Technology Is The Biggest Factor In Inequality

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
When it comes to inequality, technology is the biggest factor? I knew it! Damn you technology! Damn you!

“My reading of the data is that technology is the main driver of the recent increases in inequality. It’s the biggest factor,” says Erik Brynjolfsson, a professor of management at MIT’s Sloan School. The coauthor, with fellow MIT academic Andrew McAfee, of The Second Machine Age, Brynjolfsson, like Piketty, has recently gained unlikely prominence for an academic economist.
 
Those academia are out-out-touch with how the real world works.

Culture is the biggest factor in inequality. Cultures/societies that stress education will do better. Technological divide is a symptom, not a factor.

Throwing money at the education system will not magically improve the students' learning ability. The people that don't want to learn will fall behind.

If people want to earn good wages, they need to learn skills that are valuable in the job market. Learn mathematics, programming, engineering and science not liberal arts.
 
In the US, bad decisions are the biggest factor in inequality.

If you want to party, do drugs, drop out of high school, have a kid when you are 16, these bad decisions that will impact you financially.

Why should someone who does all the above expect to have the same stuff and lifestyle as someone who finishes high school, works full time to pay their way through college, scrimps and saves so they can afford a decent place to live, and then waits until they can afford to get married and have a family?
 
The anger in Northern California and elsewhere in the United States springs from an increasingly obvious reality: the rich are getting richer while many other people are struggling.
This is what happens when the divide widens between the two classes. Money is suppose to circulate, and when you're that rich at some point you begin to buy things that are covered in gold. Rich people buy rich cars with rich homes and rich everything. Which means the money stays with the rich and never trickles down to the poor.

Taxing the rich was the sure fire way to make sure money circulates but propaganda has programmed Americans to think taxing the rich is a bad thing.
It’s hard not to wonder whether Silicon Valley, rather than just exemplifying this growing inequality, is actually contributing to it, by producing digital technologies that eliminate the need for many middle-class jobs. Here, technology is arguably evolving faster than anywhere else in the world. Does the region really portend a future, as Wadhwa would have it, in which a few very rich people leave the rest of us hopelessly behind?
That was inevitably going to happen. We replaced a lot of human labor with machines. We tend to forget that washing cloths was a laboring job, as was dish washing and etc. At some point we'll have to rethink the value of money. Most people have no idea what money really is. It's really just a ledger and nothing more.

We need to radically fix our economic imbalance. Even Bill Gates thinks the economic balanced is broken. Much later down the road we will run into a class war between the rich and poor, but we're nowhere near that breaking point yet. Simple things like taxing the rich more can balance it for now.

As for technology you'll see a bigger divide in closed vs open. The poor will favor open source products while the rich will favor closed. Things like multi functional devices will also favor the poor, while the rich will go for highly specialized devices. The poor will also go for solar power while the rich will try to regulate it. Utilities are already trying to fight the eventual solar power emergence.
 
This isn't exactly a surprise. There are plenty of poor people in the US that don't see the point in having a broadband internet connection, much less any use for it beyond watching youtube videos or checking social media.
 
Those academia are out-out-touch with how the real world works.

Culture is the biggest factor in inequality. Cultures/societies that stress education will do better. Technological divide is a symptom, not a factor.

Throwing money at the education system will not magically improve the students' learning ability. The people that don't want to learn will fall behind.

If people want to earn good wages, they need to learn skills that are valuable in the job market. Learn mathematics, programming, engineering and science not liberal arts.
I agree with the first part, the second part I think is underplaying the larger factors at work. Tuition costs have become monstrously higher than they used to. Laziness levels stay about the same from generation, but opportunities and circumstances don't. I mean hell, in much of Europe, university education is free because it's covered by taxes. It shows the difference in priorities, which as you said, comes down to culture. In the USA our financial priorities tend to be more on the military and whoever pays money for lobbying (typically large business interests) and less on education and infrastructure. It's like you said, it comes down to cultural priorities.
 
This is what happens when the divide widens between the two classes. Money is suppose to circulate, and when you're that rich at some point you begin to buy things that are covered in gold. Rich people buy rich cars with rich homes and rich everything. Which means the money stays with the rich and never trickles down to the poor.

Taxing the rich was the sure fire way to make sure money circulates but propaganda has programmed Americans to think taxing the rich is a bad thing.

Wow, where do I even start....

If a rich person buys a car, then money goes to the dealer/car company, which when pays the sales person, and people who built the car. those people then go out to dinner or buy stuff. That's how the money trickles down to the middle class and eventually the working poor.

When the government raises taxes on the rich (who by the way already pay most the income taxes), the rich have less to spend, they buy less cars or build a smaller mansion. This creates less jobs for the middle class. Instead the money goes to the politicians waste most of it by giving business or grants to their connected, rich supporters or to the government unions. Look at who gets most of these green energy grants/credits, it's not the middle class/poor.

Just look at the last 6 years if you need an example.







As for technology you'll see a bigger divide in closed vs open. The poor will favor open source products while the rich will favor closed. Things like multi functional devices will also favor the poor, while the rich will go for highly specialized devices. The poor will also go for solar power while the rich will try to regulate it. Utilities are already trying to fight the eventual solar power emergence.

Most the poor have no clue what open source is. They just go for what's trendy, like the latest iPhone. they make poor money decisions, and that is why is why they will always be poor.

As for "the poor will also go for solar power", and "Utilities are already trying to fight the eventual solar power emergence", you don't have a clue.

I don't see solar panels going up in poor areas, I see them being install on rich and upper middle class homes. Plus, the poor don't pay enough taxes to take advantage of the tax rebates on solar, you need to have a upper middle class income to take full advantage of the rebates, just like with electric cars.

The utilities haven't been fighting solar power, they have been subsidizing it.
 
...Much later down the road we will run into a class war between the rich and poor, but we're nowhere near that breaking point yet...

And how are the rich going to fight the 99% without hiring soldiers? There's your trickle down.
 
The biggest reason that the middle class is shrinking is that the US doesn't manufacture as much as it used to.
Things go shipped oversea under the guise of keeping product prices down. HAHAHA what a joke all that did was gut our economy, and widen the gap between the top and bottom.

The free market always favors the wealthy, but when those with $$ don't want to pay decent wages, or support jobs, or even pay their share of taxes in this country using loopholes in other countries its not going to keep working.

When a poor person applies for food stamps they are branded a mooch on the system,
when a company gets a subsidy it's just good business... Do we see a problem here?
 
Wow, where do I even start....

If a rich person buys a car, then money goes to the dealer/car company, which when pays the sales person, and people who built the car. those people then go out to dinner or buy stuff. That's how the money trickles down to the middle class and eventually the working poor.

When the government raises taxes on the rich (who by the way already pay most the income taxes), the rich have less to spend, they buy less cars or build a smaller mansion. This creates less jobs for the middle class. Instead the money goes to the politicians waste most of it by giving business or grants to their connected, rich supporters or to the government unions. Look at who gets most of these green energy grants/credits, it's not the middle class/poor.

Just look at the last 6 years if you need an example.









Most the poor have no clue what open source is. They just go for what's trendy, like the latest iPhone. they make poor money decisions, and that is why is why they will always be poor.

As for "the poor will also go for solar power", and "Utilities are already trying to fight the eventual solar power emergence", you don't have a clue.

I don't see solar panels going up in poor areas, I see them being install on rich and upper middle class homes. Plus, the poor don't pay enough taxes to take advantage of the tax rebates on solar, you need to have a upper middle class income to take full advantage of the rebates, just like with electric cars.

The utilities haven't been fighting solar power, they have been subsidizing it.

This right here, taxing the rich does not help the poor. Convincing the rich to spend their money does. As a electrician I make a very good living but doesn't stop from doing side projects for those with lots of money. I love hot tub season, richer people blow money on a $5000 hot tub then need it wired, I charge a flat fee of $500 plus material for 6-7 hours work all on the side tax free. Recently wired a house as well, split $12000 + material 3 ways for 3 weeks of work on weekends and after hours of our normal job all under the table.

All extra taxes do is enable the government to waste it on more useless shit.
 
If a rich person buys a car, then money goes to the dealer/car company, which when pays the sales person, and people who built the car. those people then go out to dinner or buy stuff. That's how the money trickles down to the middle class and eventually the working poor.

When the government raises taxes on the rich (who by the way already pay most the income taxes), the rich have less to spend, they buy less cars or build a smaller mansion. This creates less jobs for the middle class. Instead the money goes to the politicians waste most of it by giving business or grants to their connected, rich supporters or to the government unions. Look at who gets most of these green energy grants/credits, it's not the middle class/poor.

Define rich, because I don't think that's even close to true. Rich people may spend more money per individual, but they also spend far less as a percentage of their income than a poor or middle class person does. Unless they are stupid, a large portion of their income ends up in savings and investments, not goods and services. Any additional money taken away via taxes generally comes out of money that was being hoarded anyway. It doesn't really affect their spending habits. Not to mention, most of the taxes paid by the truly wealthy are in the form of capital gains taxes. I'm in the 25% tax bracket. Capital gains is 15%.

Bottom line is, trickle down economics has been proven false. It just doesn't work. Also, when I say rich, I'm talking top 0.1%, people who are making well over $1 mil per year. I'm not talking about doctors and lawyers and small business owners. Those people are upper middle class, and I do think they should get some tax breaks, along with the lower middle class and poor. Those are the people who spend the money that drives the economy.
 
plupien79 said:
When a poor person applies for food stamps they are branded a mooch on the system,when a company gets a subsidy it's just good business... Do we see a problem here?
Some people would sooner tell you the sky isn't blue before recognizing this...

nutzo said:
When the government raises taxes on the rich (who by the way already pay most the income taxes)
And yet they pay a far less PERCENTAGE of their income than everyone else. So in other words, we reward the people who have it easiest and make life harder for those who already have it hard. Are you a follower of the "just-world" philosophy by any chance?

If a rich person buys a car, then money goes to the dealer/car company, which when pays the sales person, and people who built the car. those people then go out to dinner or buy stuff. That's how the money trickles down to the middle class and eventually the working poor.
Trickle down economics flat out doesn't work, it's been put to the test ever since Reagan and wages for the middle class have stagnated during that entire time while the cost of living has crept up. The reality is rich people horde more. If you earn 200 million in a year, you're not buying hundreds of cars. The closer to the bottom you are, the more of your income you spend simply on basic needs and may spend it on many more things if they had the opportunity; whereas if a rich person has 800 million v. 750 million, that 50 million difference really hasn't been what's holding them back from doing something with their money.

Don't get me wrong though, the government raising taxes on the rich doesn't help anything when the rich themselves are running the government.
 
This is what happens when the divide widens between the two classes. Money is suppose to circulate, and when you're that rich at some point you begin to buy things that are covered in gold. Rich people buy rich cars with rich homes and rich everything. Which means the money stays with the rich and never trickles down to the poor.

Taxing the rich was the sure fire way to make sure money circulates but propaganda has programmed Americans to think taxing the rich is a bad thing.

That was inevitably going to happen. We replaced a lot of human labor with machines. We tend to forget that washing cloths was a laboring job, as was dish washing and etc. At some point we'll have to rethink the value of money. Most people have no idea what money really is. It's really just a ledger and nothing more.

We need to radically fix our economic imbalance. Even Bill Gates thinks the economic balanced is broken. Much later down the road we will run into a class war between the rich and poor, but we're nowhere near that breaking point yet. Simple things like taxing the rich more can balance it for now.

As for technology you'll see a bigger divide in closed vs open. The poor will favor open source products while the rich will favor closed. Things like multi functional devices will also favor the poor, while the rich will go for highly specialized devices. The poor will also go for solar power while the rich will try to regulate it. Utilities are already trying to fight the eventual solar power emergence.
Communism is bad...

There is a limit to how much you can tax the rich. America already has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. High taxes are driving corporations out of the country. Lower taxes, less regulation, and decreasing the power of unions may bring those corporations (and corporate jobs) back to America.
 
This right here, taxing the rich does not help the poor.

And hoarding money does?

All extra taxes do is enable the government to waste it on more useless shit.

It may be wasteful, but it also boosts the economy. Question, what is the correct fiscal policy from a monetarily sovereign government during a recession?

Answer: spend spend spend. That is the only way to break out of a recession and any attempts to cut spending will only prolong the misery. So many people don't seem to understand the concept of monetary sovereignty and think the government should budget the same way individuals do, and that couldn't be more false.
 
Communism is bad...

There is a limit to how much you can tax the rich. America already has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. High taxes are driving corporations out of the country. Lower taxes, less regulation, and decreasing the power of unions may bring those corporations (and corporate jobs) back to America.

Really? The top tax percentage right now is 39.6% on income over $440,000. Going back to the mid 80's, it was 50% at I think around $350,000, adjusted for inflation. I don't recall rich people back then hurting all that much. Let's go back even further. 1980. 49% on income over $127,000, progressively going up to 70% on income over $600,000. Oh the poor rich people! How did they ever survive?? Let's go back even further. 1960. The tax rate increased progressively all the way up to 91% for income over $3.1 million. And yet we still had plenty of rich people, plenty of business owners, and plenty of jobs. In fact, unemployment that year was lower than it is now. Taxes are not evil, they are necessary for any large civilization to survive. A small group of people hoarding all the money hurts everyone, including themselves.
 
The other day I saw a guy holding a cardboard sign near a traffic intersection asking for money for food. I shit you not...he was texting on a smartphone while holding it.
 
Taxing the rich was the sure fire way to make sure money circulates but propaganda has programmed Americans to think taxing the rich is a bad thing.

So can you explain why the Democrat party, who is in favor of taxing the rich, is also a huge defender of public teacher's unions which have failed this nation's poor and relegated them to staying poor?

Let's logically think this out: Who generally votes Republican? The rich. Who usually votes Democrat? The poor. If you have a very good education you are more likely to make more money. Who is incentivized to keep people uneducated and poor and who is incentivized to help people get educated and make money?
 
Really? The top tax percentage right now is 39.6% on income over $440,000. Going back to the mid 80's, it was 50% at I think around $350,000, adjusted for inflation. I don't recall rich people back then hurting all that much. Let's go back even further. 1980. 49% on income over $127,000, progressively going up to 70% on income over $600,000. Oh the poor rich people! How did they ever survive?? Let's go back even further. 1960. The tax rate increased progressively all the way up to 91% for income over $3.1 million. And yet we still had plenty of rich people, plenty of business owners, and plenty of jobs. In fact, unemployment that year was lower than it is now. Taxes are not evil, they are necessary for any large civilization to survive. A small group of people hoarding all the money hurts everyone, including themselves.

Good job completely confusing income tax rates with corporate tax rates and thinking that 39.6% has fuck-all to do with the rich's primary wealth stream.
 
Odd, I think my poor friends are the ones who are always blowing every penny they have on a fancy new phone every 4 months, tablets, giant TVs, car stereos, and then complaining that they can't afford to buy food.
 
Really? The top tax percentage right now is 39.6% on income over $440,000. Going back to the mid 80's, it was 50% at I think around $350,000, adjusted for inflation. I don't recall rich people back then hurting all that much. Let's go back even further. 1980. 49% on income over $127,000, progressively going up to 70% on income over $600,000. Oh the poor rich people! How did they ever survive?? Let's go back even further. 1960. The tax rate increased progressively all the way up to 91% for income over $3.1 million. And yet we still had plenty of rich people, plenty of business owners, and plenty of jobs. In fact, unemployment that year was lower than it is now. Taxes are not evil, they are necessary for any large civilization to survive. A small group of people hoarding all the money hurts everyone, including themselves.

You're talking nominal tax rates, not effective tax rates. Back in the 91% nominal tax days, you could write off almost anything which drove the effective tax rate down. No matter what, taxes are basically always 15 to 20% of GDP.

U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_GDP_1945%E2%80%932015.jpg
 
Most the poor have no clue what open source is. They just go for what's trendy, like the latest iPhone/
The opposite of this is true. Income and iphone ownership have a significant correlation.

"Cell phone owners from a wide range of educational and household income groupings have similar levels of Android adoption, but those from the upper end of the income and education spectrum are much more likely than those with lower income and educational levels to say they own an iPhone."
http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/06/05/smartphone-ownership-2013/
 
LOL @ trickle down

LOL at increased taxation benefitting the poor. Where do you think 95% of that extra money goes: backdoor deals, pet projects, favored contractors, corruption. Meanwhile our crumbling, outdated infrastructure is embarassing. Eisenhower would be rolling in his grave to see what government has become.

Trickle-down economics is obviously a flawed concept. Raising taxes on the rich beyond the already high levels is even worse. BTW I have no love for Wall Street barons and their record profits and record market, while the rest of America struggles. They're holding back on investing and hiring. Both of these things need to be heavily incentivized.
 
Good job completely confusing income tax rates with corporate tax rates and thinking that 39.6% has fuck-all to do with the rich's primary wealth stream.

I already touched earlier on the rich's primary wealth stream, capital gains (which also has nothing to do with corporate tax rates). My point was about people who cry that increasing taxes on the rich is somehow going to affect jobs and the economy because they will have less money to "trickle down", which is complete nonsense.
 
You're talking nominal tax rates, not effective tax rates. Back in the 91% nominal tax days, you could write off almost anything which drove the effective tax rate down. No matter what, taxes are basically always 15 to 20% of GDP.

U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_GDP_1945%E2%80%932015.jpg

That just supports my point further that higher tax rates do not effect the rich, at all. Maybe I need to clarify where I'm directing my points. The average Joe that is against raising taxes on the rich doesn't understand how progressive taxes work, and also doesn't know what rich really is. They think a doctor pulling in $200k is somehow rich. I hear people at work all the time complaining about taxes who think that a 91% tax rate on the rich means they would actually pay 91% of their income in taxes. They don't know that capital gains taxes are stupid low, they don't know that the highest tax brackets are only taxing income ABOVE that amount, and they also don't know just how little the rich actually pay in taxes due to deductions and loopholes.

What I would support is more income brackets above the current level, going up to at least $1 mil and maybe higher. I would adjust the rates in the lower levels DOWN, giving the middle class a tax cut. And then I would make capital gains taxes match income taxes.
 
That just supports my point further that higher tax rates do not effect the rich, at all. Maybe I need to clarify where I'm directing my points. The average Joe that is against raising taxes on the rich doesn't understand how progressive taxes work, and also doesn't know what rich really is. They think a doctor pulling in $200k is somehow rich. I hear people at work all the time complaining about taxes who think that a 91% tax rate on the rich means they would actually pay 91% of their income in taxes. They don't know that capital gains taxes are stupid low, they don't know that the highest tax brackets are only taxing income ABOVE that amount, and they also don't know just how little the rich actually pay in taxes due to deductions and loopholes.

What I would support is more income brackets above the current level, going up to at least $1 mil and maybe higher. I would adjust the rates in the lower levels DOWN, giving the middle class a tax cut. And then I would make capital gains taxes match income taxes.
Why is it cheaper for a corporation to build a factory in China, ship raw materials across an ocean and than ship it all back rather than to build a factory in America and eliminate the ocean crossings? Taxes, regulation and high labor costs. We have to borrow a trillion dollars a year because the Federal Government cannot collect enough taxes to pay the bills. We would have to raise taxes by a trillion dollar just to break even never mind redistributing wealth to the poor.

Communism doesn't work; American Capitalism has demonstrated that it does work. Progressive politicians and their supporters claim to support the middle class but they really do not. They support the poor and radical fringe groups and expect the middle-class and the rich to pay for their socialist policies.
 
So can you explain why the Democrat party, who is in favor of taxing the rich, is also a huge defender of public teacher's unions which have failed this nation's poor and relegated them to staying poor?

As someone who worked for one of the largest school districts in CA years ago, who has a mother as a teacher and a GF as a teacher, I don't think your categorization of teachers or teacher's unions is all that correct. Certainly there are bad teachers out there, but that exists in ALL professions. Teachers have to teach the curriculum given to them and they have zero say in it. The standards they have to teach to are shit. On top of that, parents have a HUGE effect on how well a student does. My GF works in a lower income district with kids that are mostly ELL's (English Language Learners). The kids who have parents that care and take an active role in their child's education all do very very well, and she gets reports from teachers in the upper grades of how well students my GF had taught the previous years are doing. Then there are those students who's parents don't give a shit and treat school as a daycare, and those students are falling behind the rest. Same teacher, same classroom, same curriculum, same household income levels. Yet some students thrive and some students don't. The difference is almost always parenting.
 
The number of people in Washington that would die before letting that happen is immense.

I agree, which is why it'll never happen. But it SHOULD happen. Capital gains ARE income and should be treated as such.
 
I agree, which is why it'll never happen. But it SHOULD happen. Capital gains ARE income and should be treated as such.

Same reason it'll never happen is the same reason members of Congress can engage in insider trading free from prosecution. They are a royal class. They hobnob with celebrities. Bow to your lords.

But you know the presumption they're operating on, right? The presumption that no matter what, nobody's going to truly raise a rifle, no matter what they do?

Arrogance leads to downfall.
 
Why is it cheaper for a corporation to build a factory in China, ship raw materials across an ocean and than ship it all back rather than to build a factory in America and eliminate the ocean crossings? Taxes, regulation and high labor costs. We have to borrow a trillion dollars a year because the Federal Government cannot collect enough taxes to pay the bills. We would have to raise taxes by a trillion dollar just to break even never mind redistributing wealth to the poor.

Communism doesn't work; American Capitalism has demonstrated that it does work. Progressive politicians and their supporters claim to support the middle class but they really do not. They support the poor and radical fringe groups and expect the middle-class and the rich to pay for their socialist policies.

Because Chinese companies pays their workers slave wages. Do you think we should pay American's the same? Do you think we should abandon all labor protections? I don't know about you, but I would rather live in a country that pays a decent wage and treats employees well rather than a country that treats it's employees like animals.

Regarding the deficit and the debt, did you know that it really doesn't matter? As long as we can pay the interest (which we can), it doesn't matter what the debt is. It could be 10 trillion or 1,000 trillion and it doesn't make a damn bit a difference. The debt could be wiped out with the stroke of a pen (not saying that's a good idea, but it can be done). The government does not have to operate like a household, or a business, or a city, or even a state. The government cannot go bankrupt. If we cut spending right now to the point where we could run a surplus and pay down the debt, it would throw us into another recession.

And the US is nowhere near communist or socialist, and we also do not have a pure capitalist system. In fact, capitalism would ruin this country further than it already is. You would have a society of giant monopolies and corporations that would do whatever the hell they wanted to with no regard for anyone but their own pockets. Hell, they already do that as much as they can. Image how much worse it would be if there were no regulations to keep companies in check.
 
And hoarding money does?

Way to read and quote only what you want, very next sentence I stated getting them to spend it is what helps the lower class. I see paying the government more taxes like donating to big name African charities where 80 cents to the dollar goes to them and Maybe 20 cent go to where it's meant for. I love the idea of avoiding higher taxes by offering write offs for spending money, want less taxes? Buy a bunch of shit and services and we will tax you less, that boosts the economy way more than paying taxes so the military can have a new jet and politicians have more cash.
 
Define rich, because I don't think that's even close to true. Rich people may spend more money per individual, but they also spend far less as a percentage of their income than a poor or middle class person does. Unless they are stupid, a large portion of their income ends up in savings and investments, not goods and services. Any additional money taken away via taxes generally comes out of money that was being hoarded anyway. It doesn't really affect their spending habits. Not to mention, most of the taxes paid by the truly wealthy are in the form of capital gains taxes. I'm in the 25% tax bracket. Capital gains is 15%.

Bottom line is, trickle down economics has been proven false. It just doesn't work. Also, when I say rich, I'm talking top 0.1%, people who are making well over $1 mil per year. I'm not talking about doctors and lawyers and small business owners. Those people are upper middle class, and I do think they should get some tax breaks, along with the lower middle class and poor. Those are the people who spend the money that drives the economy.

You mean just like when Clinton imposed the luxury tax and so many of the rich stopped buying fancy cars and yachts, that thousands of middle class people lost their job?

As for capital gains, that is really double taxation in many cases. A business pays taxes on their profits, and when they distribute those profits to the share holders, it get taxed again as capital gains. Doesn't really sound fare to me.

Also, where do you think money to start businesses comes from? It's all those rich people and the money they saved. I've never had a poor person offer me a job.

The real bottom line is that trickle down economics is the only thing that works. However you need to get government out of the way for it to work. We have had the opposite for the past 6 years, and it has resulted in suffering for almost everyone.

Basic economics 101: If you subsidize something you will get more of it, tax something and you will get less.
Regulations are a tax, so if you regulate businesses you will have less business. Welfare is a subsidy, the more you give out, the more poor you will create. Not saying there should no regulation or no welfare, but what we currently have is sending our economy in the wrong direction.
 
thejokker said:
American Capitalism has demonstrated that it does work.
Works for who? Wages for the middle class have stagnated for the past 30+ years while cost of living has gone up. Since the start of the recession, 93-95% of income gains have gone to the top 1%. We essentially have regulatory capture of our whole political system now. If you're not paying for a lobbyist, you essentially don't have a voice in the American political system. American Capitalism has ZERO incentive to protect the environment, which we kind of need to live in the long term. I think American Capitalism works great for the very rich and gradually screws everyone else hard. But hey, we do get shiny gadgets to distract us!

Same reason it'll never happen is the same reason members of Congress can engage in insider trading free from prosecution. They are a royal class. They hobnob with celebrities. Bow to your lords.

But you know the presumption they're operating on, right? The presumption that no matter what, nobody's going to truly raise a rifle, no matter what they do?
Well they've been proven right again and again and again. Thanks to propaganda we're too divided ideologically to form any serious movement, or in the event it did get formed, it would be directed in the wrong direction. I admit I'm more pessimistic about us ever getting our shit together to undo our thoroughly corrupted system.
 
Way to read and quote only what you want, very next sentence I stated getting them to spend it is what helps the lower class. I see paying the government more taxes like donating to big name African charities where 80 cents to the dollar goes to them and Maybe 20 cent go to where it's meant for. I love the idea of avoiding higher taxes by offering write offs for spending money, want less taxes? Buy a bunch of shit and services and we will tax you less, that boosts the economy way more than paying taxes so the military can have a new jet and politicians have more cash.

And how do you get someone to spend more who already can afford and buys anything they want, and has more money than most people will see in 100 lifetimes? You could cut their taxes down to zero and it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference to their spending. All of that extra cash would sit in a bank account, likely one not even in the US. These super rich aren't collecting all of this money because they want to buy more shit. They are greedy fucks who just want more and more and more. They want to see the numbers go up even if they will never spend even a fraction of it. And the funny thing is, it's often that greed and that drive to always have more that made them successful in the first place.

Regarding your last sentence, I think if there is one area of government spending that needs to be cut more than anything, it's the military. Fuck buying more planes. We need better roads and bridges and other infrastructure.
 
Because Chinese companies pays their workers slave wages. Do you think we should pay American's the same? Do you think we should abandon all labor protections? I don't know about you, but I would rather live in a country that pays a decent wage and treats employees well rather than a country that treats it's employees like animals.

Then we should have the federal government be funded the way it used to be funded. Lower the federal income tax, and raise import tariffs. That would make imported goods more expensive, and create more jobs in the US (even with the higher pay).
Free trade does not mean no tariffs. I think we need to look at other countries and their import tariffs, and raise our tariffs to match.
 
I've never had a poor person offer me a job
The real bottom line is that trickle down economics is the only thing that works.
Hey, when you're not literally quoting Bill O'Reily, could you provide, you know, some actual EVIDENCE of this? How about even multiple sources showing a clear trend! Keep in mind this is not the same thing as anecdotes.
 
And hoarding money does?

Uhhh actually yes. When money is "hoarded" by a rich person it's usually invested in stocks, bonds, or held in cash at a bank. It's obvious how investing in stocks and bonds helps the economy. If cash is "hoarded" at the bank, the bank uses fractional reserve lending and actually multiplies this "hoarded" money and turns it into loans for middle class people to buy houses, for poor people to buy cars, or for young kids to borrow money to go to college. The idea of "hoarding money" is a fallacy propagated by liberal leaders and believed by financial illiterates.
 
You mean just like when Clinton imposed the luxury tax and so many of the rich stopped buying fancy cars and yachts, that thousands of middle class people lost their job?

As for capital gains, that is really double taxation in many cases. A business pays taxes on their profits, and when they distribute those profits to the share holders, it get taxed again as capital gains. Doesn't really sound fare to me.

Also, where do you think money to start businesses comes from? It's all those rich people and the money they saved. I've never had a poor person offer me a job.

The real bottom line is that trickle down economics is the only thing that works. However you need to get government out of the way for it to work. We have had the opposite for the past 6 years, and it has resulted in suffering for almost everyone.

Basic economics 101: If you subsidize something you will get more of it, tax something and you will get less.
Regulations are a tax, so if you regulate businesses you will have less business. Welfare is a subsidy, the more you give out, the more poor you will create. Not saying there should no regulation or no welfare, but what we currently have is sending our economy in the wrong direction.

Holy shit, where do I begin with this mess?

Luxury tax: Taxing PRODUCTS like that is stupid. Consumption taxes are stupid to a point are stupid, because yes it does disincentivize spending. Taxing the rich means taxing their income (including capital gains) not taxes purchases more.

Double taxation: If you look at it that way, all of our income is double, triple, quadruple taxed, etc. I don't know how you get around that unless you move to something like a land tax (which I would fully support).

Jobs: Please don't tell me you believe the lie that the rich are the job creators. Demand for products and services creates jobs, NOT rich people. I don't care how many tax breaks and subsidies you give to business owners, no one is going to hire anyone if there isn't demand for what you are selling. Demand largely comes from a strong middle class. The more the average person makes (or keeps), the more cash they have to spend, the more products they purchase, and the more labor companies will need to produce those products. If a company is already meeting current demand, and you give them a tax break, they aren't going to go hire another unnecessary person out of the goodness of their hearts, or even increase wages. All of that extra cash will just end up in their pockets.

Trickle down economics: Se above. It does NOT work and that has been proven.

Welfare: Welfare is such a tiny portion of the overall federal budget that it's almost not worth talking about. People bitch about how much money the government is wasting on the poor, yet they won't ever look at the top 3 expenses on the federal budget, Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, and Defense. No one should ever say shit about government waste without including one or all of those 3, because they dwarf any other spending by a huge amount. Not to mention, welfare in small part reduces crime. There will always be lazy fucks who don't want to work and will exploit the system. Take aware welfare and they will just go rob people. Of course, that's a very small portion of welfare. And don't even get me started on corporate welfare which is by far a larger problem.

Regulation: It's a necessary evil because companies will always do what's in their own best interest and the interest of their shareholders and don't give a flying fuck about their customers or anyone else. They would gladly dump toxic waste into rivers and lakes if it reduced their cost by 1%. No, not all companies behave this way, but enough do it that regulations are needed.
 
Back
Top