Technology Is The Biggest Factor In Inequality

[Seventyfive]

We need better roads and bridges and other infrastructure.

Yea I totally agree!! Let's put these all over the nation!

 

[the-one1]

blah blah blah LIBERAL. blah blah blah CONSERVATIVE.

 

[NickS]

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.

Amen brother.

 

[i960]

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.

How is money hoarded in overseas bank accounts helping the US economy?

I'm not against investments at all. But I would still rather see that cash in the pockets of the middle class who will directly spend it on goods and services rather than in some rich guys portfolio.

 

[wabbitseason]

TThe 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.

The definition of "rich" in the context of the argument also matters, which is why I quoted the above.

Someone pulling in, 200, 300, 400, even 500k is not rich by the standards of those who really move things in our country financially. They are drops in the bucket. They are irrelevant. Joe that is FOR raising taxes on the rich defines rich as "anyone making more money than I am, the bastards". That is a childish and stupid definition, which pairs well with the average childish and stupid person.

These are the small business owners, the technical elite, the best consultants, the competent, the intelligent, the value-creating, the indispensible. They are Atlas. They need to be thanked, not derided as "rich jerks hoarding money".

There is an entire category of people who look down on even them from miles above and laugh. How does a CEO get where he is? Is it competence? Or political maneuvering, the right connections, the right timing, and the right amount of psychopathy? What about a lobbyist who schmoozes with Senators? These are the people who need to be brough in line. Not the brain surgeon with rare, indispensible skills pulling in 500k a year.

 

[Seventyfive]

How is money hoarded in overseas bank accounts helping the US economy?

I'm not against investments at all. But I would still rather see that cash in the pockets of the middle class who will directly spend it on goods and services rather than in some rich guys portfolio.

You completely missed the point AGAIN. Even if it's in a rich guy's portfolio, even if that money is overseas, will still help the poor and middle class. In fact, look around your house and ask yourself how many products are made by overseas companies.

For example, even if his money is in Luxembourg and he invests in BP, BP will use their lower cost of capital in something like their Whiting refinery which is in the USA which will increase employment here.

 

[i960]

Yea I totally agree!! Let's put these all over the nation!

Right, because roads and bridges are the same thing as million dollar outhouses...

Everyone laughs at how much the government overspends on things, and yet in many cases they actually underspend. At least local governments do. When we get road projects done in my city, they are always given to the lowest bidder, not the one who can do the best job or provide the most value. There is a company from Los Angeles that comes here and underbids on pretty much all of our roadwork, and none of the local paving companies can get much work. The out of town guys do shit work and often roads that were brand new 5 years ago have to be torn up and redone. All because some politician wanted to save a few bucks on this years budget. In government, there almost seems to be no such thing as doing it right the first time.

 

[tetris42]

The definition of "rich" in the context of the argument also matters, which is why I quoted the above.

Someone pulling in, 200, 300, 400, even 500k is not rich by the standards of those who really move things in our country financially. They are drops in the bucket. They are irrelevant. Joe that is FOR raising taxes on the rich defines rich as "anyone making more money than I am, the bastards". That is a childish and stupid definition, which pairs well with the average childish and stupid person.

These are the small business owners, the technical elite, the best consultants, the competent, the intelligent, the value-creating, the indispensible. They are Atlas. They need to be thanked, not derided as "rich jerks hoarding money".

There is an entire category of people who look down on even them from miles above and laugh. How does a CEO get where he is? Is it competence? Or political maneuvering, the right connections, the right timing, and the right amount of psychopathy? What about a lobbyist who schmoozes with Senators? These are the people who need to be brough in line. Not the brain surgeon with rare, indispensible skills pulling in 500k a year.

Yeah, it's really night and day. I think an easy test is do you have so much money you are paying lobbyists to get laws changed in your favor? If so, that's literally dismantling democracy. Why some people celebrate that is beyond me...

 

[MrCaffeineX]

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.

People always like to point out these tax rates without considering the additional factors that affect the system. First and foremost, in 1960 the United States was one of two remaining superpowers after the end of WWII. We were the manufacturing capital of the world and we loaned money extensively to countries that were not as fortunate as we were due to geography (i.e. how many bombs were dropped on urban population centers in the US during WWII?). The fact that our currency still had some physical backing is another debatable point, but not a priority in this discussion.

We had plenty of "rich" people and the largest middle class as a percentage of the population post-WWII in large part because the opportunity was there for people to work hard, achieve, move up the economic ladder, etc. There was a certain amount of government subsidy as well, but the costs of running the government were entirely different than they are today. It is literally apples and oranges. So are discussions on cost of living.

Nicholas Eberstadt discusses this at length in his book A Nation of Takers. There are prominent economists on both sides of the aisle that also recognize that the US is not the manufacturing superpower that it once was. Assuming that the solutions of a bygone era are applicable in today's economic climate is pure fantasy.

This brings us back to culture, which is definitely a major factor, if not the biggest (debatable point) factor in inequality. One could easily argue that we have inequality because we allow it and by definition a purely capitalist economic system needs inequality. Someone must have something in order for someone else to be willing to purchase it. The fine points of bartering and value come into play, but at its core it requires that resources are distributed unequally, otherwise it would be a communist/socialist economic system.

To some extent we do have a socialist economic system in so much that we as a society have agreed to a certain level of resource redistribution in exchange for both order and civility. How much we redistribute and where we get those resources from to redistribute them are decided by our cultural values. Blaming the rich has unfortunately become a facet of the culture of a large part of the segment of the population that is not rich.

Technology is both a factor and a symptom of economic inequality. Automation and the limited role of manufacturing in our country has eliminated the need for a lot of the middle class jobs that were once plentiful. These were your union factory jobs, automobile assemblers, welders, etc. Combined with the retirement of the massive baby boomer generation, we have a recipe for disaster that will not be averted merely by taxing the rich for everything they make/own.

On the flip-side, even the poorest in our country have access to technology that was exclusively the domain of the economic elite in the past. This has shifted the priorities of many people without them necessarily realizing it. One example was the debate over contraceptive coverage by health insurers. The same people that claimed that they did not have enough money to buy contraceptives owned smart phones with phone bills equal to or greater than the costs of their contraceptives every month. Due to the prevalence of technology though, they often didn't realize that they had made a choice as to how to spend their income and in turn demanded that other people subsidize their poor decision making skills.

I have to say that Creepy was actually right on point, though I think it was in another thread, that people need to make better decisions with respect to money, and that if they did so, a lot of these rich vs poor debates wouldn't be necessary. I would add that the government should step in in instances of fraud, abuse, con-artistry, etc., but not to the extent of making everyone's purchasing decisions for them, which is effectively what happens in a true centrally-managed economy.

 

[Seventyfive]

In government, there almost seems to be no such thing as doing it right the first time.

So your solution is to give people like that MORE money?

The government is able to waste money because they give money to the wrong people because they don't have the same incentives as a private company. The amount of corruption in the government giving work to relatives and people who helped them get elected is staggering.

Think of your favorite game studio. Now imagine if the US government said "we need to spend more money to stimulate the economy" and taxed every gamer $10 and then bought 100 million copies of the worst game made from the worst studio you can think of. This company now puts your favorite game studio out of business. Is that fair to you? Is that actually helping the economy? All we did was reward the wrong business on the whim of some politician rather than let gamers freely spend their $10 towards the good game studio.

I pray to fucking God you understand this analogy.

 

[xX_Jack_Carver_Xx]

This MIT guy needs a beating.

 

[i960]

You completely missed the point AGAIN. Even if it's in a rich guy's portfolio, even if that money is overseas, will still help the poor and middle class. In fact, look around your house and ask yourself how many products are made by overseas companies.

For example, even if his money is in Luxembourg and he invests in BP, BP will use their lower cost of capital in something like their Whiting refinery which is in the USA which will increase employment here.

No I did not miss your point, but I think you missed mine. Let's say the government is going to cut taxes by 100 billion dollars. Which do you think will have a more direct and immediate effect to our economy, cutting those taxes on people making under $500k, or cutting those taxes on people making over $500k? I'm not saying that money sitting in bank accounts and investments never hits our economy, I'm saying it has a smaller and slower effect. Especially if it's overseas, where other countries economies will see a larger impact from the money than ours.

 

[i960]

So your solution is to give people like that MORE money?

The government is able to waste money because they give money to the wrong people because they don't have the same incentives as a private company. The amount of corruption in the government giving work to relatives and people who helped them get elected is staggering.

Think of your favorite game studio. Now imagine if the US government said "we need to spend more money to stimulate the economy" and taxed every gamer $10 and then bought 100 million copies of the worst game made from the worst studio you can think of. This company now puts your favorite game studio out of business. Is that fair to you? Is that actually helping the economy? All we did was reward the wrong business on the whim of some politician rather than let gamers freely spend their $10 towards the good game studio.

I pray to fucking God you understand this analogy.

What? I don't think you understood what I said at all. I'm saying if 3 companies are bidding on a job. Company A cuts corners like a mofo and does shit work, and as such comes in with the lowest bid. Company B does great work, but they charge way way too much money. Company C also does great work, but they charge a reasonable amount and come in somewhere in the middle of the bid. Which company gets the government contract? Answer, A. Always A, no matter what. They are REQUIRED to pick the lowest bidder regardless of value or quality. I'm saying that the government should be a lot more objective in who they pick. The company doing the best work for the money is the one who should be picked. That way the money is spent once and you get a lasting product, rather than having to redo it over and over because of shit work.

 

[jimmyb]

This MIT guy needs a beating.

Yes, the correct response to a researched article is to beat the guy.

 

[Seventyfive]

No I did not miss your point, but I think you missed mine. Let's say the government is going to cut taxes by 100 billion dollars. Which do you think will have a more direct and immediate effect to our economy, cutting those taxes on people making under $500k, or cutting those taxes on people making over $500k? I'm not saying that money sitting in bank accounts and investments never hits our economy, I'm saying it has a smaller and slower effect. Especially if it's overseas, where other countries economies will see a larger impact from the money than ours.

You would have a greater effect by cutting the taxes from the highest end of the spectrum because of all the reasons I mentioned above as well as the fact that the people on the highest end of the spectrum are generally the most economically productive from their labor. As tax rates go up, people are disincentivized to work for the next marginal dollar whereas you don't have this limitation on people at the lower tax rates. This is called the laffer curve and is evidenced by your anecdotal recounting of the various stated tax rates and the static nature of the tax revenues vs GDP.

 

[Red Falcon]

Oh lord, not another one of these threads.
Steve, how is this tech-related news?

Lately, these articles have done nothing but turn [H]ard into a political soapbox, and really, they belong more in Genmay than here.
Nice find, it's just, kind of sad though that this is where the world has gone.

 

[Stiletto]

This MIT guy needs a beating.

You sound like you write for Gawker.

 

[i960]

You would have a greater effect by cutting the taxes from the highest end of the spectrum because of all the reasons I mentioned above as well as the fact that the people on the highest end of the spectrum are generally the most economically productive from their labor. As tax rates go up, people are disincentivized to work for the next marginal dollar whereas you don't have this limitation on people at the lower tax rates. This is called the laffer curve and is evidenced by your anecdotal recounting of the various stated tax rates and the static nature of the tax revenues vs GDP.

If we're gonna go by the laffer curve then we would be better off raising taxes across the board.

And I'm sorry but I absolutely do not see how a rich person is going to choose to work less and make less money overall just because his taxes went up a little bit. Those people are very often driven by greed and the desire for more. They will exploit every single loophole they can find to get around the taxes, but they are not going to stop working regardless of the tax rate because that would result in less money in their pocket.

And again, the economy is driven by spending, and the middle class is the primary source of this. You give Mr. Middle Class $1000 in tax breaks, and he'll go out and buy a big screen TV or something else, having a direct and immediate effect on the economy. You give Sir Richy Rich $1000, and it ends up in his savings account, bank account (local or offshore) retirement account, or investments. It will NOT have a direct and immediate effect on the economy. It will have some effect on the economy, but not as much as a middle class person buying shit. Trickle down does not work. It's not even up for debate.

 

[lcpiper]

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.

Bullshit.

You can't just tax the rich and fix the problems, the people who posted before you are not wrong. Taxing the rich and giving the money to those who haven't earned it will only make the rich move and take their money with them. The rich pay their share just like most of us here on this forum do. But neither increasing taxes on the rich or anything else you suggest will stop some bum from taking a dump next to the bench at the bus stop in broad daylight in downtown San Francisco.

As far as a class war goes, maybe maybe something else. Whatever it will be called it will probably be nasty and it will also probably be exactly what we need. We need some starving fuckers learning what survival is really all about. A little Depression Era suffering will teach people the truth again. When it comes down to do eat dog then people will see what it is you have to do to make it and all that other bullshit will fall by the roadside.

Won't be the first time, won't be the last.

 

[Makaveli@BETA]

Oh lord, not another one of these threads.
Steve, how is this tech-related news?

Lately, these articles have done nothing but turn [H]ard into a political soapbox, and really, they belong more in Genmay than here.
Nice find, it's just, kind of sad though that this is where the world has gone.

I don't see a problem with this thread. These kind of discussions are important and help break up the monotony that is the AMD vs NV and Intel well vs themselves.

And i'm Canadian not even American and this is still a very interesting topic.

Just reading the last 3 pages makes one think.

I say continue with the posting people!

 

[UrielDagda]

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.

The only reason taxes drive corporations out of the country is because those that are sickeningly wealthy still aren't satisfied. To say we have to bow to greed is a gateway to fascism.

Taxes are lower now than they have been in decades. The people on top are making more money than at any other point in US history, and they still complain. Corporate taxes in the 1950s were monstrous compared to today, and it spawned the middle class. I guess you'd consider that the period of US Communism?

If we cut taxes to zero for these greedy bastards, 20 years from now they'd be demanding to be paid millions by taxpayers to stay here.. Hell a lot of companies that complain about the taxes already are getting around them and paying zero and getting subsidies and still complaining.

We've been doing exactly what you've said since 1980. Then we doubled down, and tripled down on it and it's sent the economy straight in the shitter. So you're proposing we quadruple down on it? And if it doesn't work then what? At what point does it magically create a healthy economy that works for everybody and gives us a robust middle class again?

How long are we going to smash our heads against this Trickle Down wall, until we kill ourselves?

 

[maverikv]

The only people who think that the rich are taxed too high are the rich and people who don't understand our tax system

 

[GlowingGhoul]

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.

The US spends far more on education, infrastructure, and entitlements than it does on defense.

Oh, and by the way, education IS a "corporate" interest. All of that money lines someone's pockets, and organizations with a direct interest, like teachers unions, do exverything they can to make sure the money keeps flowing.

We spend more educating each child than any other country in the world, despite the subpar results we get in return for such a huge expenditure.

 

[GlowingGhoul]

The only reason taxes drive corporations out of the country is because those that are sickeningly wealthy still aren't satisfied. To say we have to bow to greed is a gateway to fascism.

Taxes are lower now than they have been in decades. The people on top are making more money than at any other point in US history, and they still complain. Corporate taxes in the 1950s were monstrous compared to today, and it spawned the middle class. I guess you'd consider that the period of US Communism?

If we cut taxes to zero for these greedy bastards, 20 years from now they'd be demanding to be paid millions by taxpayers to stay here.. Hell a lot of companies that complain about the taxes already are getting around them and paying zero and getting subsidies and still complaining.

We've been doing exactly what you've said since 1980. Then we doubled down, and tripled down on it and it's sent the economy straight in the shitter. So you're proposing we quadruple down on it? And if it doesn't work then what? At what point does it magically create a healthy economy that works for everybody and gives us a robust middle class again?

How long are we going to smash our heads against this Trickle Down wall, until we kill ourselves?

Oh please, ultra high tax rates "spawned the middle class"? How's that working out in France where the president, one of your fellow socialists, implemented just such a policy?

As far as the rest, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. The material wealth of Americans is far higher now than it was in the 50's.

 

[maverikv]

Oh please, ultra high tax rates "spawned the middle class"? How's that working out in France where the president, one of your fellow socialists, implemented just such a policy?

As far as the rest, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. The material wealth of Americans is far higher now than it was in the 50's.

Median income has been pretty stagnant in real dollars as far back as there is data for it

 

[JeffDC]

The US spends far more on education, infrastructure, and entitlements than it does on defense.

The US spends as much on defense and military as the rest of the world combined. Count the trillions spent since 1970 and please explain exactly what the American people received for that money, aside from rusted tanks, endless boogeyman creation from the Pentagon, and resulting military adventurism that killed 55,000 of our kids in Vietnam, a similar number in Korea, and thousands more in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. For absolutely nothing except to continue funding a monster that rightfully should have been dismantled after WWII. Look at any historical chart regarding federal size and spending, all hell begins to break loose after 1945. When you start paying a million soldiers to do essentially nothing, in absence of any formal declaration of war from our Congress, eventually everyone else in the country will also wish to do nothing to earn their paychecks.

If you think that claim is overstated, I encourage you to find the current complete list of 1500+ U.S. federal agencies, and start reading. See if you can make it as far as the U.S. Department of Departments before laughing. Or crying.

 

[Seventyfive]

If we're gonna go by the laffer curve then we would be better off raising taxes across the board.

And I'm sorry but I absolutely do not see how a rich person is going to choose to work less and make less money overall just because his taxes went up a little bit. Those people are very often driven by greed and the desire for more. They will exploit every single loophole they can find to get around the taxes, but they are not going to stop working regardless of the tax rate because that would result in less money in their pocket.

And again, the economy is driven by spending, and the middle class is the primary source of this. You give Mr. Middle Class $1000 in tax breaks, and he'll go out and buy a big screen TV or something else, having a direct and immediate effect on the economy. You give Sir Richy Rich $1000, and it ends up in his savings account, bank account (local or offshore) retirement account, or investments. It will NOT have a direct and immediate effect on the economy. It will have some effect on the economy, but not as much as a middle class person buying shit. Trickle down does not work. It's not even up for debate.

I don't know what you do for a living, and I'm sure you won't tell me, but I will tell you, when you work 80 hours a week to push yourself into a high tax bracket, plenty of people stop working the extra hours. There are plenty of us not willing to work that 81'st hour when we're only getting paid 45 cents on the dollar for it.

My sister and husband are actually thinking of retiring early. 2 completely productive people who say "fuck it, i'd rather retire and live on dividends and interest than continue working at my job". Good thing they're employees and not small business owners or 30-40 people might be out of a job next year instead of just 2.

 

[Seventyfive]

Median income has been pretty stagnant in real dollars as far back as there is data for it

And how's the average quality of life for someone in the middle class compared to 20 years ago? Almost everyone in the middle class has a washer, dryer, dishwasher, heating, air conditioning, multiple computers, multiple tv's, and everyone has a smart phone. Whether median income has gone up or not, quality of life has improved and that's the only measure that matters.

ps: people's lives didn't get better on a government mandate, it got better because companies made all that shit for rich people and LATER made it cheaper and cheaper until it trickled down to the masses.

 

[tetris42]

And how's the average quality of life for someone in the middle class compared to 20 years ago? Almost everyone in the middle class has a washer, dryer, dishwasher, heating, air conditioning, multiple computers, multiple tv's, and everyone has a smart phone. Whether median income has gone up or not, quality of life has improved and that's the only measure that matters.

ps: people's lives didn't get better on a government mandate, it got better because companies made all that shit for rich people and LATER made it cheaper and cheaper until it trickled down to the masses.

And all it cost was not being able to afford a house, less job benefits, lower job security, less bargaining power, longer hours, worse health insurance, and no retirement!

 

[i960]

I don't know what you do for a living, and I'm sure you won't tell me, but I will tell you, when you work 80 hours a week to push yourself into a high tax bracket, plenty of people stop working the extra hours. There are plenty of us not willing to work that 81'st hour when we're only getting paid 45 cents on the dollar for it.

My sister and husband are actually thinking of retiring early. 2 completely productive people who say "fuck it, i'd rather retire and live on dividends and interest than continue working at my job". Good thing they're employees and not small business owners or 30-40 people might be out of a job next year instead of just 2.

I'm a programmer and I'm on salary, so I don't make shit beyond 40 hours, although I regularly work 60+.

There isn't a single rich person in American that can work 1 extra hour and push themselves into the next tax bracket, because the brackets stop at $406k. I know that seems like rich to most people, but it's not. That's upper middle class. That's your Dr's, lawyers, small business owners, possibly CEO's of smaller companies. When I'm talking rich, I am talking top 0.1%. People making well over 1 mil per year. Right now their top rate is 39.6% on every dollar over $406k. So they pay the same tax rate as upper middle class people do, and probably a lot less since most of them earn their money from capital gains taxed at 15%. If you've got a guy making say $10mil+ per year, and you increase that 39.6% up to say 45%, or if you add another bracket at 1 mil at 45%, you've increased taxes on the rich, but they are NOT going to reduce their income down to $406k just to avoid paying a little bit more in taxes. That's insane. Nor are they going to flee the country if they are already making that much cash in America. Because if were so great in other countries that they could make similar or more money, they would already be gone. What they WILL do, is look for every possible deduction or loophole they can so they can reduce their taxable income as much as possible. Maybe they'll be able to drop it enough to get down to those lower tax brackets, but the truly wealthy won't be able to without doing something illegal. And on that note, I am all for tax deductions that encourage certain behaviors, but any and all loopholes need to be closed. Everyone should have to pay their fair share. Especially the rich.

What I find really funny is that so many people that are all for giving tax breaks to the rich are not rich themselves and never will be. It's usually the republicans that do this, but it happens with people of all political leanings. They are literally supporting policies that go against their own best interests. I don't get it. Even if it were "unfair" to tax the rich a lot more than the middle class, why is it always the dude making $50k that's championing for policies that only help the super wealthy?

 

[i960]

And all it cost was not being able to afford a house, less job benefits, lower job security, less bargaining power, longer hours, worse health insurance, and no retirement!

This. My parents were able to buy a house 25 years ago with 20% down, that they were able to easily save in a reasonable amount of time, with 1 very average income and 3 kids and 1 more on the way. Now? Forget about it. My GF and I are in the 6 figures combined, and we only have enough in savings right now to put down 5% on an average house. I'm trying to get up to 20% so I can avoid PMI and keep the payment low, but prices are increasing almost as fast as I can save, so it's like the money is just going down the drain. We'll probably have to wait for the market to dip again before we're comfortable buying. Granted, we can easily afford to buy today, but I don't want to reduce my savings to zero or dip into retirement to do so. We're trying to be smart and make sure we only buy a house that we can easily afford if one of us loses our job. But that's hard to do when houses are so expensive.

 

[Seventyfive]

Even if it were "unfair" to tax the rich a lot more than the middle class, why is it always the dude making $50k that's championing for policies that only help the super wealthy?

Because people would rather be middle class in west germany than east germany, south korea than north korea, or hong kong than china? Because communism makes everyone equally poor except for an even smaller than .1% oligopoly whereas capitalism makes even the middle class vastly better off than 99.99% of the people in a communist country?

 

[jimmyb]

Because people would rather be middle class in west germany than east germany, south korea than north korea, or hong kong than china?

West Germany (now Germany), South Korea, and Hong Kong all have progressive tax systems where the tax rate scales with income. As you suggest, most people would rather live in these countries with progressive tax rates than totalitarian ones.

 

[Sineira]

I'll sort that under clueless.

 

[Jagger100]

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.

In the seventies they the rates where even higher. The rich just sheltered their money at home or abroad. These shelters tended to be relatively static (at least to the US economy) and when they brought their money back to the US and/or out of shelters, it got invested into the economy which helped lift us out of the 70's prolonged recession

 

[Draax]

I think it is hilarious how posters are still pushing the failed trickle down economic belief.

 

[fdiaz78]

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.

Folks here you have exhibit A of what modern liberalism and victimization have done to our great country. We have an entire generation of people brainwashed into thinking that "The Rich" are rich because they must have stolen it from "The People". This scares me as this new generation will finally destroy this great nation.

I don't hate the rich because they have more than me. If you hate the rich for having more than you maybe you should improve your own circumstances via education or risk taking instead of blaming others. I work for my money and want to keep my hard earned money. If I ever come up with a great idea that makes me billions and RICH I want to keep what I earn and give it to whomever I want. I will never screw anybody over to make a buck, but liberal’s economic thinking is simply kleptomania disguised as "fairness" Yes I am calling liberals thieves when they insist on raising taxes for redistribution.

Oh and money is not intended to "circulate". Its sole purpose is to pay for "All debts public and private", not make sure we all have the same amount. Life is not fair. Nobody owes you anything.

 

[fdiaz78]

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.

Folks here you have exhibit A of what modern liberalism and victimization have done to our great country. We have an entire generation of people brainwashed into thinking that "The Rich" are rich because they must have stolen it from "The People". This scares me as this new generation will finally destroy this great nation.

I don't hate the rich because they have more than me. If you hate the rich for having more than you maybe you should improve your own circumstances via education or risk taking instead of blaming others. I work for my money and want to keep my hard earned money. If I ever come up with a great idea that makes me billions and RICH I want to keep what I earn and give it to whomever I want. I will never screw anybody over to make a buck, but liberal’s economic thinking is simply kleptomania disguised as "fairness" Yes I am calling liberals thieves when they insist on raising taxes for redistribution.

Oh and money is not intended to "circulate". Its sole purpose is to pay for "All debts public and private", not make sure we all have the same amount. Life is not fair. Nobody owes you anything.

 

[fdiaz78]

This. My parents were able to buy a house 25 years ago with 20% down, that they were able to easily save in a reasonable amount of time, with 1 very average income and 3 kids and 1 more on the way. Now? Forget about it. My GF and I are in the 6 figures combined, and we only have enough in savings right now to put down 5% on an average house. I'm trying to get up to 20% so I can avoid PMI and keep the payment low, but prices are increasing almost as fast as I can save, so it's like the money is just going down the drain. We'll probably have to wait for the market to dip again before we're comfortable buying. Granted, we can easily afford to buy today, but I don't want to reduce my savings to zero or dip into retirement to do so. We're trying to be smart and make sure we only buy a house that we can easily afford if one of us loses our job. But that's hard to do when houses are so expensive.

Inflation. This is what happens when government destroys our currency.

 

[fdiaz78]

I think it is hilarious how posters are still pushing the failed trickle down economic belief.

So your ultimately solution is what? Steal from the rich and give to the poor?