickens.  SO, tuition went even HIGHER.

So, today, how could we 1) take increased tax revenue and use it in a way that it 2) flows into the hands of/for the benefit of all the people?  Go back to step 1) above.

Some of the LEAST effective programs are those that are directly redistributive.  Some of the MOST effective are those that provide broad benefit.  Don't give tuition grants to individuals.  Take the additional tax revenue, and increase funding to public universities.  In fact, if the Lege did so in a way that tied additional public funding to tuition decreases/freezes, it woudl even accelerate that benefit.  That's just one example.

Thinking in terms of Robin Hood, taking a dollar from Richie Rich and handing it to Peter Poor, is childish and simplistic.  Having publicly funded schools, roads, etc. that provide real benefit to everyone is a much better path.

[Incredulity 11555]

2 hours ago, pacman said:

https://www.unitedwayalice.org/in-the-news/study-43-percent-of-americans-can-t-afford-basics-like-food-housing

 

 

 

Imagine a world where everyone made above-average income.  Wait, What?

I have empathy for people who are living paycheck to paycheck.  I have been there, its stressful no doubt.  On the other hand, every job I have ever been on has at least handful of donkeys who shove half their paycheck up their nose and drink another quarter, many who have families to support.  How do you fix that?  Legalize drugs and tax the shit out of it?

[Brisketexan 104628]

3 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Imagine a world where everyone made above-average income.  Wait, What?

I have empathy for people who are living paycheck to paycheck.  I have been there, its stressful no doubt.  On the other hand, every job I have ever been on has at least handful of donkeys who shove half their paycheck up their nose and drink another quarter, many who have families to support.  How do you fix that?  Legalize drugs and tax the shit out of it?

That's always happened - shit, it's Dickensian, you can read any number of stories from 150 years ago about poor factory worker Jones who took what little money he made and spent it on drink, leaving his family wearing rags and begging for food.  It's logically fallacious to state "since not everyone will manage their income responsibly, we shouldn't try to remedy income inequality."  It would be just as fallacious to point out the other end of the spectrum -- idle rich whose kids jet around the world and spend $500k a weekend on blow and partying and shit.  That doesn't stand as evidence that wealth is bad -- it just stands as evidence that some wealthy people are entitled dicks.  Anecdotes are not evidence.  The vast majority of all economic classes live relatively responsibly and rationally.  Solutions should take into account the majority, not the outliers.

We'll never "cure" poverty.  We'll never stop some ultra-rich from blowing their money like douchebags.  Neither truth is an argument against, well, anything.

Edited December 26, 2018 by Brisketexan

[Incredulity 11555]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That's always happened - shit, it's Dickensian, you can read any number of stories from 150 years ago about poor factory worker Jones who took what little money he made and spent it on drink, leaving his family wearing rags and begging for food.  It's logically fallacious to state "since not everyone will manage their income responsibly, we shouldn't try to remedy income inequality."  It would be just as fallacious to point out the other end of the spectrum -- idle rich whose kids jet around the world and spend $500k a weekend on blow and partying and shit.  That doesn't stand as evidence that wealth is bad -- it just stands as evidence that some wealthy people are entitled dicks.  Anecdotes are not evidence.  The vast majority of all economic classes live relatively responsibly and rationally.  Solutions should take into account the majority, not the outliers.

We'll never "cure" poverty.  We'll never stop some ultra-rich from blowing their money like douchebags.  Neither truth is an argument against, well, anything.

So what's the solution?

Many states have already taken on raising min wages.

 

[Brisketexan 104628]

11 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

So what's the solution?

Many states have already taken on raising min wages.

 

There's no "one solution."  An economy is dynamic and multi-faceted -- a huge understatement, by the way.  The reasons for rising wealth inequality, and the solutions, are multi-faceted.

I posted one single element -- better public funding of higher education.  Yes, that will include raising taxes.

I can add others.  Here's one: end the war on drugs.  The secondary impact that has on the employability of a huge swath of our population has massive negative ripple effects.

Here's another: provide at least a low-level of basic healthcare on a universal level.  Everyone should be able to go to a primary care doc, get treatment for basic illnesses (especially childhood infections) and the like for cheap/free.  The economic positives (e.g., fewer missed work days by parents with sick kids) would likewise have significant positive ripple effects.

If we sat down with a bottle of whisky or 5, we could come up with 300 such items.  Some little and easy.  Some big and ambitious.  And it will take all of those things to remedy the path we're on.

Edited December 26, 2018 by Brisketexan

[tchookem 3900]

There's no "one solution."  An economy is dynamic and multi-faceted -- a huge understatement, by the way.  The reasons for rising wealth inequality, and the solutions, are multi-faceted.
I posted one single element -- better public funding of higher education.  Yes, that will include raising taxes.
I can add others.  Here's one: end the war on drugs.  The secondary impact that has on the employability of a huge swath of our population has massive negative ripple effects.
Here's another: provide at least a low-level of basic healthcare on a universal level.  Everyone should be able to go to a primary care doc, get treatment for basic illnesses (especially childhood infections) and the like for cheap/free.  The economic positives (e.g., fewer missed work days by parents with sick kids) would likewise have significant positive ripple effects.
If we sat down with a bottle of whisky or 5, we could come up with 300 such items.  Some little and easy.  Some big and ambitious.  And it will take all of those things to remedy the path we're on.

But that might help some people that are different than me.

[Brisketexan 104628]

1 minute ago, tchookem said:

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

There's no "one solution."  An economy is dynamic and multi-faceted -- a huge understatement, by the way.  The reasons for rising wealth inequality, and the solutions, are multi-faceted.
I posted one single element -- better public funding of higher education.  Yes, that will include raising taxes.
I can add others.  Here's one: end the war on drugs.  The secondary impact that has on the employability of a huge swath of our population has massive negative ripple effects.
Here's another: provide at least a low-level of basic healthcare on a universal level.  Everyone should be able to go to a primary care doc, get treatment for basic illnesses (especially childhood infections) and the like for cheap/free.  The economic positives (e.g., fewer missed work days by parents with sick kids) would likewise have significant positive ripple effects.
If we sat down with a bottle of whisky or 5, we could come up with 300 such items.  Some little and easy.  Some big and ambitious.  And it will take all of those things to remedy the path we're on.

Read more  

But that might help some people that are different than me.

You get it.

[Incredulity 11555]

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

There's no "one solution."  An economy is dynamic and multi-faceted -- a huge understatement, by the way.  The reasons for rising wealth inequality, and the solutions, are multi-faceted.

I posted one single element -- better public funding of higher education.  Yes, that will include raising taxes.

I can add others.  Here's one: end the war on drugs.  The secondary impact that has on the employability of a huge swath of our population has massive negative ripple effects.

Here's another: provide at least a low-level of basic healthcare on a universal level.  Everyone should be able to go to a primary care doc, get treatment for basic illnesses (especially childhood infections) and the like for cheap/free.  The economic positives (e.g., fewer missed work days by parents with sick kids) would likewise have significant positive ripple effects.

If we sat down with a bottle of whisky or 5, we could come up with 300 such items.  Some little and easy.  Some big and ambitious.  And it will take all of those things to remedy the path we're on.

Not to be pedantic but wealth inequality and income inequality are being used in this thread interchangeably. 

Which is still a bit of a different discussion than the United Way link, which is about standard of living at certain income levels.  Which in my view is the most worthy topic.

 

In the simplest sense, I agree a family with 2 wage earners employed in career path jobs should not be living paycheck to paycheck under the above United Way studies income and expenses definition.  FWIW, based on looking at a couple of the state profiles from the United Way report the ALICE wage for a family of two earners is approx $15.  So I guess we will have some real life examples of that solution soon.(as several states have passed path to $15 laws)  

 

[Brisketexan 104628]

2 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Not to be pedantic but wealth inequality and income inequality are being used in this thread interchangeably. 

Which is still a bit of a different discussion than the United Way link, which is about standard of living at certain income levels.  Which in my view is the most worthy topic.

 

In the simplest sense, I agree a family with 2 wage earners employed in career path jobs should not be living paycheck to paycheck under the above United Way studies income and expenses definition.  FWIW, based on looking at a couple of the state profiles from the United Way report the ALICE wage for a family of two earners is approx $15.  So I guess we will have some real life examples of that solution soon.(as several states have passed path to $15 laws)  

 

The terms are used interchangeably, and of course they are not the same or even very close analogs.  There is significant overlap, though, and clearly, negative trends in income lead to negative trends in wealth.  I agree that the standard of living at income levels is the most important issue.

As to mandatory increase in minimum wage, I think that is a red-herring issue for both "sides" in the conversation.  Increasing the minimum wage is a treatment for a symptom of an underlying problem.  The problem isn't people working at McDonald's not getting paid enough.  That is a symptom.  The problem is people working at McDonald's as a long-term job.  And THAT problem ties back to things like education, the impediment of any criminal history, and numerous other related issues.  I'm not saying that some minimum wage re-examination and increase needs to happen, but it's become more a distraction than anything else.

[Sgt Hulk 13648]

On 12/26/2018 at 10:28 AM, Brisketexan said:

And this is where the stats become reality.

There's arguments above of "real adjusted dollars" and all that shit.  That's noise.  Let's talk about what reality is.  Reality is 1) what your income has to go to, and 2) what money you have left over and what you can buy with it.  In other words, because dollars are fungible with what they can be exchanged for, we can and should couch income in terms of fungible items -- e.g., people used to get monthly pay equal to 3X their monthly housing cost.  Now, they only get paid 2.4X their monthly housing cost.

Certain large-ticket costs have gone up dramatically (outpacing any wage growth): housing, health care, and higher education.  Once the average family pays for those items, they have LESS buying power left over than they did 40 years ago (the buying power to acquire a car, take a vacation, etc.).

We spend a shitload of time ranting against socialism, or capitalism, or globalism, or automation, or the death of unions, or whatever your pet rant is.  But the whole point of this thread is that all of us should pause, take a deep breath, and look at the rising flood of inequality that threatens to swamp us all.  History tells us in simple terms that a huge disparity is not sustainable, and ends in collapse/violence/etc.  The water is rising, and right fast.  Telling the folks who have been taking it in the shorts for the last few decades to keep bailing, while the folks living in the fancy housing on the high ground sip cocktails and talk about how people just need to work harder, does jack shit to fend off the flood.  And when the folks in the low land get flooded out, they are coming for your high ground, and they'll take it however they need to. 

Solving this problem is in EVERYONE'S best interest.  It would be smart if we could start looking at solutions unencumbered by our pre-existing biases (meaning that some of the solutions are likely to be more "socialist" than those on the right like, and some of the solutions will be more "capitalist" than those on the left would prefer, and we need to have the spine to just go with those solutions).

But we won't.  We're too wedded to team and talking points.  We'll accuse each other and argue about this shit as the last bit of the ship bubbles and sinks beneath the water.

say it louder for those in the back 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Nothing gets solved until we address the corruption issues.

 Lobbyists, dark money, corporate control, foreign influence, Super PACs, Citizens United.

We are getting nowhere unless our elected officials start serving the people they represent instead of the money that represents them. 

Edited December 27, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[David Dennison 18661]

On 12/24/2018 at 10:13 AM, ChickenSandwich said:

Sorry Commrade.  

Quite the opposite  

Its also a great argument that Democratic policies lead to failure and a change in leadership is needed. 

The more they “redistribute” the worse they make the problem.

Poor Hugo

Name some successful Republican fiscal policies.

I'll wait.

[David Dennison 18661]

On 12/26/2018 at 2:41 PM, Incredulity said:

Imagine a world where everyone made above-average income.  Wait, What?

I have empathy for people who are living paycheck to paycheck.  I have been there, its stressful no doubt.  On the other hand, every job I have ever been on has at least handful of donkeys who shove half their paycheck up their nose and drink another quarter, many who have families to support.  How do you fix that?  Legalize drugs and tax the shit out of it?

Yes.

And tax the shit out of the wealthy. Always do that.

[DaysOff 7853]

What's wealthy to you?

[David Dennison 18661]

36 minutes ago, DaysOff said:

What's wealthy to you?

Anyone currently in the highest income and capital gains tax brackets.

 

[G650 14107]

11 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Anyone currently in the highest income and capital gains tax brackets.

 

Well that's a pretty big spectrum. 

[David Dennison 18661]

50 minutes ago, G650 said:

Well that's a pretty big spectrum. 

It's a baseline. If you're in those brackets, you're wealthy.

[G650 14107]

35 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It's a baseline. If you're in those brackets, you're wealthy.

 

The issue is the guy at the bottom has a hell of a lot more in common with the brackets below him than he does with the people at the top of his own bracket. He still has a mortgage, kids whose colleges need to be paid for, car payments, lives in normal neighborhoods and associates with the bulk of society. The guy who makes 10 to 15 million a year has almost nothing in common with this and most likely lives in a totally different society.

 

They are both well off, but there is a huge difference. 

[David Dennison 18661]

32 minutes ago, G650 said:

 

The issue is the guy at the bottom has a hell of a lot more in common with the brackets below him than he does with the people at the top of his own bracket. He still has a mortgage, kids whose colleges need to be paid for, car payments, lives in normal neighborhoods and associates with the bulk of society. The guy who makes 10 to 15 million a year has almost nothing in common with this and most likely lives in a totally different society.

 

They are both well off, but there is a huge difference. 

Yeah, but the guy at the bottom isn't getting much of that income or wealth taxed at the highest rate. The vast majority of his income is taxed in the lower brackets. 

There need to be more brackets and the top rates need to be much higher.

But $500,000 is a shit ton of money to make in one year.

Edited December 28, 2018 by David Dennison

[G650 14107]

11 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

 

There need to be more brackets and the top rates need to be much higher.

 

 

This is my point.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13414]

12 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Yeah, but the guy at the bottom isn't getting much of that income or wealth taxed at the highest rate. The vast majority of his income is taxed in the lower brackets. 

There need to be more brackets and the top rates need to be much higher.

But $500,000 is a shit ton of money to make in one year.

The guy making 500k disagrees.  He’s not making as much as the guy in the next office over.  He’s only made that much for a couple of years so he’s not wealthy.  Yes, he has a nice house, cars, vacations, but it’s not like he has a million in the bank.    It’s very well documented that very few people think of themselves as wealthy.  

[Biff Tannen 45499]

5 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Nothing gets solved until we address the corruption issues.

 Lobbyists, dark money, corporate control, foreign influence, Super PACs, Citizens United.

We are getting nowhere unless our elected officials start serving the people they represent instead of the money that represents them. 

This is Warren's best platform.  

[elfenix 34172]

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The guy making 500k disagrees.  He’s not making as much as the guy in the next office over.  He’s only made that much for a couple of years so he’s not wealthy.  Yes, he has a nice house, cars, vacations, but it’s not like he has a million in the bank.    It’s very well documented that very few people think of themselves as wealthy.  

billionaires shouldn't be treated the same as 10 millionaires shouldn't be treated the same as high income earners who are still income earners (and maybe only for a few years), rather than sitting on a beach "earning" 20%.  when you're a billionaire you're paying 15% tax on your income and (even more importantly) only when you want to.  assuming standard deduction and no available credits, when you're an earner you're paying 30%+ in federal taxes starting at $123,000 in 1040 income, every single year.  you're paying 20% federal taxes at just $29,000 of income.  but billionaires are politically connected and people making 100 grand ain't shit so the people making 100 grand are paying the taxes necessary to keep the 30k millionaires from uprising and eating the rich.

Edited December 28, 2018 by elfenix

[JimmyJames 12271]

51 minutes ago, elfenix said:

billionaires shouldn't be treated the same as 10 millionaires shouldn't be treated the same as high income earners who are still income earners (and maybe only for a few years), rather than sitting on a beach "earning" 20%.  when you're a billionaire you're paying 15% tax on your income and (even more importantly) only when you want to.  assuming standard deduction and no available credits, when you're an earner you're paying 30%+ in federal taxes starting at $123,000 in 1040 income, every single year.  you're paying 20% federal taxes at just $29,000 of income.  but billionaires are politically connected and people making 100 grand ain't shit so the people making 100 grand are paying the taxes necessary to keep the 30k millionaires from uprising and eating the rich.

This is what the republicans cannot justify and never try to. When pressed they obfuscate and deflect. Shrugging it off saying hey there’s winners and losers in all tax systems. It’s horseshit. 

[Incredulity 11555]

25 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

This is what the republicans cannot justify and never try to. When pressed they obfuscate and deflect. Shrugging it off saying hey there’s winners and losers in all tax systems. It’s horseshit. 

 

Same horse shit as the tax the rich Dems response to defining the rich.  

[Bozo_Casanova 26284]

 
Same horse shit as the tax the rich Dems response to defining the rich.  

Oh bullshit. Let’s put the individual tax brackets back to where they were in 2000 before you people decided you hated surpluses and adjust for inflation.

Done.

[Incredulity 11555]

4 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Oh bullshit. Let’s put the individual tax brackets back to where they were in 2000 before you people decided you hated surpluses and adjust for inflation.

Done.

Adjust for inflation?  So eventually the top rate is 100%.

[elfenix 34172]

9 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Adjust for inflation?  So eventually the top rate is 100%.