Raise income tax EXCEPT for the richest of the rich?

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by wgabrie, Aug 11, 2017.

Tags:
  1. Fenton Lum

    Fenton Lum Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2017
    Messages:
    6,127
    Likes Received:
    1,398
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes of course, the middle and underclass with their lobbying power and corpulent funding rerigged the economic system to their detriment, that must be it, and they must certainly be behind Goldman Sachs constant presence in every administration regardless of electoral outcomes. Surely unions, before they were taken down, argued strenuously to have worker productivity decoupled from compensation.

    The corporate state, which actually does not exist as an entity, never took over our economy or political system??

    Yes and no. Concentrated corporate/Wall Street/donor class/"job creator" class wealth and power took over both your political and economic system, that would be how you got to the corporate state.

    As for the term 'unsubstantial' at which you bristle so, its nothing but another way to say "the lower and middle class".
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2017
  2. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're 100% diatribe and 0% substantive.

    The lower and middle classes have huge lobbying power, both from groups who advocate for them and from their own voting powers.

    The US economic system is not rigged by anyone? Any person today can go out and take whatever they are capable of taking from the US economic system.

    Goldman Sachs should have representation in government, just as any other large US business;


    [​IMG]
    Type
    Public company
    Traded as NYSE: GS
    Dow Jones Industrial AverageComponent
    S&P 100 Component
    S&P 500 Index Component
    Industry Financial services
    Founded 1869; 148 years ago
    Founder Marcus Goldman
    Samuel Sachs
    Headquarters 200 West Street, Manhattan, New York City, New York, U.S.
    Area served
    Worldwide
    Key people
    Lloyd Blankfein
    (Chairman and CEO)
    David M. Solomon
    (President and Co-COO)
    Harvey Schwartz
    (President and Co-COO)
    R. Martin Chavez
    (CFO)
    Elisha Wiesel
    (CIO)
    Products Asset management
    Commercial banking
    Commodities
    Investment banking
    Investment management
    Mutual funds
    Prime brokerage
    Revenue [​IMG] US$37.71 billion (2016)[1]
    Operating income
    [​IMG] US$10.30 billion (2016)[1]
    Net income
    [​IMG] US$7.40 billion (2016)[1]
    Total assets [​IMG] US$860.1 billion (2016)[1]
    Total equity [​IMG] US$86.89 billion (2016)[1]
    Number of employees
    34,400 (2016)[2]
    Capital ratio 13.1% (2016; Basel III Advanced)[1]
    Rating Standard & Poor's: BBB+ (long term debt)
    Moody's: A3 (long term debt)
    Fitch Ratings: A (long term debt)[1]
    Website www.goldmansachs.com

    Please explain how unions were taken down...since this is not true?

    'Unsubstantial' is a politically charged word...try again...
     
  3. Fenton Lum

    Fenton Lum Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2017
    Messages:
    6,127
    Likes Received:
    1,398
    Trophy Points:
    113



    Yes, yes, one can see how you soil yourself over the substantial versus unsubstantial people vernacular. Politically charged? Hardly sir, politically accurate and precise.

    No. Goldman Sachs should NOT be a constant fixture of every administration regardless of electoral outcomes.

    Here's what fascism looks like
    https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=AX_7WfGyCI2UsAf4rq2oBg&q=goldman+sachs+in+the+white+house+over+time&oq=goldman+sachs+in+the+white+house+over+time&gs_l=psy-ab.3...1363.21801.0.24183.54.38.1.0.0.0.721.6608.2-3j6j3j3j1.16.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..39.13.5271...0j0i10k1j0i7i10i30k1j0i7i30k1j0i131k1j0i22i30k1j0i13k1j33i13i21k1j33i160k1.0.8eYhbagKnOY

    Please explain how unions were taken down...since this is not true?

    If it's not true how could anyone "explain" it? Since you've accepted that it is true I would suggest you peruse any number of resources on the matter and we can then discuss it further if you like.

    Now, what I addressed was the uncoupling of worker productivity and worker compensation:

    "One of the most frustrating parts of the sluggish recovery has been paltry wage gains for most workers. The stock market may be booming, corporate profits increasing, and home values rising, but middle and lower-class workers often don't truly feel the benefit of such improvements unless wages rise.

    But wage stagnation isn't just a problem borne of the financial crisis. When you look at the relationship between worker wages and worker productivity, there's a significant and, many believe, problematic, gap that has arisen in the past several decades. Though
    productivity (defined as the output of goods and services per hours worked) grew by about 74 percent between 1973 and 2013, compensation for workers grew at a much slower rate of only 9 percent during the same time period, according to data from the Economic Policy Institute."

    Productivity vs. Compensation

    [​IMG]
    https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...ay-and-productivity-is-so-problematic/385931/

    Wait, I know! Let's once again redistribute even more societal wealth to the donor/"job creator" class and wait for it to trickle down.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2017
    Iriemon likes this.
  4. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You think the Federal Government should ignore one of the core aims in tax design? Why? The Feds should show themselves to be stupid?
     
  5. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes.
    Why not?
    The Feds?
     
  6. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fair enough, let me pat you on the head like you have relevance. Well done!
     
  7. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Pat yourself on the head, you've contributed nothing gainful to the conversation.
     
  8. Old Man Fred

    Old Man Fred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    840
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes they are.

    When I look at my lifestyle, despite being on the high end of the income scale, my quality of life is significantly lower than someone with half my income, but that's what happens when you save half your income.

    Despite all the bullshit about the "Golden Years", my grandfather worked a hundred hours a week for 53 years. My father worked 80 hour weeks for 38 years, and Ive been working 60 hour weeks for 10 years now, and at the rate I'm going might not have to do that much longer.

    EVERYONE in this country can afford to save, without excuses, so being poor is definitely a choice.
     
    Ndividual likes this.
  9. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just because a wealthier person like you can save half his money doesn't mean someone earning $40,000 per year and supporting his family can. The less you earn the less up are able save, that is just a fact of live. Its great that you work 60 hours a week but working like that is just not living and we used to be able to retire without that. Instead of working more and more and living on less and less to retire we should be fixing whatever is causing our problems.
     
  10. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And what would you suggest we should do with the growing non-productive segment of our societies?
     
  11. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hopefully you have explained to your parents just how irrelevant they were in your life.
     
  12. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why do you think it is growing?
     
  13. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And my long-dead parents have what to do with this thread and my comments??
     
  14. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Basically a result of supply and demand, which is why I asked the question "what would you suggest we should do with the growing non-productive segment of our societies?"
     
  15. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What supply and demand? Stop throwing in economics vocab without providing meaning
     
  16. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Supply and demand" isn't proof. You have to actually show the number of people who live off the government has been growing.
     
  17. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You appear to be unaware we were talking about people, employed(demand)/unemployed(excess supply).
     
  18. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You appear unaware of how to create coherent economic comment. Take demand and low wages. Is it due to supply-side limitation or does it reflect a demand led low skilled equilibrium? Take supply. To what extent does monopsonistic power generate inefficiently high unemployment?
     
  19. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Latest info I have seen:
    showed 70.5 million enrolled in medicaid.
    67,891,000 receiving other form(s) of government welfare assistance.

    Welfare spending in:
    1950 was about $42 Billion
    1960 was about $51 Billion
    1970 was about $138 Billion
    1980 was about $304 Billion
    1990 was about $312 Billion
    2000 was about $528 Billion
    2010 was about $753 Billion
    2016 was about $742 Billion
    The Welfare spending shows a substantial upward trend, if the number of people has not been growing then it would show the government benefits they are receiving has grown massively.
     
  20. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Welfare increases with market fundamentalism. Isn't that ironic (Canadian singer definition)?
     
  21. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you adjusting for inflation and population size?
     
  22. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you have some figures to the contrary?
    Food stamp recipients in 1970 were about 4 million, in 2016 the number is about 41 million.
    The population in 1970 was about 205 million or about 1.95 percent of the population receiving food stamp benefits.
    The population in 2016 was about 323 million or about 12.69 percent of the population receiving food stamp benefits.
    You asked "You have to actually show the number of people who live off the government has been growing."
    Have I not shown that?
     
  23. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Its irrelevant comparison. There is no notion of greater generosity, or ideological change. Its particularly stupid, given the US's real problem is its productivity gap and failure to reward wage.
     
  24. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perhaps you should pose a question on the subject(s) you are trying to engage someone in discussing.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2017
  25. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why don't you just respond to my comment? It destroyed your supply and demand kack after all.
     

Share This Page