# Inequality in American Income ... Something Wrong Here.



## MA-Caver (Feb 24, 2011)

The main Mother Jones article has a list of it's sources which should verify the accuracy/truth/authenticity/facts presented in it's essay. 



> The Great Recession and the slump that followed have triggered a jobs crisis that's been making headlines  since before President Obama was in office, and that will likely be  with us for years. But the American economy is also plagued by a  less-noted, but just as serious, problem: Simply put, over the last 30  years, the gap between rich and poor has widened into a chasm.
> Gradual developments like this don't typically lend  themselves to news coverage. But Mother Jones magazine has crunched the  data on inequality, and put together a group of stunning new charts. Taken together, they offer a dramatic visual illustration of who's doing well and who's doing badly in modern America.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelo...but-unequal-charts-show-growing-rich-poor-gap
> ...


I do know that I am in the bottom percentage of the income earners...  unemployed (at the moment) and probably not eligible for anything more  than $10.00 an hour I'm not going anywhere any time soon. 
Said that odds are 1 in 22 that a person will become a millionaire. Heh, with my luck... I'm number 21.

Question is what can be done to change this lopsided balance of income earning in America? True that some work/careers DO pay more than others because they're worth more and do more and so on... no argument there, but when someone who is just a few rungs up higher on the ladder than I am in a company and is making 7-10 times more than I do per hour... umm... 

Yesterday I passed several gas-stations on my way home. Gasoline prices ranging from $3.03 a gallon to as high as $3.14.  Made me wonder just how the hell am I going to afford the gas to even go out and LOOK for a job (much less get to/from interviews) at those prices (which will do nothing more than continue to rise in the weeks ahead.

The charts do show a disturbing trend. Are we headed for a plutocracy? When 10% of the population controls 2/3rds of the net worth of the country? Sheesh.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 24, 2011)

That's what you get with relatively unregulated corporative capitalism that skews the playing field to the 'haves' more with each generation.  

Over the past ten years in Britain more than half (65% is the figure I recall for this but I am not sure) the additional wealth generated has gone into the pockets of one percent of the population.

Then you have people like me, in a highly skilled, technical profession, but still just one of the peons, who have taken an equivalent of a 30% pay cut over the same period.

I know that I have a honours degree in Economics but you shouldn't need one to figure out that such a situation is not a healthy one.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2011)

If any proposed solution includes taking money away from me, I'm against it.  I'm sorry people make less money than I do.  I served my country, educated myself, and I am intelligent, interview well, and work damned hard at what I do.  I've also been incredibly lucky at several key points in my life.  Like Sukerkin, I've taken some massive pay cuts in the past two years, and I'm grateful to be employed.  I make a good living, yet I am struggling financially.

All I want is what I have. And I don't want it taken away from me to be given to someone else.  I'm sorry if it's not fair, others can't have my money.  It's mine, I worked for it and earned it honestly, I pay my taxes and I don't even cheat on them, and I'm not going to give what I've earned away.

So what's the solution?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 24, 2011)

"Nobody ever got rich working for someone else"



> _Research by Daniel Kahneman, the Nobel Prize-winning psychologist, shows that &#8220;*being  wealthy is often a powerful predictor that people spend less time doing  pleasurable things and more time doing compulsory things and feeling  stressed*.&#8221;_
> _His study found that *people who earn less than $20,000 a year, for instance, spent more than a third of their time in passive leisure*, like kicking back and watching TV. By contrast, *those earning more than $100,000 a year (more affluent than wealthy), spent less than a fifth of their time in passive leisure.*_
> _My own experience tells me that the wealthy work insanely hard. I  spent Monday and Tuesday with a billionaire who got up at 4:30 a.m.,  held meetings and business briefings until 9 p.m., ate dinner, then  worked on emails until 2 a.m. He woke up at 5 a.m. the next morning, and  started all over again. Seven days a week. This entrepreneur hadn&#8217;t  taken a day off in 10 years (and I checked)._​


*Do The Rich Work Harder? Is The Key To Wealth Hard Work?*


Had a conversation with someone on this recently. He made the usual complaint "The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer". He falls into the 'poor' group.  He's got a 10th grade education, reads maybe 1 book a year, watches an average of 5-6 hours of TV a day, and worked in unskilled trades all his life. When it was suggested he get some training, or read some books, his response was in the negative. But, it's not his lack of education or initiative, it's "those rich bastards who work us to death and get all the rewards while we get ****" fault as he put it. Always has a negative comment about anyone doing something he can't, complains about people getting 'uppity' or 'thinking their better than he is' if they indulge in any cultural stuff.

Another person started their own business, but rather than do what needs to be done to maintain and build it, has been confusing playing on Facebook with networking, and as a result his business has deteriorated over 50% the last 2 years. I expect doors to close within the year.

Some people are poor because **** happens, and they get a raw deal. Most are poor because they don't have a clue how to get rich, squander their time, effort and resources, and then complain about being poor and a stacked deck. 

Bill Gates got rich by hard work, putting in 80+ hour weeks. Steve Jobs worked around the clock to build Apple, often driving his staff to drop in his drive to win. Those early employees who put up with the insanity and stuck around are mostly well off as a result.  Hell, Facebook's worth Millions of dollars and it's only 7 yrs old. (Yes, I'm jealous, MT is 10 and not worth Millions. grr.)  14 yr olds made hundreds of thousands of bucks doing Myspace themes when that site was the hot one, and Farmville is a cash cow.

Rich people get rich by innovation, hard work, networking and perseverance. 
Poor people get poorer by punching a time clock, doing little to improve their lot in life, and letting Sinefeld think for them.

Or, go Dem and steal all the rich folks money this year and give everyone a check of an equal cut.  By this time next year, most of those poor folks will be in collections, bankrupt, or in many cases dead from OD, and the rich will have most of it back.

People think that because A has $100,000 that means that there's no money available for them. They're wrong. There's plenty of cash out there, they just need to figure out how to get it. Or as I say, you've got my cash in your pocket...now how do I get it into mine?

BTW, now accepting donations to open a studio, goal $75k.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 24, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Rich people get rich by innovation, hard work, networking and perseverance.


 
Unless your a Kardashian or a Hilton 

And just look where our current state head got all his money from 

Point is, some not all get rich by innovation, hard work, networking and perseverance... there are no absolutes


----------



## K-man (Feb 24, 2011)

We have a similar problem in Australia.  The guys at the big end of town are pulling huge salaries in the millions of dollars pa and the workers on about $30K.  Houses now average over $500k in our cities and about $200k+ if you go to the country.  With prices going up, older people are getting even further behind in they are relying on social security.  Our top 10% own 45% of the wealth, the bottom 40% have about 5%.  Even self funded retirees are strugggling.

Just don't ask me for the solution. I'm not that bright.  :asian:


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 24, 2011)

We've sort of had this conversation before and I never manage to get  across the notion that the sort of money that Bill and Bob are talking  about is not economically significant.  

Whilst it is a huge wad of cash in a single persons pocket, a $1B is not the level of wealth I am speaking about.  

The complaints about taxation being state sponsored theft do not figure  overly large in the scenario, for that is only one part of the wealth  erosion that occurs to us down here at the bottom of the pile {which  includes people like my millionaire brother-in-law}.  It is also a part that tends  to get redistributed back to the same strata it came from in the first  place, other than the red herring which is the proportion paid by the  nominally rich (who do shoulder the lions share of the absolute tax  burden).

That is micro-economics, so called because it focusses on the individual.

To give you an idea of the numbers involved at a more macro-economic scale, the UK's GDP for the past ten years was £13324.108 Billion i.e. knocking on for 13.5 Trillion Pounds.  Half of that went into the hands/pockets of the population as a whole - the other half went to that blessed one in a hundred.

I know that you are going to say, "So what?" and point out that some other persons good fortune does not mean ill fortune for you.  At the micro scale that is true.  The rich man in a village might accrue some envy from his fellows but, as long as his wealth has not come from cheating them or exploiting them, who is harmed?

As a mechanism at the macro scale, however, this is very unhealthy.  For economic power is a lever and the longer that lever becomes then the greater the effect it has.  It is why most of us are worse off than we were thirty years ago in real terms.  The sytem is destabilising and it's failure (which may be glacially slow and stealthy) is putting most of us back into serfdom once more.  Comfortably in most cases but still a thrall.

Of course, the only practcial thing we can do is sigh, shrug and pretend it's not happening, as there is very little to be done at this stage.


----------



## Omar B (Feb 24, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> "Nobody ever got rich working for someone else"
> 
> *Do The Rich Work Harder? Is The Key To Wealth Hard Work?*
> 
> ...



Great post man.  You've made several points I would have made ... had I gotten here earlier ... but alas I just woke up, because I was working till 7:00 am and I've given myself my first day off since last Wednesday.  

Hard work, some sound financial planning and most importantly an end goal are very important.  You would be surprised how many people who are poor have no plan, some out of ignorance, some out of laziness.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2011)

Ultimately the question I always have to ask after listening to the problem is _"What do you want me to do about it?"_  I am not aware of any answer that doesn't involve me giving up more of my income to someone else.  I don't see why I should.  And no explanation I've heard to date is convincing to me.


----------



## K-man (Feb 24, 2011)

Omar B said:


> Great post man. You've made several points I would have made ... had I gotten here earlier ... but alas I just woke up, because I was working till 7:00 am and I've given myself my first day off since last Wednesday.
> 
> Hard work, some sound financial planning and most importantly an end goal are very important. You would be surprised how many people who are poor have no plan, some out of ignorance, some out of laziness.


 Without a job as a CEO or some other high flying executive, you can work as hard as you like , 25 hours a day and invest 110% of what you earn. You can invest in the best companies or be guided by the best advisers.  You will still be in the bottom of the pile.

These guys at the top are earning 100 - 500 times or more what the workers are!  Worse still, when they F*#& up and are pushed out they take millions with them.  These are the guys with the huge estates and the big yachts, not the average citizen. These are the guys who often feather their own nests at the expense of others.

How much payout would you get if you were fired?


----------



## CoryKS (Feb 24, 2011)

K-man said:


> Without a job as a CEO or some other high flying executive, you can work as hard as you like , 25 hours a day and invest 110% of what you earn. You can invest in the best companies or be guided by the best advisers. You will still be in the bottom of the pile.
> 
> These guys at the top are earning 100 - 500 times or more what the workers are! Worse still, when they F*#& up and are pushed out they take millions with them. These are the guys with the huge estates and the big yachts, not the average citizen. These are the guys who often feather their own nests at the expense of others.
> 
> How much payout would you get if you were fired?


 
Well, there you go then.  Maybe you should start applying for CEO jobs.  Problem solved.


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 24, 2011)

work harder

work smarter

hell, just WORK

every race has a loser, there is no way to make sure everyone has equal results without making everyone's results crappy


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 24, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I am not aware of any answer that doesn't involve me giving up more of my income to someone else.



Did you miss my post in response to this question in the "Separate but unequal" thread?


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 24, 2011)

K-man said:


> Without a job as a CEO or some other high flying executive, you can work as hard as you like , 25 hours a day and invest 110% of what you earn. You can invest in the best companies or be guided by the best advisers.  You will still be in the bottom of the pile.
> 
> These guys at the top are earning 100 - 500 times or more what the workers are!  Worse still, when they F*#& up and are pushed out they take millions with them.  These are the guys with the huge estates and the big yachts, not the average citizen. These are the guys who often feather their own nests at the expense of others.
> 
> How much payout would you get if you were fired?


So you jealous is that it?  Because that's what it sounds like.  
I work a normal job earn a normal salary.  Have a wife and 4 kids.  Im def not rich but IM happy I could care less what MR. CEO has or where he lives.  In fact I'm happy for MR. CEO because MR. CEO signs the pay checks for ALOT of people.  You want a nice house and a Nice boat GO EARN it and stop worrying about what MR. CEO has.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2011)

K-man said:


> Without a job as a CEO or some other high flying executive, you can work as hard as you like , 25 hours a day and invest 110% of what you earn. You can invest in the best companies or be guided by the best advisers.  You will still be in the bottom of the pile.



I have some friends who are financially comfortable, and managed it on their own without becoming CEO's.  One is a writer who writes science fiction books on the side while working as a traveling IT professional.  One is a photographer who took a hobby and turned it into a thriving business that she's had to re-start three times as her military husband has been relocated - she's become a success each time.  One is a retired Command Sgt Major in the Army whom I served with in the Marine Corps 30 years ago; he got out the same time I did, went into the Army, and saved his money assiduously.  Raised two great kids, has a wonderful wife, and retired with a spotless record; no college degree, no special abilities, just hard work and savings.  I have another friend who never made the money I did, although we always worked in similar jobs.  But he and his wife watch every penny, paid off their house, paid off their cars, have no debt, and a really nice retirement income when they're ready, which they could do any time.  My mother-in-law went from a bank teller to an executive vice president at a health insurance company, no college degree, just her ability and determination.

None of them are 'rich', but none of them are hurting; they can do pretty much as they please financially.  I don't know if there was more luck or more hard work or talent or more intellect involved; I suspect it had to do with various admixtures of those things.

But it can be done.  Anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong.  I've seen too many of my close personal friends do it.  I haven't managed it yet, but I don't see that as anyone's fault.  I've got it pretty good anyway, I'm not complaining.

And for what it's worth, I got out of the Marine Corps with no college degree and no particular skill set.  Took out a student loan (still paying it off) and got my degree in computer science.  Haven't gone more than three weeks without work in 30 years.  Been fired twice.  Quit a half-dozen times.  I now make about 75% of what I did at my peak in the 1990's.  So what?  No one but myself to blame or praise.  What I made, I made more-or-less on my own.  What I failed to make is my responsibility and no one else's.


----------



## MA-Caver (Feb 24, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> work harder
> 
> work smarter
> 
> ...


*nods* agreed... while I had my (last) job I busted my *** for 23 months earning every dollar that passed into my hand. Did everything that was asked of me to do and then some. Put in a lot of hours, put up with a lot of B.S. from customers (and sometimes senior employees) and went home and got up and did it all over again. Still wasn't able to save up more than at least a grand or so every 7-8 months and used that on making sure family got together for the holidays. 
Trouble with misaligned spending I saw/see is this... it's not always how much a person makes but how much life costs that makes the huge difference. Right now I complained that I won't have enough $$ to afford to even LOOK for a job... 55-60 days ago I didn't worry... I made enough to cover my expenses and sometimes had a little over to save. 
Ideally I should've had enough to cover my expenses and sometimes had a lot over to save. Believe me I lived very cheaply considering. But unexpectedly losing my job (due to some B.S. I'd rather not get into at the moment), has killed my progress to increase my earnings. Basically starting over from scratch again. 
Prior to my last job minimum wage was a paltry sum, then it got raised up... some. Unfortunately still it wasn't enough. Had I not been living where I am presently I sincerely doubt that I could've been living as well as I had been. Rent, food, gas, utilities, all those combined sans pleasurable pursuits add up to above a weekly minimum wage earning. 
I don't want to take $$ out of anyone's pocket just to put into mine (without earning it via hard work) anymore than I want anyone taking $$ out of mine to put into somebody else's either Bill. While I was working I earned every dollar and I know what hard work brings, but I know what it sometimes cannot bring. 
It's often the type of work that makes the difference between making enough to enjoy various comforts and barely scraping by. But it's also having the ability to save what is earned that also makes millionaires. Most millionaires got that way by not only working harder than everyone else but also by saving... they were able to save because they were working harder than everyone else and didn't have or didn't MAKE time to spend what they have. 
Unskilled laborers like myself are basically stuck until we find skills to make our time more valuable to prospective employers. That's alright but Lordy don't keep the cost of living so much that no matter how much we earn in the meantime that more time is spent working than learning a new skill.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2011)

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/01/14/the-decline-of-inherited-money/



> January 14, 2008, 2:41 PM ET                              *The Decline of Inherited Money*
> 
> 
> *By Robert Frank*
> ...



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/millionairenextdoor.htm



> [SIZE=+2]*The Millionaire Next Door *[/SIZE]
> * The Surprising Secrets of America's Wealthy *
> By Thomas J. Stanley, Ph. D. and William D. Danko, Ph. D.
> 
> ...



I highlighted the bit above, because frankly I feel that's one of my big downfalls.  I know that one of my friends has consistently earned less than me all our lives; and we work in the same field, do the same work, have the same basic outlook, etc, etc.  The difference is that he lives well below his means, and I have not done so for a big part of my life.  Oh yeah, I have to take the hit for that.  The ant and the grasshopper, baby.  I'm the grasshoper.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 24, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> To give you an idea of the numbers involved at a more macro-economic scale, the UK's GDP for the past ten years was £13324.108 Billion i.e. knocking on for 13.5 Trillion Pounds.  Half of that went into the hands/pockets of the population as a whole - the other half went to that blessed one in a hundred.


And what tax rate did that top 1 in a 100 pay?  I cant speak for the UK but in the US the top 50% of wage earners pay 96.03% of all taxes and the top 10% of wager earners pay 64.89% of all taxes and the top 5% of wealthiest Americans pay 53.25% of all taxes.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Did you miss my post in response to this question in the "Separate but unequal" thread?



Yes, but there are so many reasons why I think that's not realistic, I just decided to let it go.  No offense, but it's just off the radar for me in terms of any kind of actual solution.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2011)

Often heard - _"I worked hard.  I saved my money.  I didn't become rich.  Therefore, it is not possible to become rich in our society."_

I think there's a lot of things involved beyond just 'working hard' and 'saving'.  All of those things matter, but they still might not be enough.  All kinds of things matter, even luck of the draw, who you know, what you know, and when you know it.  Timing, industry, the economy, the weather, you name it.

It's not fun.  But it's also not a rigged game.  It's a game that has winners and losers, and the winners aren't generally given any special advantage unfairly, nor are the losers unfairly kept down.  If the outcome isn't fair, life isn't fair.  And there is no way, in my opinion, that everyone can become wealthy.  The economic structure of a free enterprise system ensures that the majority cannot be wealthy.  I don't know what to say about that.  It is what it is.


----------



## Omar B (Feb 24, 2011)

K-man said:


> Without a job as a CEO or some other high flying executive, you can work as hard as you like , 25 hours a day and invest 110% of what you earn. You can invest in the best companies or be guided by the best advisers.  You will still be in the bottom of the pile.
> 
> These guys at the top are earning 100 - 500 times or more what the workers are!  Worse still, when they F*#& up and are pushed out they take millions with them.  These are the guys with the huge estates and the big yachts, not the average citizen. These are the guys who often feather their own nests at the expense of others.
> 
> How much payout would you get if you were fired?



My father works for a company (ALCOA) but he's a scientist and he's quite well off.  He's no CEO, just educated, is good at what he does, works hard and makes smart investments.  My step father's an economist, he also works for someone and is quite well off.  

Guys working 500 times of whatever the average worker ant does is entitled to it.  A janitor cannot walk into Bill Gates's office and does what he does, or T Boone Picken's office or I could go on.  In most cases the people at the top are there for a reason, hard work, smart moves, a good idea.  A person's earning potential because of what they are capable of is just that.  The more specialized your skill is, usually the more earning potential you have.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 24, 2011)

:Gives up:

:tears up degree as clearly everyone knows better:


----------



## K-man (Feb 24, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> So you jealous is that it? Because that's what it sounds like.
> I work a normal job earn a normal salary. Have a wife and 4 kids. Im def not rich but IM happy I could care less what MR. CEO has or where he lives. In fact I'm happy for MR. CEO because MR. CEO signs the pay checks for ALOT of people. You want a nice house and a Nice boat GO EARN it and stop worrying about what MR. CEO has.


And you sir are an just plain ignorant. You insult me but know nothing about me.
I retired over 10 years ago with enough assets to last me for the rest of my life. I worked 12 hours a day, 7 days a week for years and I invested what I could save into income producing assets that would provide for me forever if I could live that long. I went without holidays for years. How dare you tell me "GO EARN IT". I did!

I have a nice house. I have a wife and six kids who all were put through private schools and are out doing their own thing. I don't have a boat because I don't want a boat. I have a nice aeroplane because I enjoy flying. I also have great health so I can enjoy life and I am young enough to do just that. Why should I be jealous? I am just grateful.

I don't care about Mr CEO either but the debate is about inequity. You can work hard, save hard do all the right things but some of our societies are allowing a wealth gap to develop that will cause great problems in the years ahead.



> CoryKS
> Well, there you go then. Maybe you should start applying for CEO jobs. Problem solved.


Don't need to mate ... but thanks for the idea. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





To be frank, I'm too busy to work. :asian:


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 24, 2011)

You can also get rich by trying not to spend five cents. 

Like some of my relatives do. They are close to millionaires because they for example take vacations using air miles (not their own money) when they do visit family they borrow their car, dont rent one, dont get a hotel, (even though they can afford it) and just use off their poorer relatives.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 24, 2011)

K-man said:


> And you sir are an just plain ignorant. You insult me but know nothing about me.


I wasn't insulting you I was responding to your ignorant post about the big bad evil CEO.  I don't know you so I cant insult you this is after all the internet.


> I retired over 10 years ago with enough assets to last me for the rest of my life. I worked 12 hours a day, 7 days a week for years and I invested what I could save into income producing assets that would provide for me forever if I could live that long. I went without holidays for years. How dare you tell me "GO EARN IT". I did!
> 
> I have a nice house. I have a wife and six kids who all were put through private schools and are out doing their own thing. I don't have a boat because I don't want a boat. I have a nice aeroplane because I enjoy flying. I also have great health so I can enjoy life and I am young enough to do just that. Why should I be jealous? I am just grateful.


then why are you crying about the big fancy boat the CEO has?  He earned it hes allowed to have it.  Your entire post was about the big bad CEO and all the nice things he has.  He has it because shareholders and investors decided he deserves it.  So of course hes going to make way more then his employees hes the boss.  I dont see people crying when George Clooney makes 25 mil on a movie deal but then again hes a left wing looney toon so its ok.  Im glad you have all the nice things in life that what life is about you seem comfortable so why are you so bitter about the rich CEO?  Do you believe everyone should make what the CEO makes? 



> I don't care about Mr CEO either but the debate is about inequity. You can work hard, save hard do all the right things but some of our societies are allowing a wealth gap to develop that will cause great problems in the years ahead.


The only problems from the wealth gap will come from Jealousy.  People cant just be happy with what they have they always want what the other guy has.  Oh his car is nicer, oh his house is bigger, oh he has a plane, but instead of working towards it they would rather cry about it and demand the Govt take it away from them split it among the people.  I don't feel anyone is better then me so if you have something then I too can have it if I really choose to work for it.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 24, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> :Gives up:
> 
> :tears up degree as clearly everyone knows better:


So whats your solution since you have studied this topic?


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 24, 2011)

There really isn't one now - it's too far down the road (which is what I said a while ago in this thread).

EDIT:  Well, there are things that could be done but they wont be as the vested interests with the resources to do it are the ones that would suffer if they did.

The system has destabalised (thanks in large part to the financial services sector) and is spiraling out of control - which is how you get certain corporations making record profits in the middle of a recession where 'real' people are suffering rather badly.

I can't speak to America's situation at the micro-economic level as all I have to go on these days is what I read here and apparently everything is rosy.

At the macro-economic level, when debt approaches GDP you have a serious problem.  It's the same over here in Britain where personal debt hovers around that bar too.

My only debt is my mortgage but that alone consumes more than 50% of my income, despite the fact that my missus and I sold two houses to buy this one with a relatively small mortagage of £90K (which I shall be paying off until the day I retire).  I have more letters after my name than are in it, perform a vital service to my countries infrastructure in a job that very few people can actually do, don't live extravagantly and am still unable to save for my old age as day to day living costs consume it all.

What people are focussing on is their own micro-economic experiences rather than the macro-economic forces that actually determine what is going on.  

You can work as hard as you like, be as clever as you like and do as well as you like and unless you are ushered in to the circle of the One Percenters it makes not much difference.  It does to you clearly, as being a millionaire makes paying the electricity bill easier - but it does not affect the underlying trend of wealth being sucked up to the top of the pyramid and staying there.

Even Friedman, the author of the economic school of thought that echoes behind the words of most posters here, in the end did a 'deathbed recantation' of his theory because it just doesn't work.

All you can do is hold on and hope that you survive - maybe the Chinese will be kind masters when the West's power evaporates (not as farcical as all that to be truthful)?


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 24, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> At the macro-economic level, when debt approaches GDP you have a serious problem.  It's the same over here in Britain where personal debt hovers around that bar too.


Right which is being said now here we need to stop spending and start paying down the debt.  Now we will just have to see if the politicians really do it.



> My only debt is my mortgage but that alone consumes more than 50% of my income, despite the fact that my missus and I sold two houses to buy this one with a relatively small mortagage of £90K (which I shall be paying off until the day I retire).  I have more letters after my name than are in it, perform a vital service to my countries infrastructure in a job that very few people can actually do, don't live extravagantly and am still unable to save for my old age as day to day living costs consume it all.


My only dept is my house and my wife's car which we will have paid off in 2 months.  So if you have all these degrees and letters after your name and do such a vital job how are you not able to save for retirement.  There has to be some things you can adjust to start and if not you may want to look for a better paying job with all the training you have you should be living comfortably.   Maybe not the top 1% but comfortably.  



> You can work as hard as you like, be as clever as you like and do as well as you like and unless you are ushered in to the circle of the One Percenters it makes not much difference.  It does to you clearly, as being a millionaire makes paying the electricity bill easier - but it does not affect the underlying trend of wealth being sucked up to the top of the pyramid and staying there.


why do you feel you need to be the top 1%.  Im happy where I am near the middle of the pack. I dont need to be a millionaire to pay my bills because I dont live like a millionaire.  I bought a modest house I knew I could afford, I drive a 1979 Jeep because #1 it didnt cost alot and #2 its just cool.  My wife has the minivan.  Our kids are healthy, happy, clothed, play sports, all the good stuff.  I just dont get why everyone want to compare themselves to the Bill Gates of the world.



> All you can do is hold on and hope that you survive - maybe the Chinese will be kind masters when the West's power evaporates (not as farcical as all that to be truthful)?


Which is why Obama needs to STOP spending and start paying down the debt.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 24, 2011)

As I said, I give up trying to explain.  The economic situation is dire and unlikely to get much better for a long time - believe it or not, I have a better than median standard of living for my region of the country.  Lord knows how those people earning less are coping, particularly if they are embroiled with credit card debt too.

You can only point and shout "Iceberg!" - if people react by going "Why yes, some ice in my G&T would be fabulous" then they don't see the problem.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 24, 2011)

Suk, 
 Let me see if I can be clearer in my view here.

It doesn't matter how much other people make or don't make. 

There is plenty out there for everyone, and no one needs to really "give up" so that others can 'have'.  

There is an infinite supply of wealth out there for people to tap into.

People 'tap into it' in direct proportion to their mindsets, efforts, and motivations.
(This is why lazy people tend to be poor, and rich people busy. Exceptions do occur yes.)

If I want to have more money, I need to offer/produce something to draw more money to me. Case in point, if I want more money, I need to shoot more paid gigs, build more paid websites, sell more ads on MT, or convince more people to become Supporting Members. All of that requires I do more work, put in more time, and put in more effort.  If I don't, my income won't grow, and might just shrink.  

The inequity of my income compared to Bill Gates doesn't bother me. 
The fact that my studio might never be as big as Sears Portrait doesn't bother me either. (ok, not much, lol)

Now, when your income's cut, you have options.
-cut back. Do you really need 3 cell phones, a land line AND Aol?
-Liquidate. Sell off that surplus junk.
-get a 2nd job. Yes, a 2nd job, they exist and I know people who when others can't find 1, found 3 and in 1 case 4.
-start a business of your own. There are plenty of low cost start up ideas out there that a hard working, motivated person can run with. 
-become a highway man, rob a bank or sell your kids to a rich Frenchman. (ok, being silly here.)

Why do you think I ran a hosting business, a design business, a consulting business, several communities and now a photography business, while occasionally doing stints at McDonalds, and a mall photo studio, and cut grass and washed cars on occasion?
Each bit, got me a little bit, now I live ok, despite not being 'rich'.


----------



## Steve (Feb 24, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Ultimately the question I always have to ask after listening to the problem is _"What do you want me to do about it?"_  I am not aware of any answer that doesn't involve me giving up more of my income to someone else.  I don't see why I should.  And no explanation I've heard to date is convincing to me.


Sometimes, the answer is that others should shoulder more of a burden and give you back more of what you've earned.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Feb 24, 2011)

The economic difficulties the western democracies,(excluding the Germans) are facing right now, are our own damn fault. 

  We want our stores to provide inexpensive products, so we force companies to buy the products they sell to us from businesses running in Japan, then Hong Kong then Taiwan and now China/India/Pakistan. When we do that, we cut our own throats, our neighbours and the guy two provinces/states over, because he doesnt have a job anymore. Without a job, he cant buy products either. Perpetual cycle.

  Also those who have pensions, or stocks demand X return on investment or they move their funds else where, this money is invested in the same companies that have abandoned our countries because they can make a better return overseas, and then ship the products back here. This investment in foreign countries have made these recipient countries no longer producers of dollar store items, but high end, high quality goods. Competition is a ***** when youre getting your *** kicked. 

  Manufacturing makes up a low part of our economies now, but this was where the good paying jobs were, that money paid for cars, furniture and other items, now the jobs we get can barely pay the rent.    

   All through this deindustrialization taxes and spending by governments has stayed essentially the same, or increased. Hence huge debts and deficits. To blame the current PM or President is plain stupid, this started 40 years ago.

  My Grandfather was regular British army, 16 years, wounded in WW1. After he came home, he had a small pension, had three of four fields of hay and grain, had a boxing school, had a couple of houses he rented out and delivered bread daily for 25 years. This is what we are going back to folks. Multiple jobs until you die, because you have to, if you want your children and grandchildren to have a better life then you do now.


----------



## Steve (Feb 24, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> The economic difficulties the western democracies,(excluding the Germans) are facing right now, are our own damn fault.
> 
> We want our stores to provide inexpensive products, so we force companies to buy the products they sell to us from businesses running in Japan, then Hong Kong then Taiwan and now China/India/Pakistan. When we do that, we cut our own throats, our neighbours and the guy two provinces/states over, because he doesnt have a job anymore. Without a job, he cant buy products either. Perpetual cycle.
> 
> ...


It started before that...  during the early years of the baby boom, when soldiers returned from WWII, the economy was in a relative boom following the great depression and people had, for the first time in well over a decade, money to burn.  That was when the idea of building stuff that would last a lifetime (or longer) started losing ground to the idea of building things that were engineered to fail and the desire to have the latest and greatest was in vogue.  

Nowadays, if a TV lasts longer than 5 years or so, it's an irritation because technology has moved beyond it.  You want the newer one that has a dial that goes to 11.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 24, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Sometimes, the answer is that others should shoulder more of a burden and give you back more of what you've earned.


They already give back more then their fair share.  Top 5% of all wage earners pay over 50% of all taxes.  How much more do they need to give?


----------



## K-man (Feb 25, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> I wasn't insulting you I was responding to *your ignorant post* about the *big bad evil CEO*. I don't know you so I cant insult you this is after all the internet.
> 
> then *why are you crying about the big fancy boat the CEO has?* He earned it hes allowed to have it. Your entire post was about the *big bad CEO* and all the nice things he has. He has it because shareholders and investors decided he deserves it. So of course hes going to make way more then his employees hes the boss. I dont see people crying when George Clooney makes 25 mil on a movie deal but then again hes a left wing looney toon so its ok. Im glad you have all the nice things in life that what life is about you seem comfortable so *why are you so bitter* about the rich CEO? Do you believe everyone should make what the CEO makes?
> 
> ...


You not only insulted me, you insulted my intelligence and the intelligence of the other members of the forum.

My words "Big yachts" your words "crying about the big fancy boat".
My word "CEO" your words "Big bad evil CEO" and "rich CEO".
My words " ........." your words ".. demand the Govt take it away from them split it among the people". Did I really suggest that?

Sorry, where was my post ignorant?

And, yes I used the CEO as an example of the excesses in the community. If you are telling me that a guy like (Sol Trujillo you can Google him) can come in on a huge package, stuff one of Australia's biggest companies and leave with a $14,000,000 golden handshake to get rid of him, is entitled to that sort of treatment, then it is no wonder this inequality is allowed to persist.
I can understand that you reckon your work is worth about 1% or less of their's but that is your call. I believe for the rest of the population it in iniquetous.

I am more than happy with my lot but I feel sorry for those working hard and still struggling to make ends meet.

Sorry, where am I bitter? 

I'm not bitter, I'm just putting forward an opinion on* Caver's* post. 



> You want a nice house and a Nice boat GO EARN it and stop worrying about what MR. CEO has.


That's respectful!

If you believe that jealousy is the only problem with the wealth gap then that makes you part of the problem. Sorry, unless the populace can say enough is enough you will end up with a discordant society as has happened in some other parts of the world such as Egypt. 

I have included my posts so that all can see just where I am ignorant and bitter. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






> We have a similar problem in Australia. The guys at the big end of town are pulling huge salaries in the millions of dollars pa and the workers on about $30K. Houses now average over $500k in our cities and about $200k+ if you go to the country. With prices going up, older people are getting even further behind in they are relying on social security. Our top 10% own 45% of the wealth, the bottom 40% have about 5%. Even self funded retirees are struggling.
> 
> Just don't ask me for the solution. I'm not that bright. :asian:


 


> Without a job as a CEO or some other high flying executive, you can work as hard as you like , 25 hours a day and invest 110% of what you earn. You can invest in the best companies or be guided by the best advisers. You will still be in the bottom of the pile.
> 
> These guys at the top are earning 100 - 500 times or more what the workers are! Worse still, when they F*#& up and are pushed out they take millions with them. These are the guys with the huge estates and the big yachts, not the average citizen. These are the guys who often feather their own nests at the expense of others.
> 
> How much payout would you get if you were fired?


 
I have included your response as a reference.



> So you jealous is that it? Because that's what it sounds like.
> I work a normal job earn a normal salary. Have a wife and 4 kids. Im def not rich but IM happy I could care less what MR. CEO has or where he lives. In fact I'm happy for MR. CEO because MR. CEO signs the pay checks for ALOT of people. You want a nice house and a Nice boat GO EARN it and stop worrying about what MR. CEO has.


 
I'll let others judge the merit of the posts. In the meantime I shall retire to the bleachers with my esteemed colleague *Superkin* and reiterate his inciteful post. 


> :Gives up:
> 
> :tears up degree as clearly everyone knows better:


What he said!
:asian:


----------



## Bruno@MT (Feb 25, 2011)

To the OP: I would fall down on my knees and weep from joy if I could buy gas for 3.14 dollars per gallon. Seriously. Gasoline is 7.9 dollars per gallon for regular 95 Octane.
Diesel is a bit cheaper, and probably comes out at 6.5 dollars per gallon.
If the difference between 2.5 $/Gallon and 3.2 $ gallon is keeping you from finding a job, you're doing something wrong.


Btw, I don't think the problem is jealousy. I worked at a company (as a contractor) where the CEO and the board completely ruined their corporation by wanting to be the biggest, more interested in their stock than in the company. They gambled, and lost it all in the dot com boom. They had to cut and dissolve many of the companies they bought. That board oversaw the biggest 'goodwill writeoff' in history, which basically is like saying they ****ed up to the tune of over 50 Billion dollars.

Even that... fair enough. They were in a position to take that bet, had to make a decision and picked the wrong one.
But then came the slap in the face: after they layed off over 10K people, they awarded themselves a couple hundred million dollar bonuses... for their leadership and vision overseen the 'rescue of the company'.

The same thing still happens in the banking business today.

So tell me.
What is the skill that justifies such pay?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 25, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> Even that... fair enough. They were in a position to take that bet, had to make a decision and picked the wrong one.
> But then came the slap in the face: after they layed off over 10K people, they awarded themselves a couple hundred million dollar bonuses... for their leadership and vision overseen the 'rescue of the company'.
> 
> The same thing still happens in the banking business today.
> ...



Ah, that's the rub.  What have such people done to merit such pay?  Indeed, they've done little or nothing to merit it.  In some cases, they gleefully reward each other for abject failure.

And yet, while pointing this out, one must also ask what is to be done about it?  These people you are referring to are executive officers of large corporations.  They are paid based on what the board of directors for the corporation wishes to pay them.  Are they foolish to pay such huge salaries?  I'd say so, in many cases.

I'd also wonder what can be done about it without abrogating the basic principle that private businesses and for-profit publicly-traded corporations can run their business more or less as they see fit, absent any violation of law.

Shall we pass laws regarding obscene wealth or profit or salary?  Is there a number beyond which no one is allowed to be paid?  Shall we confiscate wealth whenever the number bandied about shocks the public consciousness?

I make an exception in the case of the banks and businesses which received money from the US federal government to bail them out during the recent crisis.  I feel that the compensation paid to their executives is indeed the taxpayer's business; but not in most other cases.

Seriously here.  I have a friend who is offended by the high wages paid to baseball players these days.  He refuses to watch them on television or go to games anymore.  I don't blame him, but other than not spending money on them, what would be the proposed solution?  They earn hundreds of millions of dollars for playing a game; outrageous!  But again, what is the proposed solution to this problem?  Take it from them?  Cap it so that no one makes an amount of money that offends the general public?

We are shocked when a CEO makes (I won't even say 'earns') 200 or 2000 times more than the average salaried worker at his company.  And I agree, it is shocking.  I can't imagine what the board of directors must be thinking.  But is it the business of the public in a world such as we live in?  Do I want to fundamentally change our society so that such abuses cannot happen?  Ultimately, I don't, not me.  I like the way our society works, for the most part.  I don't want restrictive laws passed just so that CEOs and others don't make salaries that I find obscene and offensive.  I have to believe that ultimately, companies which foolishly throw money away on worthless executives will suffer the consequences of the marketplace, because this is the economic system in which I live and in which I put my faith.  I don't want to live in a heavily-regulated society that tries to correct such abuses by law or by tax or by other form of punishment.

It's obscene, yes.  It's also legal.  And as much as I find these CEO's to be despicable pieces of human trash in many cases, I also do not want to live in a society which attempts to right their wrongs by force of law.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Feb 25, 2011)

There is a clear difference with Baseball.
All teams can work themselves up to major league by skill alone.
Player prices are determined on their actual performance. The fact that they get paid such large amounts is due to the fact that the club makes even more based on their performance.
And the playing field is open to all players and all clubs.

I may think it is ridiculous that players earn so much, but the free market has chosen to support that.

Banks otoh are led by people who all know each other, and gladly award each other huge bonuses. Just because they can. Noone has the power to stop them. We also can't do much about it because the playing field is NOT open to all. There is legislation in place that puts up real barriers for those not already on the inside. We could choose not to use banks, but that also means not being able to do much.

Enterprise level boards are similar. They are not subordinate to anyone. One could argue they are subordinate to the stockholders, but as in the company I worked for, the board was more than happy enough to screw the stockholders and give themselves huge bonuses as the stock plummeted in a death spiral.

The problem is that these people are part (through birth, group membership or blind luck) are part of the financial infrastructure of this world, and it is incredibly hard to touch them.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Feb 25, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> We are shocked when a CEO makes (I won't even say 'earns') 200 or 2000 times more than the average salaried worker at his company.  And I agree, it is shocking.  I can't imagine what the board of directors must be thinking.  But is it the business of the public in a world such as we live in?  Do I want to fundamentally change our society so that such abuses cannot happen?  Ultimately, I don't, not me.  I like the way our society works, for the most part.  I don't want restrictive laws passed just so that CEOs and others don't make salaries that I find obscene and offensive.  I have to believe that ultimately, companies which foolishly throw money away on worthless executives will suffer the consequences of the marketplace, because this is the economic system in which I live and in which I put my faith.  I don't want to live in a heavily-regulated society that tries to correct such abuses by law or by tax or by other form of punishment..



I understand your pov. And it should be true.
However, some genius coined the phrase 'too big to fail'. Large companies will be bailed out with your (and my) tax money. Which they used in part for bonus money


----------



## Carol (Feb 25, 2011)

I'm not going to touch the subject of CEOs considering my life has been tossed about by a corporate buyout.   

As I was making my way out the door after my exit interview, I asked many of my colleagues in a semi-serious manner "There's so much talent in this room.  We should start a company!"  Everyone (including myself) had the same reaction.  Doing what? 

Two things bother me.

1.  We're told college is about education.  Its not.  College is about _networking. _ My final exams at UMass Lowell have been as hard as, if not harder, what a friend's daughter had at Yale studying the same material.  The difference?  UML attracts local folks and isn't known outside of New England.  Yale attracts the children of powerful ubergods from around the world.  Sure the Ivy League schools have academic rigor.  There are good public colleges that are similarly rigorous, at one-quarter the tuition.  Students aren't paying for the academic rigor, they are paying for the networking opportunities.  Its not what you know, its WHO you know!

2.  Skills are taught as skills.  If I can get my act together and actually finish my 2nd bachelors, I'll have a BSIT.  What did I do for the class?   Datacommunications, programming, networking, systems admin, that kind of stuff.    Being innovate often requires a good knowledge of business structure and analytics.  I'm not convinced my one required MIS class (that I haven't taken yet) will do that.   

A company of less than 200 employees in a state that half the country can't even find on a map comes together to create something that grabs a stunning percentage of market share from  giants like Motorola and Cisco...yet alone, even alone in small groups, we can't find that entrepreneurial "thing" needed to start our own business.  

Ironic, isn't it?  That, to me, is the real gap.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 25, 2011)

K-man said:


> You not only insulted me, you insulted my intelligence and the intelligence of the other members of the forum.
> 
> My words "Big yachts" your words "crying about the big fancy boat".
> My word "CEO" your words "Big bad evil CEO" and "rich CEO".
> My words " ........." your words ".. demand the Govt take it away from them split it among the people". Did I really suggest that?


Sounds like someone needs thicker skin if your so "insulted" by that.





> And, yes I used the CEO as an example of the excesses in the community. If you are telling me that a guy like (Sol Trujillo you can Google him) can come in on a huge package, stuff one of Australia's biggest companies and leave with a $14,000,000 golden handshake to get rid of him, is entitled to that sort of treatment, then it is no wonder this inequality is allowed to persist.


So what how does that concern you?  If thats what the shareholders decided was adequate for him to leave then so be it.  Unless the Govt decided to bail out the company with Tax payer dollars then thats a different story. Now truth be told hes not the first CEO to fail and get paid yet he was your example.  Hmm could it be that he insulted your country and your people and thats why your upset and it has nothing to do with his bonus.


> I can understand that you reckon your work is worth about 1% or less of their's but that is your call. I believe for the rest of the population it in iniquetous.


Sorry Guess Im a realist I dont believe everyone should make the same wage no matter the job.  I dont believe its immoral for a CEO to make more then the cleaning lady.  I dont find it crazy for a Doctor or Lawyer or CEO to make more then I do since Im only a police officer.  Im happy with my life.  Maybe if people stopped worrying about what everyone else has and what they dont and just be happy with life.





> Sorry, where am I bitter?
> 
> I'm not bitter, I'm just putting forward an opinion on* Caver's* post.


Your entire post was bitter




> If you believe that jealousy is the only problem with the wealth gap then that makes you part of the problem. Sorry, unless the populace can say enough is enough you will end up with a discordant society as has happened in some other parts of the world such as Egypt.


Enough is enough so whats your solution?  Set wage caps on jobs?  Take from the rich give to the poor?  Who gets to decide who has made too much? Who too rich?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 25, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> I understand your pov. And it should be true.
> However, some genius coined the phrase 'too big to fail'. Large companies will be bailed out with your (and my) tax money. Which they used in part for bonus money



Yes, and as I said, that offends me and I don't have a problem with any future laws passed that would prohibit either the bailout or the excessive payouts with taxpayer money.  I have no objection to that.

Otherwise, I just don't see what can be done that doesn't subvert our system.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Feb 25, 2011)

You are correct. There is not a lot we can do about it today.
I just wanted to point out that for many people the issue is not jealousy but injustice.


----------



## Steve (Feb 25, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> They already give back more then their fair share.  Top 5% of all wage earners pay over 50% of all taxes.  How much more do they need to give?


The top 1% owns almost 40% of the stock, over 60% of the financial securities and over 60% of all business equity in the USA. 

This same top 1% has a total of just shy of 40% of the privately held wealth in the USA.  

The top 10% wealthiest individuals in the USA own almost 90% of investment assets in the USA, while the bottom 90% have over 70% of the debt.

The top 20% comprises 85% of the total net worth in the USA.

So, yeah.  As a matter of fact, I'd say they could give... just a bit more.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 25, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> We are shocked when a CEO makes (I won't even say 'earns') 200 or 2000 times more than the average salaried worker at his company.  And I agree, it is shocking.  I can't imagine what the board of directors must be thinking.



There is a mutual back-scratching culture between the Boards and officers of many companies.  They sit on each others' boards, and reward each other.  In fact, they subvert the entire purpose of the Board as defined by law, often to the detriment of the company itself - which remember, is not privately owned for the companies we are discussing.  Perhaps stringently enforcing the conflict of interest rules on Boards of Directors, with the ability to incorporate at stake for violations (all corporations must qualify in the states in which they do business) would help the problem without, again, redistributive taxation or salary caps.  Indeed, it would be better for the business itself and help return the Board to what it is supposed to be.

What gets me about this discussion is that there are many potential, creative solutions that do not involve the dread "socialism", salary caps, redistribution, or anything else.  People respond to incentives and pressure, and they don't have to take the form of outright control by the government.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Feb 25, 2011)

It is HISTORICALLY INEVITABLE what happens when the gap between the "rich" and the "poor" increases to the point where the middle class is pretty much eliminated. 

All throughout the threads regarding this article, everyone has voiced their opinions based on thier personal perspectives which in turn are based on such things as their upbringing, values, and/or socio-economic status. I'm not debating whether these opinions are either right or wrong; I am saying that the statistics presented are based on non-partisan, non-biased data and should be taken seriously. Why? Because if the trend continues, the results are inevitable and that means your particular situation WILL CHANGE. 

If you happen to be unfamiliar with the historic trend, it ALWAYS leads to a serious collapse. Most often the changes that occur are quite violent actually. What you have NOW will not amount to a hill of beans THEN. Perhaps then, your point of view will change... but hopefully it will before hand because only through an active effort can the collapse be avoided. 

Good work values and ethics are not nearly enough to deal with this issue. I think it goes much deeper than that and is much more complicated than whether an individual is willing to educate themselves or not. 

I am not nearly educated or knowledgeable enough to provide a solution. Obviously, neither are our leaders or else they would not be allowing this to occur yet again. I suppose they may think that they will be dead and gone by the time our nation collapses so they don't care? Who knows... I do know what will happen if these facts are ignored, and we continue to avoid seeking active solutions because we feel we do our part and it's the "other guy" that needs to work harder. Why? Because it's historically inevitable. 

Personally, I endorse an educational approach. I feel that everyone needs a skill and/or a trade. If, by a certain age, a person does not show an aptitude for higher education then they should be taught a technical skill needed in society. And, if an aptitude is shown for higher education then, as a culture, we should support that. I did research over a decade ago for a Political Science term paper and found that the number of people graduating for a secondary education has a direct impact on GDP. So, education does have an impact on the entire nation. It probably won't "fix" all our problems, but I think it would be a hell of a start and go a long way to avoiding the "inevitable".


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 25, 2011)

they already give between 1/3 and 1/2 

do you get that?

i mean, REALLY get it

how would you feel if every time you made $5 i took $2.50 because i think i need it more than you do?

cuz that is what you are supporting




stevebjj said:


> The top 1% owns almost 40% of the stock, over 60% of the financial securities and over 60% of all business equity in the USA.
> 
> This same top 1% has a total of just shy of 40% of the privately held wealth in the USA.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 25, 2011)

celtic_crippler said:


> It is HISTORICALLY INEVITABLE what happens when the gap between the "rich" and the "poor" increases to the point where the middle class is pretty much eliminated.



I don't think that's true.  A quick search of Google Books for the 'gap between rich and poor' shows that it's a perennial complaint, and the dire predictions of imminent collapse are always made; and yet we are here and it doesn't seem to have happened.  It seems to come up every couple generations; but we don't have complete destruction every couple generations.  So my thought is that this is just a claim that is not backed up by facts, and the sky is not falling.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 25, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> The top 1% owns almost 40% of the stock, over 60% of the financial securities and over 60% of all business equity in the USA.
> 
> This same top 1% has a total of just shy of 40% of the privately held wealth in the USA.
> 
> ...



So how much more should they give?  Who gets to decide how  much is too much?


----------



## Steve (Feb 25, 2011)

I'm all for fairness in taxation.  They should give as much, proportionally, as everyone else.  They don't.   I've said many times on this board that a flat tax on ALL income is as fair as it gets.  Dividends, royalties, honoraria, wages, interest, capital gains, gambling... the works.  

In my opinion, that's fair.  

Ballen, congress gets to decide and the President gets to sign the document.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 25, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> I'm all for fairness in taxation.  They should give as much, proportionally, as everyone else.  They don't.   I've said many times on this board that a flat tax on ALL income is as fair as it gets.  Dividends, royalties, honoraria, wages, interest, capital gains, gambling... the works.



That is true.  As much as the top 1% provide for the total revenue, they do not provide as high a proportion as those in the middle.  As Warren Buffet once famously said, he pays a lower percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary does.  It's just that the amounts are so huge, that even a lesser percentage still outweighs the higher percentages of more moderate incomes.  It's definitely good to be an investment banker - they managed to get their entire yearly incomes to be taxed as capital gains and dividends rather than income.  Sweet deal, if you can get it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 25, 2011)

Carol, I've had similar discussions. 
Most people want a job.  A j.o.b.  You know, "Just over Broke" or "jackass of boss" or similar title.  I want a career. That's different, though most don't understand that.  But most people aren't equipped to be on their own, they need someone to tell them what to do. That was taught to them, in school. That place where you go to learn to communicate where you are punished for talking, texting, typing or passing notes.  Where you can graduate yet still be unable to read, write or think. Where you aren't taught basic life skills like budgeting or how to balance a check book.  Etc. We turn out ill equipped clones by the millions, who have been taught to conform, then cry we lack innovation and motivation. 

Had a discussion with my nephew. He wanted money.  I told him, take the lawn mower, go knock on some doors, go cut some grass and charge them $20 a lawn. He never even knocked on 1 door.  When I did it, I made $100 that day.  But that was more effort than he wanted to expend.  Most people do as little as possible. 
Minimum wage right now is $7.25/hr in NY right now.  The McDonalds down the street from me is hiring at $8/hr. A Burger King by a local mall is at $8.75/hr.
My wife does hiring at a national chain...they start at about $8.50/hr, says they have trouble getting people to even turn in an application.
You know, during this huge no-jobs period, where wages are depressed.
Companies here have to pay over min wage, and even then can't even get people to turn in applications to fill positions that are immediately available.

Why's Bubba Broke again?


----------



## celtic_crippler (Feb 25, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't think that's true. A quick search of Google Books for the 'gap between rich and poor' shows that it's a perennial complaint, and the dire predictions of imminent collapse are always made; and yet we are here and it doesn't seem to have happened. It seems to come up every couple generations; but we don't have complete destruction every couple generations. So my thought is that this is just a claim that is not backed up by facts, and the sky is not falling.


 
It's true, especially if you bother to research it past a basic google search. Though I recognize that denial is a natural coping mechanism LOL

The historic inevitability was addressed by Yale Historian Paul Kenedy in his book "The Rise and Fall of Great Powers" printed way back in 1988. 

Of course, a few well known and simple examples would be France in 1789 and most recently the former Soviet Union. It doesn't matter if you think it's "true" or not... it happened and it can happen in the good ole USA as well.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 25, 2011)

I'm ok with a flat tax...as long as all exemptions are dropped and -everyone- pays.
15% across the board.
Oh wait, that means the poor people will actually pay taxes, and those evil rich will again, pay less.
You guys do realize that the only taxes about a third of the US population pays are Social Security/Medicaid/Unemployment and sales tax right? That they don't pay any income tax, and often get more back in their refunds than was even deducted?

Those are the ones who want the actual tax payers to pay even more, then argue about fairness.


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 25, 2011)

Qft




bob hubbard said:


> i'm ok with a flat tax...as long as all exemptions are dropped and -everyone- pays.
> 15% across the board.
> Oh wait, that means the poor people will actually pay taxes, and those evil rich will again, pay less.
> You guys do realize that the only taxes about a third of the us population pays are social security/medicaid/unemployment and sales tax right? That they don't pay any income tax, and often get more back in their refunds than was even deducted?
> ...


----------



## Steve (Feb 25, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I'm ok with a flat tax...as long as all exemptions are dropped and -everyone- pays.
> 15% across the board.
> Oh wait, that means the poor people will actually pay taxes, and those evil rich will again, pay less.


If everyone's paying, I doubt it would need to even be that high.





> You guys do realize that the only taxes about a third of the US population pays are Social Security/Medicaid/Unemployment and sales tax right? That they don't pay any income tax, and often get more back in their refunds than was even deducted?


Just to clarify, all three of the programs you're talking about are from completely different pots of money.  The only one that is directly funded by general revenue tax dollars is medicaid.  Also, you're talking about the bottom of the wealth scale, but you're also on board with removing the exemptions at the top, as well.  Right?  





> Those are the ones who want the actual tax payers to pay even more, then argue about fairness.


It's both sides, Bob.  As you say that the poor should pay, so too should the rich.  And they don't either.  If you acknowledge this, I think we're pretty much in agreement.

Personally, I believe that one of the greatest "achievements" of the modern conservative message has been to convince bottom third percentage wage earners that the richest among us are the victims.  That's an amazing feat, and for me, a head scratcher.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 25, 2011)

After having thought about it a long time, I think I actually prefer a national sales tax instead of an income tax of any kind.

The main reason is that a tax on wages depends very much on people having jobs and earning traditional wages.  That's the only way an actual flat tax can work and the only way I've heard it described.  A tax on revenue is much more tricky because of all the different ways people can earn revenue besides by working.  And from what I've read, most of the very rich are not wage-earners, they're owners, investors, and so on.  It's hard to break out their revenue; hence the actual convoluted tax system we have today.  In other words, you can't do a *simple* flat tax on revenue.  It must by nature be complicated.

However, people spend their money on goods and services.  Rich and poor, they buy things.  So that seems to be a good place to capture the revenue for tax purposes in a fair manner.  If one wishes to avoid a regressive tax that unfairly penalizes the poor, then have the tax lower on staple items like food and higher on luxury items like boats and houses over a certain price and so on.

This also has the advantage of capturing the revenue earned by illegal aliens when they work non-tax-collecting (under the table) jobs and drug lords and others who work off the books in a variety of fields.  You'd even collect tax revenue from the mob - everybody spends money, no matter how they make it.  So tax it where they spend it, you get nearly everyone.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 25, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> If everyone's paying, I doubt it would need to even be that high.Just to clarify, all three of the programs you're talking about are from completely different pots of money.  The only one that is directly funded by general revenue tax dollars is medicaid.  Also, you're talking about the bottom of the wealth scale, but you're also on board with removing the exemptions at the top, as well.  Right?  It's both sides, Bob.  As you say that the poor should pay, so too should the rich.  And they don't either.  If you acknowledge this, I think we're pretty much in agreement.
> 
> Personally, I believe that one of the greatest "achievements" of the modern conservative message has been to convince bottom third percentage wage earners that the richest among us are the victims.  That's an amazing feat, and for me, a head scratcher.


I agree with most of your points, we're mostly in agreement.


My whole thing is, I don't hate the rich, I want to be the rich.
I got everything but the money part down.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Feb 25, 2011)

The problem with a consumption tax Bill is that it breeds barter and doing business off the grid. Where as a payroll tax takes your money, and gives it straight to the government straight away. If you&#8217;re the government which one would you want?

For the most part those who are in that top % of wage earners worked their way to those positions, therefore to me any excess taxation on these people is a tax on hard work, creativity and education. Seems a bit paradoxical that we &#8220;punish&#8221; those who have succeeded, while those who haven&#8217;t, and assuming we are all responsible for our own success or failure, we do little about.

Many of us have become snobs when it comes to jobs, myself included at times, we think of ourselves not as being above work, though those people do exist, but being above certain types of work or above a certain wage level. 

Someone once said that you have to pile up the failures in order to find success. I&#8217;ve come to believe that over the past few years.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 25, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> The problem with a consumption tax Bill is that it breeds barter and doing business off the grid. Where as a payroll tax takes your money, and gives it straight to the government straight away. If youre the government which one would you want?



Again, most of the highest income earners are not wage-earners.  So no, the government is not getting their payroll taxes; they don't have any.

Consumption taxes *do* breed barter and off-grid purchasing; and that would have to be addressed.  However, it's hard to buy groceries, new cars, and the day-to-day purchases we all make off the grid.  It's like black-market cigarettes (escaping use taxes).  They exist, and it's a problem caused by the use tax itself, but it's much smaller than the total of cigarettes sold overall.

And income-hiding is (in my non-scientific opinion) much more rampant.  The various crime organizations such as drug cartels and mafia and others don't pay taxes because they hide their sources of income very well.  The very wealthy might hide income overseas and so on.  But everybody buys things; from food to movie tickets to television sets to cars and houses.



> For the most part those who are in that top % of wage earners worked their way to those positions, therefore to me any excess taxation on these people is a tax on hard work, creativity and education. Seems a bit paradoxical that we punish those who have succeeded, while those who havent, and assuming we are all responsible for our own success or failure, we do little about.



The traditional argument against flat taxes is that they are regressive; that is, they put a higher burden on the poor than the rich even when the percentage is the same.  10% of a billionaire's money isn't much to him, but 10% can be the difference between buying food or paying rent to a poor person.

A sales tax can be regressive too, but it can be addressed (to be fair, so can a flat tax) by having a sliding tax based on the items purchased (or based on income for the flat tax).  The goal is generally to have a progressive tax that does not put an undue burden on the poorest segment of society.



> Many of us have become snobs when it comes to jobs, myself included at times, we think of ourselves not as being above work, though those people do exist, but being above certain types of work or above a certain wage level.
> 
> Someone once said that you have to pile up the failures in order to find success. Ive come to believe that over the past few years.



I think luck plays as big a part as nearly anything else, and I think there are lots of variables that are out of the average person's personal control.  But yes, I feel that there are a lot of variables that are under the person's control, and they should strive to get control of their own success to the extent that they can.

But I'm not a rah-rah, anybody can get rich, kinda guy.  There are winners and losers and sometimes it's nobody's fault that a given person loses.  However, I'm also not a believer in conspiracies.  I don't think the world is out to get me (or anyone), nor do I believe I'm being 'kept down' by anyone or anything.  That kind of talk is the kind losers make when they don't want to accept that they lost due to just plain bad luck, or maybe it was their fault.


----------



## Steve (Feb 25, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I agree with most of your points, we're mostly in agreement.
> 
> 
> My whole thing is, I don't hate the rich, I want to be the rich.
> I got everything but the money part down.



I hope that I don't come off as hating the rich.  I just don't believe they're victims.  

Bill, the only problem I have with a consumption tax is that the tax burden then becomes effectively regressive.  If you make $100k per year and I make $10k per year, our milk still costs about the same... and the taxes we pay would be the same too.  Your gasoline costs the same as mine.  While you might fill up a Bentley and I'm filling up a Ford F250, we're both paying the same, and consequently the same amount of taxes.

I see your points and agree completely that a strict "payroll" tax isn't equitable.  I personally believe that taxing revenue is the best way to go, and it would be pretty easy to do.  Just my opinion.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 25, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> I'm all for fairness in taxation.  They should give as much, proportionally, as everyone else.  They don't.   I've said many times on this board that a flat tax on ALL income is as fair as it gets.  Dividends, royalties, honoraria, wages, interest, capital gains, gambling... the works.
> 
> In my opinion, that's fair.


I would love to see the Fair tax or flat tax I think they are both better then what we have now.

I see this argument all the time that the rich pay a lower tax rate the then poor I just dont see that as being true.
Per the IRS website
if you make 
0-8375 you pay 10% tax rate
8376-34000  15%
34001 -82400  25%
82401-171850 28%
171850-373650 30%
373650 and above 35%
and starting in 2013 the top two brackets go up even more

So how can you claim the poor pay more then the rich?   The top 5% of all wager earners pay over 50% of all taxes.  The bottom 50% of all tax payer only pay in about 3% of all tax dollars.


----------



## K-man (Feb 25, 2011)

celtic_crippler said:


> It's true, especially if you bother to research it past a basic google search. Though I recognize that denial is a natural coping mechanism LOL
> 
> The historic inevitability was addressed by Yale Historian Paul Kenedy in his book "The Rise and Fall of Great Powers" printed way back in 1988.
> 
> Of course, a few well known and simple examples would be France in 1789 and most recently the former Soviet Union. It doesn't matter if you think it's "true" or not... it happened and it can happen in the good ole USA as well.


Not to mention the recent GFC and the problems in Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain and total financial collapse of Greenland.

The GFC was caused by excessive greed and people inventing things of no value like derivatives to make huge profits. As to the US economy, just for how long is the national debt sustainable. The $US has diminished by 40% against the $Au. You can't just keep printing money to fuel the excesses.    :asian:


----------



## K-man (Feb 25, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> So what how does that concern you? If thats what the shareholders decided was adequate for him to leave then so be it. Unless the Govt decided to bail out the company with Tax payer dollars then thats a different story. Now truth be told hes not the first CEO to fail and get paid yet he was your example. Hmm could it be that he insulted your country and your people and thats why your upset and it has nothing to do with his bonus.
> 
> *I'm a shareholder in the company and all our superannuation funds are major shareholders. This guy dropped the value of the company 50% and gets paid $14m to break his contract.*
> 
> ...


Read the posts. They are all on the same page. We are not saying one person isn't entitled to be paid more than another. We are discussing inequity. 

BTW, self depreciation is admirable, but not an excuse. _("I'm only a police officer.") 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

As I said in my first post "Just don't ask me for the solution. I'm not that bright." :asian:


----------



## Steve (Feb 27, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> I would love to see the Fair tax or flat tax I think they are both better then what we have now.
> 
> I see this argument all the time that the rich pay a lower tax rate the then poor I just dont see that as being true.
> Per the IRS website
> ...


Oh come on, Bill.  Surely you understand that the tax rate above applies only to net taxable income.  We do have a progressive tax schedule.  But the effective tax rate is much less progressive, because people who are in higher tax brackets are much better at, and have access to more legal ways to, shelter their income.  Getting into middle income brackets and even, now that the housing market has crashed, up into the middle class, you have fewer and fewer wage earners able to itemize their deductions.  That means that they're not even able to take advantage of the most basic deductions, such as donations.

I have also posted in the past that there are thousands of people up into the millionaire range who legally pay zero taxes.  That's right.  Goose egg.  There are thousands more who pay under 10%.  

I'm not saying that everyone should pay other than his or her share.  What I'm saying is that as you talk about how the poor should pay more and how the rich are victims, I believe that the rich should pay their share.  Period.  Every one of them.  

I don't believe that we should pity Scrooge McDuck.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 27, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> I see your points and agree completely that a strict "payroll" tax isn't equitable.  I personally believe that taxing revenue is the best way to go, and it would be pretty easy to do.  Just my opinion.



I see your point also, but I've become convinced that revenue-hiding is much easier to do than consumption-hiding.  And given that a good-sized portion of our economy is based on illegal revenue (drug traffic, etc), I see a consumption tax as capturing a large portion of that; a bonus making the criminals pay their share.


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 27, 2011)

the problem is, too many people dont pay any taxes at all.

like the bottom 30% or wage earners, who pay NOTHING in taxes.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Feb 27, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Oh come on, Bill. Surely you understand that the tax rate above applies only to net taxable income. We do have a progressive tax schedule. But the effective tax rate is much less progressive, because people who are in higher tax brackets are much better at, and have access to more legal ways to, shelter their income. Getting into middle income brackets and even, now that the housing market has crashed, up into the middle class, you have fewer and fewer wage earners able to itemize their deductions. That means that they're not even able to take advantage of the most basic deductions, such as donations.
> 
> I_* have also posted in the past that there are thousands of people up into the millionaire range who legally pay zero taxes. That's right. Goose egg. There are thousands more who pay under 10%. *_
> 
> ...


 
Proof??
or are you just towing the company line..
seriously lets see the proof on this one..
there are some people who pay no taxes, but its because they are paying it elsewhere.
deducations are deductions for a reason. Not because its there to get us who use them off of paying taxes, but they are there to not punish us for using money in specific ways that either pay off costs of business, or donations, or putting money into specific places where it will work towards the future..... sure there are cases of fraud, but I know people in the poor and middle income brackets who do jobs under the table and dont report it, who claim more in deductions then they should, who dont claim casino winnings, etc.
its not the rich screwing everyone over like you seem to like to think


----------



## Big Don (Feb 27, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> the problem is, too many people dont pay any taxes at all.
> 
> like the bottom 30% or wage earners, who pay NOTHING in taxes.


IIRC, the number was 47% last year.


----------



## billc (Feb 27, 2011)

Steve, I believe in a consumption tax basic foods, from grocery stores and medicine are exempt.  I think I heard that somewhere.


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 27, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Steve, I believe in a consumption tax basic foods, from grocery stores and medicine are exempt. I think I heard that somewhere.


 
But how do you devide what is 'basic foods'?

How about basic furniture? basic clothing? 

The concept of a consumptin tax, and we're usually talking about one high enough to eliminate income tax, is that it becomes increasingly complex as exempt items are addes, or taxed at different rates.  Like the flat tax, it sounds good as a 10 second sound ite, but is not practical in the real world.

The concept of a progressive tax, on all monies received, with no exemptions, save for a minimume income level before tax is taken,  makes more sense.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 27, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> But how do you devide what is 'basic foods'?
> 
> How about basic furniture? basic clothing?
> 
> The concept of a consumptin tax, and we're usually talking about one high enough to eliminate income tax, is that it becomes increasingly complex as exempt items are addes, or taxed at different rates.  Like the flat tax, it sounds good as a 10 second sound ite, but is not practical in the real world.



The way I see it, you tax everything sold.  Tax luxury items higher.  You can tell the difference between a bag of groceries and a boat, for example.  We already do this for many things anyway; states have had 'sin taxes' on such items for years.  It works.



> The concept of a progressive tax, on all monies received, with no exemptions, save for a minimume income level before tax is taken,  makes more sense.



It makes more sense until you start thinking about what is 'monies received'.  If I buy stock and it goes up in value 10% by September, then another 20% by December, then down %30 by April, what's my basis profit or loss?  Now you're back into the kind of figuring we already try to get people to do.  And what of the money they hold overseas that we can't easily track, or property in lieu of liquid assets held outside the USA?  A person can have a huge net worth and still arrange to 'receive' a fairly small amount of that on an ongoing basis; and that's all via legal or semi-legal ways of avoiding taking actual profits and thus having income to declare.  People have to spend their money on something; tax it when the sale happens.  And capture the huge off-the-grid revenue from things like illegal drug profits.  Drug dealers and illegal aliens buy groceries, too.  The rich ones buy boats, cars, and houses as well.  Take a cut.  Even if they're operating in the underground economy, get some tax revenue from them.


----------



## Steve (Feb 27, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> Proof??
> or are you just towing the company line..
> seriously lets see the proof on this one..
> there are some people who pay no taxes, but its because they are paying it elsewhere.
> ...


If they're not paying taxes, they're not paying taxes. The information is easily verified on IRS.gov.

We went down this road before, in a thread that Bill Mattocks posted thanking taxpayers. In light of the directino that this thread is headed, I went back and reread the entire thing. I still believe that my position was both reasonable and correct, although I let the issue drop out of consideration to those who were getting upset, like Brian.

What spurred me to look into the data available at irs.gov was the chart Bill posted. I saw the percentage of people in the upper brackets who paid no taxes and wondered how many people that represented. Look it up. Knock yourself out. 

And I will say this one time just to be very, very clear, becaue this is where people got butthurt in the last thread. I don't think that "the rich" are screwing anyone. I don't think that "the rich" are inherently dishonest. I DO think that they're doing just fine and aren't being victimized. I ALSO think that rich people, like everyone else, should pay THEIR SHARE. I'll go ahead and make a text file of this paragraph, because I know many people will fail to read it the first time.

@billcihak, are you looking at some kind of rule book for tax code I'm not aware of? While I would hope that a national sales tax would exclude unprepared food and other essentials, that would be completly up to the bill passed by Congress and signed by the POTUS. 

@Bill Mattocks, stocks are easy. You tax them just as you do now, at the moment they are converted to cash. An income tax is exactly that, tax on income. An asset generates no income unless it's liquidated. Dividends paid to stockholders is also income. Very simple. 

And again, just to be clear, I am not completely opposed to a national sales tax, but I believe that a tax on all income is more fair.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Feb 27, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> If they're not paying taxes, they're not paying taxes. The information is easily verified on IRS.gov.
> 
> We went down this road before, in a thread that Bill Mattocks posted thanking taxpayers. In light of the directino that this thread is headed, I went back and reread the entire thing. I still believe that my position was both reasonable and correct, although I let the issue drop out of consideration to those who were getting upset, like Brian.
> 
> ...


 
what are you smoking Steve? that article says nothing about thousands of millionaires paying no taxes.
please show me where it says that thousands of millionaires are paying no taxes.
I call BS on this one.

besides do you know how many deductions you have to have at a million plus income to qualify for a zero income tax?
my guess is that category is one of, if not the heaviest audited as well.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 27, 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/22/vodafone-tax-case-leaves-sour-taste

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/series/tax-gap

Not America, I know.  But the principles are the same.  The poor are relieved, the middle pays, the top evades.


----------



## Steve (Feb 28, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> what are you smoking Steve?


That's a whole 'nuther thread, LuckyKBboxer! 



> that article says nothing about thousands of millionaires paying no taxes.
> please show me where it says that thousands of millionaires are paying no taxes.
> I call BS on this one.


Look at the chart.  As I said before, that chart was what got me thinking about it in the first place.   Below is a chart posted by Bill Mattocks in the OP of that other thread.  His thrust was to thank the people who actually pay taxes, which isn't a bad thing at all, IMO.  And, while 83.6% of income earners between $10k and $20k paid no taxes, I was surprised to see anything other than ZERO above $100k.  My effective rate is about 30%, so the idea of even one person who made over a million who pays no taxes makes me a little cranky. Much less, 1.5% of them.  






I thought, surely they can't mean 1.5% of millionaires pay no taxes.  As I said, all of the information's easily verified if you take a look at the stats page on irs.gov.





> besides do you know how many deductions you have to have at a million plus income to qualify for a zero income tax?


I wish!





> my guess is that category is one of, if not the heaviest audited as well.


And to be clear once again, I'm not suggesting and have never suggested that they're sheltering their income illegally.  My point is that they are sheltering it so effectively using any and every legal loophole that their effective tax rate is 0%.  As we discuss whether or how poor people should pay their "fair share" we must also, IMO, discuss whether or how the rich should do the same.  We _presume_ the rich is being victimized because we're told so over and over.  I do not believe that the wealthiest 10% of our population are victims.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Feb 28, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> That's a whole 'nuther thread, LuckyKBboxer!
> 
> Look at the chart. As I said before, that chart was what got me thinking about it in the first place. Below is a chart posted by Bill Mattocks in the OP of that other thread. His thrust was to thank the people who actually pay taxes, which isn't a bad thing at all, IMO. And, while 83.6% of income earners between $10k and $20k paid no taxes, I was surprised to see anything other than ZERO above $100k. My effective rate is about 30%, so the idea of even one person who made over a million who pays no taxes makes me a little cranky. Much less, 1.5% of them.
> 
> ...


 
well I am curious how that number comes out to 1.5%....
btw that is not millionaires... its people who made over a million dollars for the year. oh and over a million dollars in cash as well... I am pretty sure that there 1.5% of the people making over a million in cash income is not anywhere near 8000 peoplel
there are plenty of millionaires who dont make anything close to a million a year...
I have to wonder how many people in our coutnry made over a million dollars that year first of all.
and then out of those 1.5% that did not pay any taxes I wonder how that broke down.
I imagine that people like Buffet who made well over a million dollars but may have donated ten times what he earned for the year to various charities was probably given a pass... and in cases like that I have no problem.... I am not saying that is what happened, but I really would like to see what the circumstances were.
You are assuming the worst case scenario and are getting pissed about it..... also did it say that all of those 1.5% were legally paying no taxes, or did they just not file and are being gone after by the IRS?
to many things that are unknown here..
I can not look at that and get pissed off, because there is not enough information to be pissed off about.
I have heard of people in public office who have donated their entire paychecks to charity for various reasons... whether they did and whether it was for various reasons, I would have little issues with them not paying taxes on that money... would you?


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 28, 2011)

Steve Im looking all over the IRS website I cant find any info on 1.5% of millionaires not paying taxes.  I then goggled it thinking well if its true it would be on every left wing blog out there and still nothing.  Can you point me to the right place where you found this info.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 28, 2011)

A quick Google found this:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2010/0415/Tax-Day-101-How-some-millionaires-can-owe-no-taxes

Not the same chart but the same point.

I also found this which, tho' politically biased, does have some good visuals and is written by a professional economist:

http://www.american.com/archive/200...zine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

And this one is interesting as it gives a bit of background on how things got that way:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/15/politics/otherpeoplesmoney/main4945874.shtml


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Feb 28, 2011)

Thanks Sukerkin,
I see where Steve got his 8000 figure now.
those stories give a much different feel then what Steve was giving.
Like I said, there is generally a damn good reason why someone who makes over a million in cash income in a year is not paying any taxes.
there are cases of fraud, but they are generally gone after,
also that same fraud is all through the system from top to bottom, but it only seems to matter when the top guys are doing it, not the bottom guys.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 28, 2011)

I'm not going to go back through the whole thread, but, has anyone mentioned that life isn't fair?
People that work smarter and harder tend to earn more, does that mean they are less deserving of the fruits of their labor than those who don't?


----------



## Steve (Feb 28, 2011)

@Lucky/Ballen, there is a huge amount of statistical information available on the irs.gov website.  I don't have the time to retrace my steps, but I urge you to take a look on your own.



> those stories give a much different feel then what Steve was giving.


Lucky, I take exception to this statement.  What "feel" am I giving?  I've gone out of my way to be explicit.  I'm not talking about fraud, nor am I suggesting that what is being done is illegal.  If anything, I'm saying that the tax code is broken top to bottom.  

I mentioned earlier that I'd cut/paste a paragraph because I knew then that people would miss it:  _And I will say this one time just to be very, very clear, because this is where people got butthurt in the last thread. I don't think that "the rich" are screwing anyone. I don't think that "the rich" are inherently dishonest. I DO think that they're doing just fine and aren't being victimized. I ALSO think that rich people, like everyone else, should pay THEIR SHARE._

I'll just add, I'm not pissed about this.  We're having a discussion.  I'm not giving it much thought one way or the other outside of posting in this thread.  Let's keep things in perspective.  

@Sukerkin, thank you for looking those up.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Feb 28, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> @Lucky/Ballen, there is a huge amount of statistical information available on the irs.gov website. I don't have the time to retrace my steps, but I urge you to take a look on your own.
> 
> Lucky, I take exception to this statement. What "feel" am I giving? I've gone out of my way to be explicit. I'm not talking about fraud, nor am I suggesting that what is being done is illegal. If anything, I'm saying that the tax code is broken top to bottom.
> 
> ...


 
you keep mentioning in the thread how outraged you are that they are not paying income tax.
my point is there is a reasont hey are not paying income tax.
you seem to give the impression that you think that no matter what their expenses, or cases are that they should be paying income tax no matter what.
my point is they would if they were simply making the money without anything else... but they are filing tax returns, and obviously have some massive deductions.
I do not see the problem. If a person who is making over a million a year in income is not paying taxed legally its because he is putting that money to use in a whole hell of alot of ways that are doing a whole hell of alot more then a few hundred thousand dollars in taxes would be doing.


----------



## Steve (Feb 28, 2011)

I don't know how I can be more clear.  I'm not outraged that the rich are rich.  My belief now, as it was then, is that the rich and the poor are well taken care of and it's the rest of us in the middle who shoulder the most of the burden.  My point now, as it was then, is that conversations on people who don't pay taxes should not focus just on the poor.

Where's my love, billcihak.  You thank lucky, but I don't get any?  I'm hurt.


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 28, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> it's the rest of us in the middle who shoulder the most of the burden.




this is manifestly untrue, and it has been provent o be untrue, the "rich" maybe 10% of the population pay the MAJORITY as in OVER 50% of the tax revenues of this country

so THEY are shouldering MOST of the burden.


----------



## Steve (Mar 1, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> this is manifestly untrue, and it has been provent o be untrue, the "rich" maybe 10% of the population pay the MAJORITY as in OVER 50% of the tax revenues of this country
> 
> so THEY are shouldering MOST of the burden.


Instead of retyping it all, I'll just cut/paste from earlier in this same thread.

_The top 1% owns almost 40% of the stock, over 60% of the financial securities and over 60% of all business equity in the USA. 

This same top 1% has a total of just shy of 40% of the privately held wealth in the USA. 

The top 10% wealthiest individuals in the USA own almost 90% of investment assets in the USA, while the bottom 90% have over 70% of the debt.

The top 20% comprises 85% of the total net worth in the USA._

So, at the very least, qualify your statement somewhat.  It's incredibly specious to suggest that the top 10% are paying out of proportion to their relative wealth and income.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Mar 1, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Instead of retyping it all, I'll just cut/paste from earlier in this same thread.
> 
> _The top 1% owns almost 40% of the stock, over 60% of the financial securities and over 60% of all business equity in the USA. _
> 
> ...


 
so once again you are into punishing success, and forgiving failures..
I am not so into that, and that is not what I understand helped make our country great..
but it sure seems to be a big part of what is sinking us into a mediocre country fast.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 1, 2011)

they ARE paying out of proportion to the % of the population they represent.

you REWARD the best, not punish them


----------



## Steve (Mar 1, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> so once again you are into punishing success, and forgiving failures..
> I am not so into that, and that is not what I understand helped make our country great..
> but it sure seems to be a big part of what is sinking us into a mediocre country fast.


 Oh jesus christ.  No.  I'm saying that, if they own most of everything, and make most of the income, it follows that they would pay most of the real tax dollars.  Once again, just pointing out that they are not to be pitied.  We do have a progressive tax system in the USA.  It's specious, however, to simply say, "Hey, they pay over 50% of the taxes.  Poor them!"  If they make over 50% of the income in real dollars, they SHOULD be paying over 50% of the taxes.  That doesn't mean that, relative to your income and mine, they are paying out of proportion to their wealth.  

Why do you guys feel so bad for these guys?  I don't get it.  You have a hard on for screwing the bottom 20% or so, but seem hell bent on giving every benefit of the doubt to the top 20%.  Is it hero worship?  Envy?  

I'll say again, it's about not giving a free pass to anyone and having a conversation about the tax code top to bottom to ensure that everyone pays THEIR FAIR SHARE.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 1, 2011)

steve, "fair" means EQUAL

fair in no way means you guys dont pay anything, but yOU guys pay in 60%

it is THIERS, they earned it, you have no right to it, leave them alone


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Mar 1, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Oh jesus christ. No. I'm saying that, if they own most of everything, and make most of the income, it follows that they would pay most of the real tax dollars. Once again, just pointing out that they are not to be pitied. We do have a progressive tax system in the USA. It's specious, however, to simply say, "Hey, they pay over 50% of the taxes. Poor them!" If they make over 50% of the income in real dollars, they SHOULD be paying over 50% of the taxes. That doesn't mean that, relative to your income and mine, they are paying out of proportion to their wealth.
> 
> Why do you guys feel so bad for these guys? I don't get it. You have a hard on for screwing the bottom 20% or so, but seem hell bent on giving every benefit of the doubt to the top 20%. Is it hero worship? Envy?
> 
> I'll say again, it's about not giving a free pass to anyone and having a conversation about the tax code top to bottom to ensure that everyone pays THEIR FAIR SHARE.


 
so since you are all about equality and fairness...
since they own 60% of the wealth, and pay 60% of the taxes... or whatnot should they also have 60% of the say in how things are done?
I would be perfectly fine with saying those that pay taxes are allowed to vote, and those that do not pay taxes have no vote...
works for me.


----------



## Steve (Mar 1, 2011)

N.   You guys are right.    I see that now .  We are being so unfair to thetop ten percent.   Poor, poor...  poor rich people.   we are just going back and forth now.   I've said my piece.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 2, 2011)

Meanwhile, back in DC, there is a move to neuter OSHA&#8230; 

Hmmm :hmm: I wonder who will benefit and who will be hurt by that

First, Job Safety was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement so I must do nothing. And secondly, you must be a business owner for OSHA&#8217;s code to apply and you're not. And thirdly, the OSHA code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Ship of state, Miss Turner .


----------



## granfire (Mar 2, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> N.   You guys are right.    I see that now .  We are being so unfair to thetop ten percent.   Poor, poor...  poor rich people.   we are just going back and forth now.   I've said my piece.




LOL, I am sorry, but I don't really can feel a lot of pity for somebody who's tax cuts exceed my net worth by a multitude...

I think that's when the middle class people argue for more fairness for the upper crust overlooks that disparity. yes, a dollar is still a dollar, but sheesh, I need my extra money, and not buy a 3500$ purse to fill up the purse closet....


----------



## Steve (Mar 2, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> steve, "fair" means EQUAL
> 
> fair in no way means you guys dont pay anything, but yOU guys pay in 60%
> 
> it is THIERS, they earned it, you have no right to it, leave them alone


Not commenting on rich vs poor.  More of an elementary school English lesson.  Fair doesn't mean equal.  Fair means equitable.   Something that is equitable is, by definition, fair.  On the other hand, many things that are equal are not fair.  

Take a relative scale, for example.  You earn $20,000 last year and pay $200 in taxes.  I earn $200,000 and pay $2000 in taxes.  Woohoo for me!   Daddy Warbucks earns $2 million and pays $20,000 in taxes.  Would you consider that fair?

While not equal, I would consider this very fair.  The above is, essentially, a 1% flat tax.  Daddy Warbucks paid as much in taxes as you earned all year.  But it was equitable because, as a percentage of his income, he paid the same amount.

This is the point I'm making.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Mar 2, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Not commenting on rich vs poor. More of an elementary school English lesson. Fair doesn't mean equal. Fair means equitable. Something that is equitable is, by definition, fair. On the other hand, many things that are equal are not fair.
> 
> Take a relative scale, for example. You earn $20,000 last year and pay $200 in taxes. I earn $200,000 and pay $2000 in taxes. Woohoo for me!  Daddy Warbucks earns $2 million and pays $20,000 in taxes. Would you consider that fair?
> 
> ...


 

I am all for this tax structure, lets implement this immediately and throw away that nonsense I have been paying on....
1% FML thats great. Steve for President!
lol

btw I have never said poor rich people, thats just been your knee jerk reaction everytime anyone doesnt agree with your assessment on whats fair for taxes here.
I think what is continually being pointed out to you is the rich are paying their share, and more and you seem to want to tax them even more on top of that.. you want to complain when you see a figure that you have no idea what it means, or how it got there... and want to automatically cast the rich people as evil.


----------



## Steve (Mar 2, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> I am all for this tax structure, lets implement this immediately and throw away that nonsense I have been paying on....
> 1% FML thats great. Steve for President!
> lol


Well, I don't think 1% will get the job done, but if we account for all income, I think that the tax rate would go down for just about everyone. 


> btw I have never said poor rich people, thats just been your knee jerk reaction everytime anyone doesnt agree with your assessment on whats fair for taxes here.


Not in these words, but you have gone out of your way to dismiss any negative statement about the top 10%, even if that statement was only to suggest that they pay their fair share along with everyone else.  

Interestingly, if you agree with my "tax structure" above, you ALSO agree with my assessment on what's fair for taxes.  If anything, for 10 or 12 posts, I've only been trying to bring you along with me, knowing that you're arguing points I haven't made.  We don't disagree on what's fair.  It's just been a hard road convincing you of that.  But in order to get to a flat tax, it's critical to understand that there are people, primarily at the very top and at the very bottom, who aren't paying up.



> I think what is continually being pointed out to you is the rich are paying their share, and more and you seem to want to tax them even more on top of that.. you want to complain when you see a figure that you have no idea what it means, or how it got there... and want to automatically cast the rich people as evil.


  I'm simply pointing out that if a flat tax were advantageous to the rich, we'd have it already.  Period.  The power and influence that the wealthy wield is formidable.     

As far as casting anyone as evil, I believe I've gone out of my way to do otherwise.  My position is reasonable, and it's even one that you agree with.   The disagreement, in my opinion, stems from you mistakenly presuming that the rich are above reproach, and that I have a beef against them.  While I don't have a beef against them, I also believe that they are subject to scrutiny.


----------



## granfire (Mar 2, 2011)

man, I wish I knew where I can find it. Somebody told me a while ago that some economists had figured out how to make the tax code ridiculously simple, create more revenue and yet everybody keeps more money.


----------



## K-man (Mar 2, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Not commenting on rich vs poor. More of an elementary school English lesson. Fair doesn't mean equal. Fair means equitable. Something that is equitable is, by definition, fair. On the other hand, many things that are equal are not fair.
> 
> Take a relative scale, for example. You earn $20,000 last year and pay $200 in taxes. I earn $200,000 and pay $2000 in taxes. Woohoo for me!  Daddy Warbucks earns $2 million and pays $20,000 in taxes. Would you consider that fair?
> 
> ...


All over the world flat tax doesn't work. The simple thing in this example is that person one on $20,000 a year is living below the poverty line. Yet they still have to pay the $200 tax that they can't afford. You earn your $200,000 and pay $2,000 Woohoo! You have heaps to spend. Daddy Warbucks earns the $2M and invests $1m in an enterprise that generates $20,000 of tax savings and pays no tax. The people in the middle pay the most tax in most places.

BTW, tax is normally closer to 20-30%. 25% applied to your example of the minimum wage of $20,000 takes $5,000 and already on the poverty line that person now has not enough money to live. You pay $50,000 WooHoo! but can live on $150,000. Daddy Warbucks structures his money to get the deductions, because he can, and pays nothing.
Sorry, that's the real world. :asian:


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 2, 2011)

Flat tax


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 2, 2011)

and it IS fair becasue it IS equal

and I dont seek that which i did not earn




stevebjj said:


> Not commenting on rich vs poor.  More of an elementary school English lesson.  Fair doesn't mean equal.  Fair means equitable.   Something that is equitable is, by definition, fair.  On the other hand, many things that are equal are not fair.
> 
> Take a relative scale, for example.  You earn $20,000 last year and pay $200 in taxes.  I earn $200,000 and pay $2000 in taxes.  Woohoo for me!   Daddy Warbucks earns $2 million and pays $20,000 in taxes.  Would you consider that fair?
> 
> ...


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 2, 2011)

Attempting to not disincentivise the individually entrepreneurial whilst at the same time trying to stop society collapsing into a neo-feudal mess (which is what capitalism will give you) is the tricky tight-rope which is the fashioning of a tax system.

What is consistently being missed is that progressive taxation is NOT about punishing the individual who, by dint of hard work or clever ideas, made a bob or two.  It is about trying to keep society functioning as corpate activities hoover up all the wealth.

Sadly, because of the sheer fiscal power of the corporations, they are able to play the system in their favour, to the extent that companies like Vodaphone simply 'cut a deal' not to pay 80% of the £6 billion they legitmately owed.

Oddly enough, that is about the amount the present government is trying to save by cutting the jobs of tens of thousands of ordinary workers in the public sector, thus causing real pain and misery in real lives.  At the same time, such evasions damage the economy as a whole by reducing actual demand for goods and services and increasing the burden on the social support system when all those people end up on the dole.


----------



## Steve (Mar 2, 2011)

K-man said:


> All over the world flat tax doesn't work. The simple thing in this example is that person one on $20,000 a year is living below the poverty line. Yet they still have to pay the $200 tax that they can't afford. You earn your $200,000 and pay $2,000 Woohoo! You have heaps to spend. Daddy Warbucks earns the $2M and invests $1m in an enterprise that generates $20,000 of tax savings and pays no tax. The people in the middle pay the most tax in most places.
> 
> BTW, tax is normally closer to 20-30%. 25% applied to your example of the minimum wage of $20,000 takes $5,000 and already on the poverty line that person now has not enough money to live. You pay $50,000 WooHoo! but can live on $150,000. Daddy Warbucks structures his money to get the deductions, because he can, and pays nothing.
> Sorry, that's the real world. :asian:


Nothing's ever as simple as that, but I think it's a little funny that you invented tax incentives in an example strictly intended to explain the difference between "equal" and "equitable."   And now I'm getting it from both sides.  What is it about equity that you guys don't get?  Can't we at least agree that it is desirable that everyone pay their fair share?  If we can agree on that, then we can begin to discuss what we think is fair.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 2, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Can't we at least agree that it is desirable that everyone pay their fair share?  If we can agree on that, then we can begin to discuss what we think is fair.



"Fair" seems to have an ever-shifting definition that coincidentally seems to help the argument being made at the time.  When it's convenient for a percentage to be "fair", then that is fair.  When it is convenient for the nominal amount to be "fair", then that is fair.  When it is convenient for the percentage paid of all revenue to be "fair", then that will be fair.  When none of that works, change the subject and accuse your opponent of being a hater.  It works for Congress, why not here?


----------



## Steve (Mar 2, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> "Fair" seems to have an ever-shifting definition that coincidentally seems to help the argument being made at the time.  When it's convenient for a percentage to be "fair", then that is fair.  When it is convenient for the nominal amount to be "fair", then that is fair.  When it is convenient for the percentage paid of all revenue to be "fair", then that will be fair.  When none of that works, change the subject and accuse your opponent of being a hater.  It works for Congress, why not here?


  Don't be a hater, Empty Hands!  I'm trying to find common ground here!


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 2, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Don't be a hater, Empty Hands!  I'm trying to find common ground here!



Sorry, I'm in a grumpy mood.


----------



## K-man (Mar 2, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Nothing's ever as simple as that, but I think it's a little funny that you invented tax incentives in an example strictly intended to explain the difference between "equal" and "equitable."   And now I'm getting it from both sides.  What is it about equity that you guys don't get?  Can't we at least agree that it is desirable that everyone pay their fair share?  If we can agree on that, then we can begin to discuss what we think is fair.



 I agree totally.  As I said before, I don't have the answers.  Although I was accused of being 'bitter' earlier in the thread, I have no reason for bitterness.  I consider myself one of the more fortunate and I am truly thankful for the hand fate has dealt me.  That does not prevent me from seeing the desperate situations that some people find themselves in, often through no fault of their own.  I wouldn't for one minute suggest that everybody has the same income. That just wouldn't work.  There will always be those that work harder or work smarter and they deserve recognition and reward.  There are also a number of people in this world who stuff up big time, ruin lots of little people and walk away with millions to get rid of them.  I can see that a person's earning capacity might be two or three times another, but I will never accept that one person's labour is worth 100 or up to 500 times another's for the same hours worked.  That is not fair and not equitable.  The tax systems in the first world are generally structured to address this anomaly but greed steps in and people seek to evade tax by not declaring income or using tax havens to conceal income. 

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...-over-tax-fraud/2007/07/19/1184559956966.html

This is just one of a number of high profile people caught up in a tax office investigation that is ongoing.

Personally, I have availed myself of every opportunity the Government has offered to minimise the tax I pay and this is the incentive the government provides for me to provide for my future as a self funded retiree.

The Government still wins because the more we spend, the more consumption tax we pay and that evens the field a little.  In Australia basic foods (unprocessed) and medicines are exempt from tax.  

Fair is only fair when everyone plays by the rules.  Unfortunately it is normally the people that can afford to pay tax who evade it the most thereby putting more pressure on those in the middle.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 3, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> "Fair" seems to have an ever-shifting definition that coincidentally seems to help the argument being made at the time. When it's convenient for a percentage to be "fair", then that is fair. When it is convenient for the nominal amount to be "fair", then that is fair. When it is convenient for the percentage paid of all revenue to be "fair", then that will be fair. When none of that works, change the subject and accuse your opponent of being a hater. It works for Congress, why not here?


 
You beat me to it.  

Not only that, but I would question how anyone who pays nothing into the system is "paying their fair share", but they aren't paying anything.  So, as a counter-argument for those who have no sympathy for those who have a great deal of money after paying taxes, I have little sympathy for those who don't pay into the system at all complaining about how little the system is giving them and demanding more.

I was also thinking along another line as well.  What is the "fair" distribution of the government services for which the various parties are paying.  Who gets more out of the federal government's budget?  Is it fair for someone who is allowed to get less out of the government to pay more then those who gain more out of it.  

But, we could also argue that those who pay more, by dint of their wealth, have more access to the law makers who legislate tax laws, or other laws, to enact regulation in their favor.  But then, they are paying for that access, while others are not.

These are complicated arguments.  The question that ultimately must be asked and answered is what is the role of the government, and on what principles is it based.  Unless these questions are answered, then we will continue to have these arguments, and fall further into the trap that we already find ourselves.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 3, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Don't be a hater, Empty Hands! I'm trying to find common ground here!


 
Well Im a hater and proud of it. But at least I hate everyone equally :uhyeah:


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 3, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> These are complicated arguments.  The question that ultimately must be asked and answered is what is the role of the government, and on what principles is it based.  Unless these questions are answered, then we will continue to have these arguments, and fall further into the trap that we already find ourselves.



I agree.  Generally what I see is that those on either side of the argument have fundamentally different premises, and the premises usually are not discussed.  People just end up talking past each other.  Part of the reason for that is the premises are _supposed _to be broadly agreed upon (opportunity, fairness, equality, etc.) and yet in practice they mean different things to different people.  People tend to view philosophy as worthless (hell, sometimes I even do) but that sort of training to think helps you to address fundamental issues instead of getting hung up on the consequents.  We need more of that sort of thinking as a nation.  We also need to root out the dishonest and disingenuous from the conversation, because they are making it that much harder.

One point on what you mentioned earlier about those who pay in not receiving.  Many governmental benefits tend to be invisible, or at least taken for granted.  Take Bill Gates.  He doesn't get food stamps or medicaid or help paying his heating oil bill, so he doesn't get anything from the government, right?  Well, in order to help make himself the richest man in the world, Bill Gates took advantage of court and law systems to protect his intellectual property, national infrastructure to deliver his products, police and law systems to protect his physical property, and many other benefits, all of which cost money.  Something to keep in mind.  No one can live in the United States without driving on a government paid road, be protected by government paid police and law, have recourse through government paid courts, etc.


----------



## Steve (Mar 3, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> You beat me to it.
> 
> Not only that, but I would question how anyone who pays nothing into the system is "paying their fair share", but they aren't paying anything.  So, as a counter-argument for those who have no sympathy for those who have a great deal of money after paying taxes, I have little sympathy for those who don't pay into the system at all complaining about how little the system is giving them and demanding more.
> 
> ...


Remember that the genesis of this particular conversation is the fact that there are some people who are extremely wealthy who pay no income tax, and my specific point, which you reiterate here.  If someone isn't paying anything, how can they be considered to have paid their "fair share?"  The Eye of Saruman tends to turn toward the bottom 30% or so, but we can ALSO find people at every level, even among the most wealthy, who pay less than their fair share.

Regarding who benefits most, everyone benefits.  Empty hands articulated this very well.  Libraries, State Colleges and Universities educating qualified job applicants, roads, parks, and a slew of other things we tend to take for granted.  Caring for the soldiers who protect our country when they are disabled.  While some of the people at the top of the food chain went to Harvard, Yale or other private universities, many of the geniuses who are making them their fortunes went to college on Pell grants, the GI Bill (where does that money come from?), without which, no one gets rich.

We live in a complicated ecosystem and everyone, even the wealthiest among us, benefits to a large degree from the services and systems provided by the government at every level.

I completely agree with you guys that things get tricky (to say the least) when we begin to discuss what "fair" means.  However, if we can't even agree in principle that things are unfair, or for whom, we'll never even get to the discussion of "how."


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 4, 2011)

Let me just reiterate that I didn't say that the wealthy received *no *benefits due to their tax dollars.  What I was trying to bring together with the idea of "fairness" is what are the "payouts" on the taxed "investments".  

For instance, if I and another person start a company together, and he invests $10,000 and I invest $20,000, for every $3 in profit made I would, for fairness sake, expect to receive $2.  The question is, is that the way it works with taxes?  I think that we could pretty much say that it does not.  By way of example, Nevada receives $0.65 for every $1 in federal taxes paid.  So is that "fair"?  

I am not arguing whether the rich or the poor receive more of the payout, just the fairness, or lack thereof, of a non-equal distribution of the tax dollars.  Nor am I saying that the unequal distribution (in real dollars) of taxes isn't fair either.  

And I included the "invisible benefits", after all, the rich and poor both receive the protection of the police and the use of the roads.  So though not specifically enumerated in my comment, I accounted for it.  (Though one could also certainly argue that some people receive more police services, or benefit of police services, or road services, then others, which only further complicates the issue of fairness.)


----------

