Dacha communities are coming

My long-held belief said the people in the private sector middle class were being transferred to the public sector by making them dependent upon tax dollars. A transfer implies a middle class of the same size growing at the same rate. This brief article tells me I had it wrong:

Middle-class areas shrinking in US: study

The number of middle-income neighborhoods in the United States has dwindled significantly over the past 40 years, as the rich-poor divide deepens across the country, a study released Wednesday showed.

In 2007, nearly a third of American families -- 31 percent -- lived in either an affluent neighborhood or a mainly low-income one, up from just 15 percent in 1970, according to the study conducted by Stanford University, and released in partnership with the Russell Sage Foundation and Brown University.

Meanwhile, 44 percent of American families lived in middle-class neighborhoods in 2007, down from 65 percent in 1970.

"Mixed income neighborhoods have grown rarer, while affluent and poor neighborhoods have grown much more common," the study said.

For the study, researchers used data from 117 metropolitan areas, each with more than 500,000 residents. In 2007, those areas were home to 197 million people -- or two-thirds of the US population.

The findings come amid the ongoing protests of the Occupy Wall Street movement, which is in part aimed at highlighting economic inequality in the United States, and as the US struggles to rein in 9.0 percent unemployment.

The rich and poor are more and more isolated from each other, with New York, Philadelphia, Dallas and Los Angeles ranking as the cities where such segregation is the most pronounced.

Only 13 metropolitan areas including Washington and Atlanta saw decreases in such income segregation, according to the study.

http://news.yahoo.com/middle-class-areas-shrinking-us-study-000732421.html

Using housing as well as income to define the middle class shows it is clearly shrinking overall as the public sector confiscates the nation’s wealth. There is no parity between a private sector middle class being taxed out of existence and a public sector middle class living on tax dollars. Naturally, overall growth becomes economically impossible when the group living on tax dollars holds all of the political power.

The disappearance of middle class private sector neighborhoods proves that socialism does not work for anybody except Socialists and their parasitic accomplices.

The trend detailed in the above article also indicates America is heading for Soviet Union-style dacha communities where government officials and their “private sector” stooges live well in protected areas. While this transformation fueled by property taxes is underway private sector neighborhoods all across the country are turning into crime-ridden slums.

Incidentally, well-paid government employees seldom live in the cities where they work.

NOTE: New Jersey Governor Christie:

“. . . announced today he signed a bill (S1730) into law that will require public workers hired after Sept. 1 — from teachers and cops to all local, county and state work employees — to live in the Garden State.

And this:

New Jersey is the first state in the nation to enact a law mandating a residency requirement for its public employees, according to National Conference of State Legislatures. Pennsylvania law requires only its civil service employees to live within the state, according to the New Jersey Senate Majority officials.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/05/gov_christie_signs_bill_requir.html

Such laws do not affect cities. (Residency laws passed by a few cities are a mixed bag.) In fact, the NJ and Pennsylvania laws will lead to dacha communities within state borders.

Education and the middle class

The need for higher education is shrinking faster than the private sector middle class. More to the point:

“. . . the hordes of young adults in the Occupy movement who accepted the shackles of student-loan debt in exchange for worthless humanities degrees.”

Bottom line: Democrats cannot create government jobs as fast as colleges and universities pump out graduates who are as worthless as the degrees they hold. David N. Bass the author of the following article does not say it but the healthcare bill with its promise of 4 million new government jobs for starters is as much of a boon to the education industry’s sales pitch as it is to medical industry labor unions like the SEIU.

Bailout U.
By David N. Bass on 11.17.11 @ 6:08AM

A college degree certainly doesn't mean what it used to.

It's a mantra burned into students' craniums since their elementary-school days: if you want to make something of your life, go to college. And if you really want to make something of your life, make it an Ivy League school.

Given recent developments in higher education specifically, and the economy generally, those suggestions sound like economists' hyped predictions before the demise of the dot-com and housing bubbles. In both instances, conventional wisdom held that investing in tech stocks or real estate would be a ticket to easy street.

Peddlers of higher education make similar claims today about the value of a university degree. As with tech stocks and real estate prior to their respective busts, a measure of justification exists for that optimism. Holders of bachelor's college degrees do earn more over a lifetime than their non-college educated counterparts, though the exact figure is disputed.

But that reality is changing fast. As a practical economic necessity, a postsecondary education isn't what it used to be. Even more, as the federal government continues to intervene through student-aide subsidies, grants, and guaranteed student loans, higher education is heading for a bust after booming for decades.

A stark illustration: the hordes of young adults in the Occupy movement who accepted the shackles of student-loan debt in exchange for worthless humanities degrees. Total student-loan debt in the United States now stands at $1 trillion, surpassing credit-card debt, and twentysomethings hold much of it.

Not a rosy picture. An analysis from the United Kingdom in 2008 found that female graduates could expect to spend 16 years paying off their student loans, and men 11 years. Precious few college students pay as they go. Student loans are the norm.

The problem, as with investors in tech stocks and real estate, is that students are paying an over-valued price for an under-valued product. They're going deeply into debt to do so, and most of the time that's made possible by Uncle Sam.

There are several other trends that add to higher education's difficulties. One is the high number of college graduates. Generation Y is the most college-educated cohort in American history. Because the market is flooded with holders of bachelor's degrees, the value of those degrees is diluted.

To make matters worse, graduates with four-year degrees frequently re-enter college and pursue an advanced degree in response to job-market frustrations. It's possible that a master's degree could soon become the bachelor's degree of past years -- the bare minimum necessary to distinguish an applicant for a job.

Another problem is the rapid-fire increase in the cost of a higher education. According to the College Board, during the noughties tuition and fees at public four-year colleges and universities jumped an average of 5.6 percent per year beyond the rate of inflation. Those costs have surged almost 130 percent over the last two decades.

Still another difficulty is the objective value of a college degree. Students aren't learning much, and employers know it. Universities want to keep their paying customers (colloquially known as students), so grade inflation has increased. Today, a high GPA doesn't mean what it once did. (Yes, it's a cold reality: "Higher education is a business that does not necessarily have [students'] best interests at heart," writes Thomas Benton in The Chronicle of Higher Education.)

As the Associated Press reported in January, a study of over 2,000 undergraduates "found 45 percent of students show no significant improvement in the key measures of critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing by the end of their sophomore years." Those skills -- reasoning and writing -- are critical to just about any career.

These factors suggest that the economic cost of a degree is swiftly outpacing its economic benefit in the real world. Even so, the federal government continues to bolster the industry with subsidies. The most recent example is President Obama's initiative to put taxpayers on the hook for students' college debt. It's akin to governmental policies that paved the way for homeowners to secure mortgages they couldn't afford to begin with.

Obama's plan creates yet another moral hazard. If students know that part of their student loans will be forgiven, there is less incentive to keep costs down. Once more, it transfers obligation from those who act irresponsibly to those who act responsibly.

It remains to be seen how the higher-education catastrophe will play out, but one development is certain. If the government continues to bail out students who graduate with all but worthless degrees, a bust is coming.

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/17/bailout-u

 

I see, and the top 10% holding 81% of all stocks, the top 20% holding 93% of all financial wealth doesn't denote parasitism and indicates a healthy economy and overall great social environment? What you've done is to immunize the rich from any scrutiny here and demonize the poorest of the poor for stealing from the MC. What a ridiculous concept, we have a worse distribution of wealth than many Communist countries and you say it's the fault of the poor. Einstein, we are the furthest from Socialism a country can be so how is the US a case study in the failures of Socialism? With your cut-n-paste, lack of imagination style, one that the rules disavows with no editorial, simply jumping on the side of some Heritage-like sociopathy shows you are but a clueless cheerleader.

 

To Political Ed: I paste articles. My comments are my own. In fact, the authors of the articles I paste may not agree with everything I say.

If knocking big government makes me a cheerleader for limited government than I proudly accept the charge.

Can you say you are proud to be a cheerleader for big government?

 

It looks like the economy has been tilted far to the advantage of the economic elite with decades of off shoring and union busting.

This makes the members of public sector unions, being able to hold on to the gains made over the years, look like they are doing very well in comparison to the private sector.

But in the minds of those promoting our "race to the bottom" the fault doesn't lie with the executives who made such bad decisions that our economy is in shambles. They would have me believe that it's the fault of those greedy unions.

I place that idea in the same bag as deficit not revenue problem and the existence of a liberal media. It ain't so.

 

The article is typical market evangelism, dissociated from reality.

Claiming that students who get cheap loans will be less likely to "keep costs down', whatever that means, it's typical straining at a gnat.

Normal Americans want an educated populace. That means making loans available at cheap cost (better would be to make higher education free, but that's not in the offing).

So we have a problem and policy goal, and we have a solution. To point out that the solution causes a minor problem about cost saving is typical bait and switch conservatism. It fails to address the problem.

Indeed, market evangelists can't address any significant problem in our society since the only thing they have in their quiver is tax cuts for the rich and deregulation, which in more cases than not, caused the problem.

D- for the OP

 

To stonehorse: I am no friend of the media. I posted many messages giving my reasons. One reason is that the media, especially television, is an instrument of government propaganda. I fail to understand your position since media liberals are the best friends labor unions ever had.

To Landru Guide Us: Americans have the Constitution in their quiver. Amend the Constitution if you are so sure the American people want the federal government controlling education on any level.

F —— for everybody who defends the federal government involving itself in education while knowing so little about the government’s enumerated powers in the Constitution. To be precise, if it ain’t there the federal government can’t do it.

 

Ok, why avoid the data:

Top 10% hold 81% of all stock

Top 20% hold 93% of all financial wealth

Really, quit being a neo-con sociopath and actually come rigth out and say, 'I don't care if poor people suffer.

Knocking the government and praising private industry? Great, who got us into the Great Republican Depression? Wall Street investors, deregulators, etc. Who got us out? Same with the Great Republican Recession. Who got us thru these wars, esp WWII? The US gov directed corporations and it got done, now we have corporations directing the government and we have havoc and chaos; that's called corporatism, neo-fascism. Still proud? When the gov ran things, decided what corporations could or could not do, we had a very managable debt, since fascist Ronnie came in and gave the gov away to the corporations we hammered debt and gone downhill. Supporting what corporate America has been allowed to do to America as the gov politely stepped aside at the bequest of fascist Ronnie is bizare, are you're either too young or too naive to understand that the debt took flight as the gov stepped back?

Show me a major federal tax cut that was beneficial to America over the last 100 years.

Yes, when gov is big, unemp is usually low, the stock market does well, and the debt / deficit heals. Show me the contrary.

You're full of ideas and opinions, they just just foolishly lay there as some ideologues twisted and unsupported fantasy.

 

Do you have evidence of this from sites not called Heritage, Cato, Limbaugh, etc?

He wrote, “Union busting” can you stick to that? I mean, one often biggest union busters / labor killers was GWB, and via Habeus Corpus, wiretapping etc he murdered the 4th, so let’s be a little bit real here and on-track.

“Studies say” “Many reports.” Come on, stay off Heritage, it’ll rot your brain. If you’re going to pretend you know what you’re talking about, at least pony-up the goods.

So do you advocate distrubution of wealth? You’re really not clear which side you support, although I can guess you want the rich to have everything.

Capitalism and communism have a lot in common as far as distribution of wealth; they’re nearly identical. http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/income-distribution-by-country/

We’re one of the richest countries: http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-d...hest-and-poorest-countries.html#axzz1e2qltTsD

Yet distribute the wealth to top at an alarming rate: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html

Look at the third world countries above us. That’s ok with you and yet you denounce hardcore Communists?

We’re 37th in the WHO on healthcare, behind some shady places and yet you say fine? http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Yes, education is overrated, just look at you.

I highly, highly doubt you have a great grasp on the US Constitution. Constitutionalists like you claim to know volumes, when in reality they just make that pseudo claim. I have a BS in Justice from a major US university as well as other legal/political studies, as I was obtaining this education, teachers, often lawyers would roll their eyes as I cited one Constitutional claim after another. Sure the SCOTUS uses these, they have to, but they do what works for today’s society whether it be Constitutionally legal or not. Show me where affirmative action is in there, hell, show me where privacy is the US Const. HINT: It isn’t, so how can the justices rule on privacy issues? I guess all of those decisions should be discarded according to you, right? Let it go, the US Const is a neat old document, but it can’t bet the verbatim guide to everything and isn’t.

You’re obviously not a well-educated person, so let me leave you with this in regard to labor unions: THERE IS NO FEDERAL LAW REQUIRING BREAKS AT WORK, NONE AND THE MPLOYER I NOW HAVE DOESN’T ALLOW THEM. Maybe a small deal to you or to some, but it indicates where corporate scum would go if allowed to, unfettered and without labor unions.

 

To Political Ed. You can find my rebuttals to most of your remarks in my previous comments. I don’t have the patience to go into detail with you on every new topic you introduced; so I’ll keep my replies brief. If you want more you can research my messages.

The Great Depression was getting worse well into FDR’s second term. Gearing up for WWII basically turned it around.

Only the government can put the country in debt.

The XVI Amendment was the largest tax increase ever. Every American except parasites benefitted from NO TAX ON INCOME before 1913. Talking about tax cuts, or tax increases, after 1913 is a clever ploy big government advocates use to frame and control the debate. The real discussion should be about repealing the XVI Amendment. Everything else is economic smoke and mirrors.

There was no unemployment under slavery until the tax code enslaved the American people. Now the country has slavery and unemployment thanks to socialism.

Capitalism is an economic system that works to perfection in a form of limited government. Socialism/communism is a form of government.

The constitution is not a living, breathing, document. Amend it to change it or abide by what it says.

I don’t usually point out spelling errors, etc. But I have to say education is surely in trouble when anyone who can’t spell habeas corpus gets a degree in Justice.

 

Where are these "media liberals" you say are in the corporate owned media? Is this the liberal media that covered up GW's AWOL from the Texas National Guard? The liberal media that gushes over mental midgets like Palen, Bachman and Cain?

I have noticed that folks who use terms like liberal media and death tax are either uninformed or dishonest.

 

To stonehorse: Do you not realize you are talking about yourself? You introduced the topic in #4 permalink:

“I place that idea in the same bag as deficit not revenue problem and the existence of a liberal media.”

Obviously, a liberal media must be populated by media liberals. If not, what did you mean by “liberal media?”

And if the inheritance tax is not a tax on death, what would you call it?

To paraphrase another old chestnut:

"Of all the tyrannies known to man the religious tyranny is the worst because it follows you into the grave."

Democrats who oppose repealing the inheritance tax further define their beloved socialism/communism as a religion because the inheritance tax also follows you into the grave, and it does so without claiming God as an ally.

 

So you acquiesce; you're a waste of time. Support your claims or you lose; that's the way it works.

The graphs I posted clearly show it getting better, unemp dropping, GDP increasing, so how in your delluded ignorance can you say that? Worse = unemp and GDP getting higher, unless you have another measure.

The GD came in 2 phases split by the double dip in 1937-38 and I would say gearing up for WWII pulled us from the post double dip, but that hadn't happened until 38ish, so you can't attribute the unemp drop/GDP gain from 32 to 37 to war spending. Furthermore, what you're saying is that gov spending stimulates the economy; how true. So you step on your own args w/o even knowing it.

Yes, by cutting taxes. Look at the 1950's under Eisenhower, he kept the top tax brkt at 91% and thedebt fell 3 of his 8 years. Again in 1967 LBJ brought taxes up to 77%, the debt fell in 1969, then of course Republican idiot Nixon cut them back and that went away. Even under the messy economy of Carter, fueled by the OPEC mess, with the top tax brkt at 70% he created jobs at a higher rate than Reagan did while not slamming the hell out of the debt, so where is your argument?

Speaking of your point and debt, I hope your limited education is aware that under Reagan we had runaway debt as and just after he chopped the top brkt from 70% to 28% in 6 years, so there is your government raising the debt, you have a point, they do as they chop taxes. GHWB and Clinton raised them back to 40% and the deficit turned to a surplus and the debt virtually leveled off. Case after another, chopping taxes either leads to a recession/depression or it slams the debt.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

Einstein, there was no tax increase in 1913, the 16th wasn't a tax increase, it legalized tax collections which didn't happen until 1916-17ish. Of curse we were in WWI, so w/o collecting taxes, we would have not been able to fund the war or, deficit spend as you seem to love.

I know debates with neo-cons, absolute terms come into play often. So are partasites poor people? Are they disabled people? What social svs did we have in 1913, 1917, etc? The collection was for the war, roads, etc. We had no:

- Medicare
- Medicaide
- Unemp ins
- SS
- Food Stamps
- any real social svs to speak of

So are these parasites the ones who drive on the roads and enjoy the WWI victory? Who are they?

Dain bramage, really, who builds the roads, who polices the streets, puts out fires, maintains our military, supports our elderly? Remember, it was the turn of the century when families stoped living like the Waltons and we would have many elderly people walking the streets w/o social svs which really weren't available until after SS in the late 30's. The first juvenile court was in Ill. in 1899, so the evolution of our society was coming to shape and colleccting taxes to pay for it was part of it. I suggest you live in the woods, the hills,etc as taht would make you free of taxes and free of svs. The Freemen do that, so quit being a hypocrite and not wanting to pay for svs yet drink water, drive on streets, breathe clean air, have employment regulation, etc, etc, etc.

You're out there. No unemp under slavery? All you have to do is be a Freeman and go live in the outskirts of Montana and reject svs, avoid taxes. No one will bother you, the IRS won't come after you, so quit being a parasite and wanting to drive on civilization's roads but not paying taxes. These cities didn't build themselves and they don't maintain themselves, parasite, so pay your share of the maintenance and **** - or - move to Montana.

Yep, how perfect, we're #1 in debt, what a perfect union. More brilliance from you.

WOW, I've learned so much from you. They're economic systems government's employ, but close enough. BTW, the biggest creditor is a Communist country, not that I'm advocating it, just don't see your point.

And we should trash our whole society so you can brag that at least we followed the antiquated mess into the ground. So show me privacy? Not in tehre, is it, therefore we aren't entitled to it. Go ahead and gloss over taht or tell me that's been previously covered - joke.

I write quickly, I have a broken left wrist that thx to Obamacare will be repaired, but as long as you can't address why your mentor, GWB signed away HC as you beacon of liberty. I guess what can ya say, I mean you're nailed to the wall over that, so you have to try to flip it my fast and not very good typing. If I were never born, GWb, your hero would still have killed HC, so my presence, my crappy typing skills worsened by my broken wrist mean zero to that, so just keep running. In teh meantime, address these issues or show us what a coward you are.

 

Exactly, not to mention Clinton's impeachment the media followed to a tee. If they were so pro-liberal they would have shoved it under the carpet.


Uh oh, you spelled, Palen" not, "Palin" here comes spelling Nazi. I guess for short-minded folks, if ya can't make an argument, turn to spelling/grammar.

Or both, as in this case, but you'll have to go back and read his other dribble, as it was covered there (Flanders AKA Flounders escape path)

 

To Political Ed: Newsweek’s editors did sweep it under the carpet hoping it would go away. It was Matt Drudge who forced it out into the open. Once it was out the MSM had to cover new revelations and the impeachment process before Drudge beat them to it.

 

You mentioned "liberal media" and I just pointed out that it is a myth. The Dan Rather incident is an example of the myth of the existence of a liberal bias in the media.

The focus of the Rather complaint was on the type font of the report. Not the accuracy of it. In fact the secretary, who ran the office, said that the info was basically correct.

The slam on Rather was that he challenged the G.W.Bush snow job. This would make one think the media was biased toward the right.

Inheritance tax; a tax on unearned income dropped into ones lap. If you didn't work for it you should pay the tax.

If your boss pays you a bonus it's taxed. If your daddy dies and you inherit that which he had earned, you should be taxed on it.

There is no tax on death. You pay nothing to the government when you're dead.

 

Flounders, can you go back and address my huge post or do you agree? That's what I see, acquiescence is not disputing it, so you must agree.

Now, for your point as to the horrible liberal media sweeping under the carpet the Clinton impeachment, that was a media sweetheart regardless of political affiliation, leaning or whatever. This is a one-in-a-lifetime deal here, so they all covered it very well. In fact, to show how absurd your stance is on that, look at a simple google search:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/clinton/clintonhome.html

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/clinton.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/11/opinion/courtwatch/main4793383.shtml (CBS news did a 10 years later story - there's your liberal media trying to sweep it under, they're keeping it alive for media's sake)

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/impeachment/ (The oh so conservative PBS, we all know how neo-conishthey are)

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1870544_1870543_1869954,00.html (yep, Time is also a neo-cons dream)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/clinton.htm (The Washingtom Post, ah yes, Limbaugh's fav)

http://www.democrats.com/clinton-impeachment-polls (Democrats.com is a Hannity favorite)

http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/clintonlewinsky-index.html (The NY Times, now that's a hit for you)


See how silly you look claiming the liberal or mainstream media are keeping it alive? That was off the first google page in order, so you just have no understanding of much, now go address that big response of mine above.

 

To Political Ed: First you said:

“Exactly, not to mention Clinton's impeachment the media followed to a tee. If they were so pro-liberal they would have shoved it under the carpet.”

Now you’re saying they could not sweep it under the carpet. Which way is it?

 

Where, in your wildest imagination did I ever say they can't shove it under the carpet? They not only covered it well then, they are still keeping it alive for media value. That's their business, they report / create news by sensationalizing stories. Their position is teh same then as it is now, they just miss the coverage as it was so great to cover it, they had instant viewers.

Now, gonna address ALL of that long post, or you must agree. Or is it that you already covered that, I must research it. Dude, you're fooling no one, you're over your head.

 

To Meta777: I see you still have trouble with staying in context.

People are slaves when they never knew freedom. The worst form of slavery is when free people have their freedoms stolen as is happening in this country. Specifically, see #2 b. and #4 in the definitions of slavery:

slavery (noun)
plural slaveries

1. The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household. See synonyms at servitude.

2. a. The practice of owning slaves. b. A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force.

3. The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence.

4. A condition of hard work and subjection: wage slavery.

If the tax on income in relation to slavery is too much for you to grasp this excerpt from a previous message might make a dent:

Also, the accepted image of slavery can be laid at Hollywood’s door. That image contributes to contemporary slavery.

Cecil B. De Mille, and Hollywood epics in general, instilled the image of the Pharaoh’s soldiers whipping slaves into moving huge stones into place for the latest pyramid. The subliminal message in Hollywood’s image is that government troops are not standing over me with a whip; therefore, I am not a slave. Tax dollar slavery is never mentioned. In truth, few people know the reasons for what happened last week —— never mind the reasons for what happened thousands of years ago; so how the hell does Hollywood know why and how the pyramids were built?

Some historians claim that building pyramids were government make-work programs. That view makes a lot more sense to me than the one Hollywood puts forth. Ultimately, slavery of any kind destroys initiative, creativity, and true compassion which is fundamental to the growth of the human spirit; so how can an industry that is such an integral component of the slave-driven welfare state in this country claim to be an industry populated by creative artists? Hollywood’s denizens are about as creative as were the Pharaoh’s troops portrayed in biblical epics.

http://www.politicalforum.com/media-commentators/184161-art-ripoff.html

 

So wage slavery is your point, meaning high taxation is essentially making us slaves. Ok, let's examine if the workers, the proletariat, as they are the 'wage earners' are taxes at such a level that they are enslaved.

First we would need to examine where taxes are and where they have been, and what REASONABLY constitutes wage slavery via high taxation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MarginalIncomeTax.svg

Hmmm, I see income taxes are about as low as they've been in 100 years. Only time they were lower since before WWII was during the Great Republican Depression and the Reagan era; I think we all know these ultra low taxes led to chaos.

Look at where corporate taxes are in other countries vs the US http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/

I see incredibly low. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-revenues-contribute-deficit-growth/?page=all

Moreover, the U.S. is the only major developed nation that has allowed tax levels to fall so low despite creating dangerous and potentially destabilizing deficits and debt burdens, the OECD said.

More evidence that taxes are incidiously low in the US vs the rest of the world and that taxes are at a 60-YEAR LOW.

So let's see what the enslaved workers pay in the grnad scheme of taxation in the US: http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html I see, the bottom 50% of all taxpayers collectively, who file an AGI of $32,400 meaning they gross $40 to $60k / year, pay 2.25% of all federal income taxes. Yea, tehy certainly are enslaved. See, this is your lame attempt to convince others that even lower taxes would benefit the proletariat. Do you expect us to be stupid or are you being stupid? We don't pay anything now, how are lower taxes going to make us proserous?

So what really is your argument? Do you have one or just spewing this McCainian, "Tax cuts, my friends" robotic, deluded idiocy? I mean, if taxes were cut in 1/2, you and yours would still be spewing the same rhetoric. So let's be real, what you call "tax slavery" is really not substantiated by using a REASONABLE SCALE, just your fantasy scale. I can be as abstract as I want to, I can, by using my own imagination, make all kinds of claims, but in order to be taken seriously they can't be based upon my unsubstantiated opinions, they must be supported by using mainstream, objective data and reasoning.

Like all the other data and well-supported arguments I've made, Flounders, you'll clearly either ignore it or say it's been coverged before. This is the danger of having a mind that is so out of touch that it has its own rules. We are a society, a society of people that must to some degree take care of each other in times of need vs throw someone aside like trash as your sociopthic Libertarian model would adore. Of course if you were in dire need you would be demanding your social care, just as my dad did for his heart surgery when he came from your perpspective of, "let em all die." It's fun to watch the hypocrisy of guys like you.

 

Agree, if we look at which systems endorse slavery and which allow an out at the proletariat level, Capitalism demands slavery and Socialism relieves it by using the RW neo-cons own words and definitions such as, "cradle to grave." OK, so I'm supported cradle to grave, that means I don't have to work and basic sustenance will be provided vs work or die in the streets. Talk about being enslaved.

 

To Meta777: Individual liberty was the counterbalance created by the Founders. Taking liberty away from everyone will not eliminate the poor —— loss of liberty through income tax slavery is only creating more poor.

Incidentally, the rich that you object to do not want to repeal the XVI Amendment. That should tell you something.

 

So what is your point? Taxes are at a 60-year low, poverty is at all time high as per the census bureau (since they started tracking it in 1959), so the correlation I see is that under uber low taxes we have record poverty. Of course we can go back to the Great Republican Depression where the top tax rate was 25% as we went in, and we can see much higher poverty, it just wasn't tracked then. So I do see a correlation, maybe not absolute but indicitive that low taxes = poverty.