Thank You Democrats/Communist -US state wants to tax TVs, video games to fight fat

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by Ntruder

besides the misquoted unemployment stat, (my point that unemployment has risen under republicans is still valid) the only thing you've really demonstrated is that your entire argument comes from taking what I say, nitpicking over words, and pretending that it discredits the point.

Like the depression issue. The Great Depression was at the peak of a period of conservative policies. Our current recession, which I think is worse than anyone admits, it at the peak of a period of conservative policies. You take that point, and say "every time? Don't you know history?" All that statement is proving is that you are good at dodging facts and manipulating my words so that you can avoid the truth.

You need a history lesson. The 1920s was a period of some of the highest economic growth in history. Why? Primarily because Presidents Harding and Coolidge stayed out of the economy and let the free market work. The stock market crash of 1929 was mearly a recession. It only lead to a Great Depression because of the government meddling in the economy. Hoover responded to the crash by raising the minimum wage, increased taxes, and meddled in the agriculture business which as it always does lead to vast unemployment and aka the Depression. In reality the Great Depression would have never happened had Hoover and Roosevelt never gotten involved in the free market.

[edders]

a historical account through rose colored glasses.

[Ntruder]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

You need a history lesson. The 1920s was a period of some of the highest economic growth in history. Why? Primarily because Presidents Harding and Coolidge stayed out of the economy and let the free market work. The stock market crash of 1929 was mearly a recession. It only lead to a Great Depression because of the government meddling in the economy. Hoover responded to the crash by raising the minimum wage, increased taxes, and meddled in the agriculture business which as it always does lead to vast unemployment and aka the Depression. In reality the Great Depression would have never happened had Hoover and Roosevelt never gotten involved in the free market.

Lol!

God I love your posts! Funnier than stand up comedy!

See Jimmy, smart people accredit FDR for our removal from the Great Depression, as well as the Golden Age of the Middle Class, which led up until about Regan's time. But I wouldn't expect you to know that.

[DodgerKing]

First of all, let me commend you on finally presenting a descent post with evidence to support your claims. Because this is going off on several tangents, let me focus on just a few aspects.

Originally Posted by Ntruder

If pointing out studies about who donates more means you debate better... then ok...

Pointing out by providing evidence that debunks all of your assertions, while you failed to support any of your claims, means you did not come to the discussion fully armed.

Of course they pay more tax money than the bottom 90%. I will show that the bottom 90% had only 29% of wealth in 2001, and top 1% had 33%. If 33% of wealth doesn't pay more tax than 29% of wealth, then WOW that is horribly unequal. Then, when you factor in the burden that taxes have on certain income levels, the real inequality is revealed. Obviously a 35% tax rate on 40k a year is an exponentially larger burden than 35% on 200k a year.

Are we talking wealth or income? One is only taxed on what they make, not what they already have. The amount of wealth is irrelevant to the discussion. If you want to talk about income then the top 1% made 16.7% of all of the income and contributed 34.7% of all of the income tax revenue in 2001. The top 10% pay 65.84% of all the income taxes and yet make 42.3% of all the income. The so called rich contribute much more of what they earn than any other group. To compare, the bottom 50% earns about 14% of the income and pays about 3.5% of all the taxes.

This was 2001 net worth distribution (left) and 2001 financial distribution (right - includes stocks, equities, bonds, trust funds, etc)


Wealth distribution over time, top 1% vs bottom 99% (remember, the top 10% had over 70% of the wealth in 2001, so 2-10% make up about 35% of the bottom 99%)

80% of the financial wealth belonged to the top 10% of the population



bottom 99 - Top 1%
1922 63.3% 36.7%
1929 55.8% 44.2%
1933 66.7% 33.3%
1939 63.6% 36.4%
1945 70.2% 29.8%
1949 72.9% 27.1%
1953 68.8% 31.2%
1962 68.2% 31.8%
1965 65.6% 34.4%
1969 68.9% 31.1%
1972 70.9% 29.1%
1976 80.1% 19.9%
1979 79.5% 20.5%
1981 75.2% 24.8%
1983 69.1% 30.9%
1986 68.1% 31.9%
1989 64.3% 35.7%
1992 62.8% 37.2%
1995 61.5% 38.5%
1998 61.9% 38.1%

Blue = new deal economic policies. Red = Reganomics, supply side economics, tax cuts to wealthy. See the obvious shift in wealth inequality due to conservative economic policy? In three years, the wealth distribution of the top 1% went up 10%.

Mind you, this doesn't even show the past 7 years. I'm trying to find updated info, but I'm at work and don't have any of my books here, nor do I have unlimited time to write this while I'm supposed to be working.

I still commend you on the work you put forth and the excellent job you did on supporting your argument.

So we are talking total wealth, not simply income alone? Of course wealth isn't taxed, only income is taxed, so what are the best ways allow this wealth to effect other aspect of the economy?

For us visual people, the graph below show the numbers you posted:



I don't see much of an impact from administrative policies from year to year. If you notice, the top 1% started to accumulate a higher percentage of the wealth prior to the beginning of Reagan's term in office. His first tax cuts took place in 1981, most didn't see a direct effect until 1982, where the sharp increase in wealth (only by a few percent) began to drastically slow.

Now, lets talk about trickle down economics. The theory is that cutting taxes on the rich and businesses will result in money trickling down to the rest of us. But when you look at who owns shares in companies turning these larger profits, you see its not trickling anywhere (as of 2001)

Wealth class Percent of all stock owned
Top 1% 33.5%
Next 19% 55.8%
Bottom 80% 10.7%

And? Of course the rich own the stock. They also own most of the companies, employ most of the workers, invest most in the economy, and possess most of the wealth. This is not new information. Obviously you have an issue with this. I do not.

A) How is taking the same percentage off fair in terms of proportional benefit?

How else would you want it done?

B) How does taking the same percentage off help our economy?

I would argue that taking a higher percentage off from those that contribute most of the tax revenue will help even further.

Every time taxes were cut, IRS revenue increased (I demonstrated that in a previous post). So cutting taxes to those that pay most of the taxes, will have a greater impact on increasing tax revenue. After all, more tax revenue means more money to spend on those social programs the liberals love. Since the bottom 50% only contribute about 3% of all of the tax revenue, any change in revenue collect from this group will have no impact.

Correct me if I am wrong, the liberal may argue that we should cut taxes from this group so there is less of a tax burden upon them? A couple of points:
1. The bottom 30% do not pay taxes at all.

2. Of those few in the bottom 50% that do pay taxes (under $30k/yr) they pay $755 plus 15% over 7,500. Using the EZ form without the deduction(s). The most anybody in this group would pay would be about (those making over $30k/yr) $4k.

With the tax cuts, the poorer benefited greatly as well. Not only did they get a reduction on what they pay, more of them are paying no taxes at all. With the tax cuts, the number of people paying no taxes increased from about 25% to about 33%.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFil...f-20060330.jpg

C) How do you think the effects of tax breaks differ between wealth classes? What do you suppose someone with a large income would do with $10k in tax breaks? What would lower income families do with 10k in tax breaks? I'll tell you. Give Bill Gates $10k in tax rebates, and he'll invest it overseas. That money never touches US soil. That money in no way benefits our economy. It only effects the personal wealth of Bill Gates and his children. Give $10k in tax rebates to a lower income family, and they'll spend every last dime. They'll buy groceries, pay rent, get toys for their kids. They will put that money back into their local economy. When money is put into the local economy, our economy grows stronger. Now which do you think is a better way for the government to issue $10k in tax rebates? To Bill Gates? Or to Joe Shmoe who makes $40k a year?

First off, how can a lower income group get $10k in breaks when they don't even pay $10k in taxes?

Second, if the lower income families invested a little instead of spending it in the local economy, they will gain wealth as well.

Third, it is investing that grows the economy. Consumer driven economies are not only very unstable, they are also not very effective in stimulating economic growth, when compared to investment.

In 2001, the top 1% controlled 40% of all financial wealth, yet they only paid 33.89% of all taxes? That is an atrocity! That means that the top 1% are paying a lower tax rate on their wealth than the bottom 99%!!! Yet they can certainly afford a higher tax rate. The burden on the top 1% from taxes is NOTHING

Again, YOU DO NOT PAY TAXES ON WEALTH, you only pay taxes on income, so wealth is irrelevent.

Yes they can afford a higher tax rate. But, why would you want to increase their tax burden? What purpose would it serve? Keep in mind, lower tax rates INCREASE revenue.

Seriously? What does our economy being in the toilet have to do with anything? You're really asking me this? This is what its all about. I would probably be conservative if our economy and our middle class was prospering. But its not. People are in a major crunch while the super wealth are getting richer due to failed policies. I care about the middle class ultimately because I care about myself and my family.

Out of curiosity, what income does one have to make to be considered middle class?

I'm not going to lie and tell you that my main concern is everyone else. I do care about everyone else, don't get me wrong, but my main priority is my future and the future of my family. And the reason that I want the middle class the prosper is because I sell things to the middle class. I sell products for new homes, and when people can't afford to buy homes, or they can't sell their home, I can't sell my products to them. My wealth depends on the wealth of others. This is true for most Americans (except for the wealthy elite; their wealth typically results in the loss of wealth from others) I believe that our economy is in this state due to conservative economic policies, and the push towards "supercapitalism," a state where the corporation acts in favor of maximizing profit with no regards to America's well being. Conservatives unwillingness to regulate business has led to this.

How about this then. Assuming everything is as bad as you say it is, what do you think can be done to help the issues you are describing?

It is here where I believe our big difference lie. It is probably this reason why you are liberal and I am conservative? We probably have different perspectives about what impact the government actually has on the economy (I believe they have little influence at all. Ups and downs are a natural part of the business cycle, stock market, bond market, and housing market), what role they should play (I believe very little if any. Only what they are constitutionally obligated to do), and how they go about doing so (I believe reducing the burden on those that drive the economy and employ others is the best way)?

I hope you aren't blaming Democrats. Ronald Regan accumulated more debt for this country than all previous presidents combined.

All previous Presidents combined? You really like to stretch the truth?

That is what happens when one tries to end the cold war.

He increased the debt from $1 trillion to about $3 trillion. Bush sr brought that up to $4 trillion in only 1 term. Clinton was the first to manage to balance our budget and left office with around a $5.7 trillion debt. The debt increase was thanks to an imbalanced budget left for him. Bush jr took the debt from $5.7 trillion to where it is now approaching $10 trillion. When Regan took office, our debt had been far below $1 trillion for as long as we want to look back. In just 27 years of Republicans in office (minus the Clinton fix), they managed to run our debt up to about $10 trillion. They did this by cutting taxes to the wealthy and not making up for it elsewhere.

YEAH, REAL CONSERVATIVE.

Bush isn't a conservative. But by that logic (which is 100% true) neither is Regan, or Bush Sr. Conservatives don't spend money they don't have. I guess I do need to give you some credit for disavowing bush as a conservative. True conservatives don't typically behave the way the last 3 have. Republicans in the past 25 years have just been plain old fiscally irresponsible. You cannot argue that.

You are not agreeing with me that Bush is not a conservative. Good. I have been arguing that point before he was elected to his first term. You are not going to get an argument from me that the government (especially Bush) spends way too much money. Question, what programs should they cut to reduce the amount of spending? Keep in mind, the most important obligation of the federal government, one they are constitutionally responsible for, is National Defense.

I fucked up that figure. Its up almost 1 point, not 2. (It was just part of the blitzkrieg) This is a quote from Tim Russert in the January 24th GOP debate in Florida:
"and looking at the record over the last seven years, the unemployment rate in 2001 was 4.2; it's now 5.0"

Plus, look at your chart! Clinton's term reduced or maintained unemployment all 8 years. Bush's term saw a decrease only 3 years, and 5 years of increases! My quote of 2 points was wrong, but unemployment rates have been all over the place since Bushy took office. My general point remains correct.[/quote]
And? That is usually what happens when the economy is on a decline. IT has been higher than that over the last few years and has even been lower than 4.2. Just as the stock market has been declining after it was at record highs a few months ago, the housing market is bottoming out as it too was at record highs just a little over a year ago.

I'll ask them one at a time, and I'll space them out so you can easily respond. They are all very valid concerns about our economy, and they all need to be addressed if you want to convince anyone that conservative economic policies have ever helped us:

1) Why has the housing market crashed, with millions and millions of people foreclosing all over the country? Shouldn't a responsible conservative government be able to prevent such an atrocity?

The same reason why it was at record highs just a year ago. It is part of normal housing cycle. Over the long run, like all of the markets, we usually average about 11% growth over 30 years. The up and down turns are actually part of a free market system and are beneficial to the economy and citizens over a long term.

It is not the responsibility of the government to get involved in or assist or tweak any market.

2) 3 part question, all related. If deregulation of business, and removal of tariffs and barriers are a good thing for the US economy, then why have our jobs been shipped overseas and to Mexico? (like our manufacturing jobs) Why should US businesses be allowed to fire American workers and take their business overseas, then sell their products in the US without any penalty or additional tax? And finally, Do you think its a good thing that US businesses go overseas?

• We can pay people less
• There is less of a tax burden on the companies
• There are less regulations
• Technology makes it easier to for companies to do business long distance.

3) Why has the median household income been suffering? (you missed my point about median household income. Look at your chart. I see 3 major recession points. They have the names Regan, Bush, and Bush all over them. The Clinton period, however, has the sharpest increase on the chart. Democratic president = strong economic middle class growth. Once again, your own chart supports my point!) We should always have an increase in median income. If we don't, something is wrong. That was the point to take out of my statement.

It is not as simple as who happens to be in the white house at the time as the government has very little influence over the economy.
But, let's pretend you are correct and Clinton's terms in office did have an impact (ignoring the internet age, the dot com boom, ex), what exactly did Clinton do?

4) Why has oil doubled in price while Exxon Mobile reports $40 billion in profits for a single quarter?

This has already been addressed in prior posts.

5) Why is the stock market suffering if the economy is so good?

The same reason the stock market was at record highs a couple months ago. IT IS PART OF THE NATURAL MARKET CYCLE.

6) Why has inflation out paced wages like this?

I'm really curious as to who you blame for these things. Certainly you wouldn't blame the almighty Regan would you?[/quote]
Why does there have to be blame? Ups and downs are natural. Recessions are normal and necessary and always happen at least once during a leaders term in office. The government has little impact or influence on the economy.

Why didn't I hear this same negativity two years ago when the stock market was soaring, housing was through the roof, unemployment was very low, interest rates were low, and inflation was steady? Every time a recession nears, the liberal come out and panic as if the sky is falling. Look, it is normal, it will work itself out. It always has and it always will. Leave it alone!

Yeah. Do you know anything about history? Do you know how we got into the Great Depression? Years of conservative politics, leading to the Robber Baron Era, (much like businesses of today) and finally the crash. Stop being a dipshit and trying to take every word by its literal meaning to discredit my main points.

Again with your assumptions. Are you sure you want to go down this road?

If you want some credibility then be more accurate with your descriptions. I see a correlation between your exaggerated points and your thought process. You exaggerations are not only misleading and inaccurate, they are often blatantly wrong. I am only demonstrating why you are wrong.

Just because we disagree with the role the government should play in the economy and the impact past actions really had (points that historians themselves have been arguing) does not mean that I do not know my history. It is easy to constantly say someone doesn't know their history or some is stupid, it is another thing to prove it. You are all talk and no action. I have demonstrated my knowledge over and over. With the exception of a few things in this post you have never done anything to demonstrate what you actually know. The only thing you have done is to say, "I don't have time to explain it to you, learn your history" What you really mean is, "since I (ntruder) don't agree with your (dodgerking) reasoning as to why events happen and what role the government should play, because my leftists college professors told me something different, you are wrong because I (ntruder) took two classes and know more than you." This is how how you honestly come across. I do have to ask, how old are you?

If this is all you can come up with, then you are a really pathetic debater. You think that I meant EVERY time we have a republican president we hit a depression? Stop wasting my time. Use your brain.

I think I have already demonstrated which one of us is actually using our brain.

If you think that twisting words and posting charts and figures that support MY points means you have "facts on your side," then wow. You're right, this is too easy!

In all honesty you did do a good job at supporting some of the points you made. The rest of this post is the same old stereotypes, assumptions I expect from you. I don't mind continuing this, but this is taking too much of my time. Let us focus on one issue instead of making posts that bring up several issues and an entire page. Pick one topic and I will respond to it.

[DodgerKing]

Originally Posted by Ntruder

Little more to chew on.

Since conservative economic policies are in the best interest of America (according to dodger king), this next chart must be fake. Notice how corporate profits are up 106% from 1990 to 2005, yet production worker wages are up only 4.3%. Wow, talk about the "trickle down effect." 4.3% worker wage increase vs 106% corporate profit increase. And this doesn't mention the people that were laid off to achieve those higher profits.

What is that big increase in the 90's? I wonder how that came to be?

It is good that corporate profits are up 106%. This is an indication of growth. Who do you think employs people?

I am curious. Do the production workers include those overseer's?

What should be done to assist help increase the production workers salary?

[DodgerKing]

Originally Posted by Ntruder

Lol! My guess is CEO's make about 400-500x as much as their workers

CEOs' pay as a multiple of the average worker's pay


So if the average worker makes $45,000 a year, the CEO would make about $18 million.

Thank you. Now was that so difficult. See, you can get more people to believe you if you post proof...

Of course, I found something slightly different.




Then the next question then becomes why? and what role if any the government should play?

[Ntruder]

Originally Posted by DodgerKing

Then the next question then becomes why? and what role if any the government should play?

Whew... I'm going to get to all of this, but its going to take time. Expect a full reply tomorrow.

Anyway, I'm not entirely sure what, if anything, I'm trying to prove. I'm not trying to prove that conservatives have ruined the world or will. I'm certainly not trying to prove that strict regulation is the answer to everything. I'm not trying to prove that deregulation causes depression alone. I understand most of the factors that lead to the current state of capitalism, and I understand that there are some huge benefits that this "supercapitalism" has over conventional democratic capitalism that we saw from the 1940's to the 1970's. (Like innovation, lower prices, etc) But there is a huge cost to Americans. One story cannot be told without telling the other story. On one hand, we have great products at rock bottom prices, on the other, we have crap wages, no benefits, jobs going overseas. I know that you can't argue one without mentioning the other. But I think there is a balance somewhere in between.

Control over the economy has shifted from consumers to investors. Corporations are pressured to cut costs and maximize share prices. The result is cheap products, and lower wages. I'm gonna have to cut this short, time to leave work. I'll read through and respond to your long post tomorrow.

[DodgerKing]

Originally Posted by Ntruder

Whew... I'm going to get to all of this, but its going to take time. Expect a full reply tomorrow.

Anyway, I'm not entirely sure what, if anything, I'm trying to prove. I'm not trying to prove that conservatives have ruined the world or will. I'm certainly not trying to prove that strict regulation is the answer to everything. I'm not trying to prove that deregulation causes depression alone. I understand most of the factors that lead to the current state of capitalism, and I understand that there are some huge benefits that this "supercapitalism" has over conventional democratic capitalism that we saw from the 1940's to the 1970's. (Like innovation, lower prices, etc) But there is a huge cost to Americans. One story cannot be told without telling the other story. On one hand, we have great products at rock bottom prices, on the other, we have crap wages, no benefits, jobs going overseas. I know that you can't argue one without mentioning the other. But I think there is a balance somewhere in between.

Control over the economy has shifted from consumers to investors. Corporations are pressured to cut costs and maximize share prices. The result is cheap products, and lower wages. I'm gonna have to cut this short, time to leave work. I'll read through and respond to your long post tomorrow.

I actually agree with some of what you typed here.

Cool. Let's keep it focused on this issue for now. It makes it a lot easier than trying to discuss 20 issues at once.

I do have to say...After your last few post, my perception of you has changed. ...In a good way.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by Ntruder

Lol!

God I love your posts! Funnier than stand up comedy!

See Jimmy, smart people accredit FDR for our removal from the Great Depression, as well as the Golden Age of the Middle Class, which led up until about Regan's time. But I wouldn't expect you to know that.

"Smart People" You mean by that brainwashed hippies.

In reality FDRs policies made the depression worse. Roosevelt was a great war President but on Domestic Policy he is vastly overrated. Here are some of the things he did to make the depression worse. In an attempt to raise food prices he ordered the destruction of 10 million acres of cotton, 50 million lemons, 100 million raisins, and 1 billion origins, and 6 million pigs. Help straving people by destroying food makes sense. As for the New Deal jobs all they did was displace and destroy private sector jobs and replace them with "public works" which delayed recovery from the Great Depression. The Depression only ended with a return to free market activity.

Its funny all you do is throw insults but can't refute any of the facts I present

[edders]

"origin, noun.
1. the thing from which anything comes; beginning; starting point; source.
Ex. the origin of a quarrel, the origin of a disease. Ancient Greece has been called the origin of Western civilization.
(SYN) root.
2. parentage, ancestry, or birth.
Ex. Abraham Lincoln was a man of humble origin.
3. the fact of rising or springing from a particular source; derivation.
Ex. to trace the origin of a word, these and other reports of like origin.
(SYN) rise.
4. (Anatomy.) the main or more fixed attachment of a muscle, which does not change position during the muscle's contraction.
5. (Mathematics.) the intersection of the horizontal axis and the vertical axis in a coordinate system. "

Does that mean he altered the birth record of a billion people? Or did he send some sinister agents back in a time machine and killed their parents. Wow, that makes him really bad like Hitler or Stalin!!!

Never knew any of that actually happened, thought it was just urban legend. Wow, time travel in the 20's and 30's....fascinating!!!

Ed

[junehhan]

Originally Posted by Ntruder

Lol!

God I love your posts! Funnier than stand up comedy!

See Jimmy, smart people accredit FDR for our removal from the Great Depression, as well as the Golden Age of the Middle Class, which led up until about Regan's time. But I wouldn't expect you to know that.

I was just browsing some of the data on the Great Depression just now as i'm doing some research, and FDR didn't really have much to do with the great depression and presidents in general are unable to do much anyway. What he did do was help turn around some of the pessimism with some of the programmes that gave greater security to a very pessimistic population at the time. He also did increase government spending, which did help until he killed the momentary lapse in the great depression by jacking up social security taxes, as well as slowing down the increases in government spending. The Great Depression is really 2 recessions with a momentary lapse, and output didn't recover at all until our entry into WWII at which point government expenditures were increased significantly.

Oh well, off to go read some more...........

edit: I am starting to think some people just might have a little too much free time

You should go watch another HD-DVD, or play another X360 game. Or better yet, start planning on ways to spend your rebate check since it looks like Congress have finally agreed on something for a change. I am very pessimistic about these temporary stimulus packages and how effective they can be, but as Ntruder said earlier, it is hard to complain about getting a check.

[Ntruder]

[quote=DodgerKing;520785]First of all, let me commend you on finally presenting a descent post with evidence to support your claims. Because this is going off on several tangents, let me focus on just a few aspects.

Pointing out by providing evidence that debunks all of your assertions, while you failed to support any of your claims, means you did not come to the discussion fully armed.

Are we talking wealth or income? One is only taxed on what they make, not what they already have. The amount of wealth is irrelevant to the discussion.

I'd argue that this isn't true. You can't really compare income and have a fair conversation, because the wealthier you are, typically the higher proportion of your wealth doesn't come directly from a salary. (Also depends how each comparison defines income. The amount on your 1099... Bad measure of comparison) Basically, thats a good way to skew the results of a study; by comparing incomes and not wealth.

You're not taxed on wealth, correct. But wealth and "real" income are directly proportional. People who take in large sums of money each year through salaries, stocks, investments, etc, have large financial wealth. Conversely, people who take in little " " have little " ". Agreed?

If you want to talk about income then the top 1% made 16.7% of all of the income and contributed 34.7% of all of the income tax revenue in 2001. The top 10% pay 65.84% of all the income taxes and yet make 42.3% of all the income. The so called rich contribute much more of what they earn than any other group. To compare, the bottom 50% earns about 14% of the income and pays about 3.5% of all the taxes.

I'd have to challenge these measures of income. Is this salary? How does the top 1% have 40% of the financial wealth, yet only make 16.7% of the income? There is something missing from this 16.7% figure. If this trend continued this way for 100 years, the top 1% would still hold 16.7% of the wealth in the country, if every year they made 16.7% of the money. You are right that out of their paid salaries, they pay a higher percentage to income taxes

So we are talking total wealth, not simply income alone? Of course wealth isn't taxed, only income is taxed, so what are the best ways allow this wealth to effect other aspect of the economy?

Well how is wealth acquired? If we just tax people on what they take in on their paychecks, then you get horrible inequality. Warren Buffet was quoted saying something along the lines of "its not fair that I, one of the richest men in the country, pay 15% income tax while my secretary pays 35%." (this is off memory, so please allow slight margin of error on the numbers) This is obviously because Warren Buffet's "real" income doesn't come from a paycheck. It comes from dividends and other financial investments.

I don't see much of an impact from administrative policies from year to year. If you notice, the top 1% started to accumulate a higher percentage of the wealth prior to the beginning of Reagan's term in office. His first tax cuts took place in 1981, most didn't see a direct effect until 1982, where the sharp increase in wealth (only by a few percent) began to drastically slow.

Eh? I'm seeing from 1975 to current, an increase from 20% - 40% of the wealth in the hands of the top 1%. Thats huge! The top 1% doubled their piece of the pie! I should clarify; its not 100% on Regan's shoulders. Most of this (see my last post) was started in the 1970's; the trend toward supercapitalism - investors taking power away from consumers. Regan played a large part (by accelerating this process) which makes him an easy scapegoat, but it wasn't started/created/conceived by him.

And? Of course the rich own the stock. They also own most of the companies, employ most of the workers, invest most in the economy, and possess most of the wealth. This is not new information. Obviously you have an issue with this. I do not.

There's no trickle down. Supply side or trickle down economists don't tell you that their theories are designed for the rich to get richer. They tell you that there's a trickle down effect, and its a more efficient way of spreading wealth out over the entire middle class. I'm saying that it does not do this.

How else would you want it done?

Progressively. Close tax loopholes. Higher taxes on dividends, etc. This country provides an environment that allows you to get super rich, you should pay it back in kind for allowing that. I'd go back to my point about use of public infrastructure. I won't try and prove that a CEO uses 500x the infrastructure, but can you at least agree that one uses twice the amount of infrastructure as us common folk? (twice as much is a gross understatement, but lets use it for example) Court battles, lobbyists in congress, thousands of employees working under you, countless negative externalities on the local communities, the environment, earth, etc, all go into this guy's huge salary. A worker drives to and from work everyday on public roads, holds no share in the company, and is paid by the hour. If you can agree that a $10million/year CEO uses 2x the infrastructure as one of his factory workers to earn his $10m/yr, then why shouldn't he be taxed at twice the rate of the factory worker?

I would argue that taking a higher percentage off from those that contribute most of the tax revenue will help even further.

Thats what we've been doing for over 20 years... Doesn't seem to have helped those in the bottom 80% at all...

Every time taxes were cut, IRS revenue increased (I demonstrated that in a previous post). So cutting taxes to those that pay most of the taxes, will have a greater impact on increasing tax revenue. After all, more tax revenue means more money to spend on those social programs the liberals love. Since the bottom 50% only contribute about 3% of all of the tax revenue, any change in revenue collect from this group will have no impact.

because they spend more, yes, but think about what I said in the previous post. You want to stimulate the economy, who would you rather give money to? someone who spends 100% of their income each year, or someone who spends 10% of their income? Give Bill Gates $10k and he invests it probably overseas. Give it to Joe Shmoe on $40k/year and he'd spend every nickel, putting it right back into the economy.

Correct me if I am wrong, the liberal may argue that we should cut taxes from this group so there is less of a tax burden upon them? A couple of points:
1. The bottom 30% do not pay taxes at all.

2. Of those few in the bottom 50% that do pay taxes (under $30k/yr) they pay $755 plus 15% over 7,500. Using the EZ form without the deduction(s). The most anybody in this group would pay would be about (those making over $30k/yr) $4k.

With the tax cuts, the poorer benefited greatly as well. Not only did they get a reduction on what they pay, more of them are paying no taxes at all. With the tax cuts, the number of people paying no taxes increased from about 25% to about 33%.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFil...f-20060330.jpg

Thats all fine and well, but thats lower class. Does anyone even argue that we should tax the poor? The bottom 20% make what I see as unlivable wages. I don't know about you, but in my town, the median household income ($44k) will get you a one bedroom apartment, a cheap car payment, cable, and internet.

First off, how can a lower income group get $10k in breaks when they don't even pay $10k in taxes?

That was a hypothetical to demonstrate the effects on the economy of giving money to the rich vs giving money to the un-rich.

Second, if the lower income families invested a little instead of spending it in the local economy, they will gain wealth as well.

I don't know what part of Manhattan you live in, but lower income families can't invest. They can't afford health care, how can you expect them to invest?

I'm going to over-generalize here, but this is a common trend among conservative beliefs. There is a deep rooted theme that puts the blame in individual people, and not institutions. You say, maybe they should invest, but I don't think you've considered their situation. When I studied American institutions in depth, and the effect they had on people, it was a major turning point in my belief system. Before, I put more blame in people, but I learned a lot about the way that institutions can affect people and hinder their "life success."

Third, it is investing that grows the economy. Consumer driven economies are not only very unstable, they are also not very effective in stimulating economic growth, when compared to investment.

I'd say the opposite is true, and I think so would author Robert Reich. Consumer driven economies are incredibly stable. The oligopolistic economy that was vastly consumer/worker driven from the 1940's - 1970's was utterly stable. Companies could set prices with no threat of competition. The result was a stable economy, a super strong middle class, excellent wages and amazing benefits, a strong manufacturing sector, and..... little innovation/competition/cheap prices. (like my last post was talking about)

Now it is true that investor driven economies stimulate huge growth in terms of profits, stocks, and GDP, but it doesn't improve the well being of our nation. (It improves the well being of the top 10%. I guess thats what I'm trying to argue) Its a trade off between super high cost efficient goods being sold from overseas companies and a strong middle class.

Again, YOU DO NOT PAY TAXES ON WEALTH, you only pay taxes on income, so wealth is irrelevent.

Wealth is a much better measure of how people are doing compared to income. Income is only a portion of wealth. And wealth proportions are MUCH higher than income proportions for the top 1%, So to say that you don't pay taxes on wealth is to say that the system is fucked and highly favors the rich.

Yes they can afford a higher tax rate. But, why would you want to increase their tax burden? What purpose would it serve? Keep in mind, lower tax rates INCREASE revenue.

It should, at the absolute least, be fair. A fair burden. I personally don't think people who take home less than 50-60k should pay anything in income taxes. Thats what corporations (which are not human and don't deserve the rights a human has) are for.

Out of curiosity, what income does one have to make to be considered middle class?

I don't believe there's ever been a finite measure. I would consider the middle class to be people or households who work 40 hours a week and have the ability to own a modest home and a vehicle for each working member of the family, pay all their bills, and have a little left over to save. This number is shrinking.

How about this then. Assuming everything is as bad as you say it is, what do you think can be done to help the issues you are describing?

First, let me say, if I knew the answer to this question, I'd be writing a book and NOT writing this post. But based on my current knowledge, I'll tell you my working theory (which is always being modified every time I read a book or gain new knowledge). I think, because of the vast complexity of our now global economy, we have to strike a balance between free market and regulated market.

Number one, I think corporations need to stop being treated like people. The fact that corporations have a bigger influence on politics than people do frightens me. Corporate lobbies pollute politics. I think we need to keep the two separate. Let the market run wild, but keep them out of politics.

The second thing I think needs to happen is the media needs to be heavily regulated. If we want to preserve democracy, which I think most everyone does, we need to have good information channels. There is too much corporate influence on media. There are things that the media won't even cover. When was the last time you saw any real coverage on Iraq on TV? What about Darfur? The only point that I'm trying to make with that is that the media doesn't report on the right topics for the people to make informed decisions about politics, products, etc.

With those two things changed, the rest will work itself out. With people actually making the decisions, instead of lobbyists, and people being ABLE to make good decisions because of good, solid, media channels, the people can actually decide whats best for them, and how to regulate the market as they see fit. But right now, the corporations make all the decisions, write all the legislation, and decide what to show us on the news. Its turned into a "corporatocracy." (like fascism). I don't think anybody really wants this, but its happened.

It is here where I believe our big difference lie. It is probably this reason why you are liberal and I am conservative? We probably have different perspectives about what impact the government actually has on the economy (I believe they have little influence at all. Ups and downs are a natural part of the business cycle, stock market, bond market, and housing market), what role they should play (I believe very little if any. Only what they are constitutionally obligated to do), and how they go about doing so (I believe reducing the burden on those that drive the economy and employ others is the best way)?

I don't really know how I got sucked into this debate about how much role the government should take in spreading out money, but my biggest concern is the corporate role in our so called democracy. Private corporations even run our elections now. I just see the sacred creation that is our democracy, and I see it slipping faster and faster into the hands of private interests. Just think about it. If corporations buy elected officials who make decisions on their behalf and run the media companies, how are voters supposed to know any better? Corporations need to get their claws out of government so that the people can decide whats best for them, instead of the corporations.

All previous Presidents combined? You really like to stretch the truth?

I have a source. Thom Hartmann: Screwed. I loaned the book to my mother. I am not making this up.

You are not agreeing with me that Bush is not a conservative. Good. I have been arguing that point before he was elected to his first term. You are not going to get an argument from me that the government (especially Bush) spends way too much money. Question, what programs should they cut to reduce the amount of spending? Keep in mind, the most important obligation of the federal government, one they are constitutionally responsible for, is National Defense.

No, I am 100% agreeing that Bush is not a conservative. But I'm also saying that he's not much different than Regan. (Except Regan knew when to pull out of a civil war) Regan borrowed money to make tax cuts to the wealthy, as did Bush. They're very similar in many respects, except Regan was one of the best speakers we've ever had, and bush the worst. =)

Holy shit I am not even half way done with your post. I'm going to have to continue this later. My puppy is freaking out from lack of attention, my fish need feeding, and I need a drink. Adios!

[DodgerKing]

Originally Posted by DodgerKing

I actually agree with some of what you typed here.

Cool. Let's keep it focused on this issue for now. It makes it a lot easier than trying to discuss 20 issues at once.

I do have to say...After your last few post, my perception of you has changed. ...In a good way.

Here is my response, short and simple (at least compared to what I usually post ) to why the disparity in CEO and worker pay:

Why?
Keep my answers simple and in no particular order (some factors have a greater impact than others):

1. Since much of the CEO's income is tied to stock, when there is a huge rise the stock market (what happened during the 90’s peak and the 2005 peak), average value of each stock portfolio increases. Since workers, in general, do not invest in the stock market (or any market for that matter), or at least not to the same extent, their income will not be effected as much. Even if you look at one of the graphs you posted, you will see that CEO pay follows the same up and downs with the stock market. It has a stronger correlation (actually cause and effect relationship) to the stock market than it does anything else, including corporate profit.

2. Decline of the number of union jobs (one effect of immigrant labor). And I am not a union proponent, but unions, through collective bargaining, do help in equalizing salary.
3. Technology decreases labor demand.
4. Formation of technology companies which can profit quickly with a few employees
5. Shareholder decisions
6. Corporate conglomeration and mergers creating less competition, increasing stock value of the company, and increasing the costumer base.

What should the government do (These are just a few things off the top of my head)?

1. Punish companies that violate laws
2. Stop corporate welfare
3. Stop government buyouts
4. Decrease regulations and tax burden to decrease the likelihood of companies finding cheep labor abroad
5. Secure the borders to prevent slave labor from driving down labor cost of others (even Cesar Chavez saw the inverse relationship between illegal immigration labor and labor salary).

[Ntruder]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

"Smart People" You mean by that brainwashed hippies.

In reality FDRs policies made the depression worse. Roosevelt was a great war President but on Domestic Policy he is vastly overrated. Here are some of the things he did to make the depression worse. In an attempt to raise food prices he ordered the destruction of 10 million acres of cotton, 50 million lemons, 100 million raisins, and 1 billion origins, and 6 million pigs. Help straving people by destroying food makes sense. As for the New Deal jobs all they did was displace and destroy private sector jobs and replace them with "public works" which delayed recovery from the Great Depression. The Depression only ended with a return to free market activity.

Its funny all you do is throw insults but can't refute any of the facts I present

Do you realize that you are easily the most hated board member on HDF? Its a wonder that you're still allowed to post here.

I don't bother refuting your facts, because they are so blatantly stupid. Why the fuck was FDR elected to 3 terms? (would have been 4 but the republicans decided to limit a president to 2 because they got sick of FDR)

Originally Posted by junehhan

edit: I am starting to think some people just might have a little too much free time

You should go watch another HD-DVD, or play another X360 game.

I'm firing up Halo 3 right now. I've yet to watch either of those HD-DVD's you sent me, so they might be on the menu...

[DodgerKing]

[quote=Ntruder;520970]

Originally Posted by DodgerKing

First of all, let me commend you on finally presenting a descent post with evidence to support your claims. Because this is going off on several tangents, let me focus on just a few aspects.

Pointing out by providing evidence that debunks all of your assertions, while you failed to support any of your claims, means you did not come to the discussion fully armed.



I'd argue that this isn't true. You can't really compare income and have a fair conversation, because the wealthier you are, typically the higher proportion of your wealth doesn't come directly from a salary. (Also depends how each comparison defines income. The amount on your 1099... Bad measure of comparison) Basically, thats a good way to skew the results of a study; by comparing incomes and not wealth.

You're not taxed on wealth, correct. But wealth and "real" income are directly proportional. People who take in large sums of money each year through salaries, stocks, investments, etc, have large financial wealth. Conversely, people who take in little " " have little " ". Agreed?



I'd have to challenge these measures of income. Is this salary? How does the top 1% have 40% of the financial wealth, yet only make 16.7% of the income? There is something missing from this 16.7% figure. If this trend continued this way for 100 years, the top 1% would still hold 16.7% of the wealth in the country, if every year they made 16.7% of the money. You are right that out of their paid salaries, they pay a higher percentage to income taxes



Well how is wealth acquired? If we just tax people on what they take in on their paychecks, then you get horrible inequality. Warren Buffet was quoted saying something along the lines of "its not fair that I, one of the richest men in the country, pay 15% income tax while my secretary pays 35%." (this is off memory, so please allow slight margin of error on the numbers) This is obviously because Warren Buffet's "real" income doesn't come from a paycheck. It comes from dividends and other financial investments.




Eh? I'm seeing from 1975 to current, an increase from 20% - 40% of the wealth in the hands of the top 1%. Thats huge! The top 1% doubled their piece of the pie! I should clarify; its not 100% on Regan's shoulders. Most of this (see my last post) was started in the 1970's; the trend toward supercapitalism - investors taking power away from consumers. Regan played a large part (by accelerating this process) which makes him an easy scapegoat, but it wasn't started/created/conceived by him.



There's no trickle down. Supply side or trickle down economists don't tell you that their theories are designed for the rich to get richer. They tell you that there's a trickle down effect, and its a more efficient way of spreading wealth out over the entire middle class. I'm saying that it does not do this.



Progressively. Close tax loopholes. Higher taxes on dividends, etc. This country provides an environment that allows you to get super rich, you should pay it back in kind for allowing that. I'd go back to my point about use of public infrastructure. I won't try and prove that a CEO uses 500x the infrastructure, but can you at least agree that one uses twice the amount of infrastructure as us common folk? (twice as much is a gross understatement, but lets use it for example) Court battles, lobbyists in congress, thousands of employees working under you, countless negative externalities on the local communities, the environment, earth, etc, all go into this guy's huge salary. A worker drives to and from work everyday on public roads, holds no share in the company, and is paid by the hour. If you can agree that a $10million/year CEO uses 2x the infrastructure as one of his factory workers to earn his $10m/yr, then why shouldn't he be taxed at twice the rate of the factory worker?



Thats what we've been doing for over 20 years... Doesn't seem to have helped those in the bottom 80% at all...



because they spend more, yes, but think about what I said in the previous post. You want to stimulate the economy, who would you rather give money to? someone who spends 100% of their income each year, or someone who spends 10% of their income? Give Bill Gates $10k and he invests it probably overseas. Give it to Joe Shmoe on $40k/year and he'd spend every nickel, putting it right back into the economy.



Thats all fine and well, but thats lower class. Does anyone even argue that we should tax the poor? The bottom 20% make what I see as unlivable wages. I don't know about you, but in my town, the median household income ($44k) will get you a one bedroom apartment, a cheap car payment, cable, and internet.



That was a hypothetical to demonstrate the effects on the economy of giving money to the rich vs giving money to the un-rich.



I don't know what part of Manhattan you live in, but lower income families can't invest. They can't afford health care, how can you expect them to invest?

I'm going to over-generalize here, but this is a common trend among conservative beliefs. There is a deep rooted theme that puts the blame in individual people, and not institutions. You say, maybe they should invest, but I don't think you've considered their situation. When I studied American institutions in depth, and the effect they had on people, it was a major turning point in my belief system. Before, I put more blame in people, but I learned a lot about the way that institutions can affect people and hinder their "life success."



I'd say the opposite is true, and I think so would author Robert Reich. Consumer driven economies are incredibly stable. The oligopolistic economy that was vastly consumer/worker driven from the 1940's - 1970's was utterly stable. Companies could set prices with no threat of competition. The result was a stable economy, a super strong middle class, excellent wages and amazing benefits, a strong manufacturing sector, and..... little innovation/competition/cheap prices. (like my last post was talking about)

Now it is true that investor driven economies stimulate huge growth in terms of profits, stocks, and GDP, but it doesn't improve the well being of our nation. (It improves the well being of the top 10%. I guess thats what I'm trying to argue) Its a trade off between super high cost efficient goods being sold from overseas companies and a strong middle class.



Wealth is a much better measure of how people are doing compared to income. Income is only a portion of wealth. And wealth proportions are MUCH higher than income proportions for the top 1%, So to say that you don't pay taxes on wealth is to say that the system is fucked and highly favors the rich.



It should, at the absolute least, be fair. A fair burden. I personally don't think people who take home less than 50-60k should pay anything in income taxes. Thats what corporations (which are not human and don't deserve the rights a human has) are for.



I don't believe there's ever been a finite measure. I would consider the middle class to be people or households who work 40 hours a week and have the ability to own a modest home and a vehicle for each working member of the family, pay all their bills, and have a little left over to save. This number is shrinking.



First, let me say, if I knew the answer to this question, I'd be writing a book and NOT writing this post. But based on my current knowledge, I'll tell you my working theory (which is always being modified every time I read a book or gain new knowledge). I think, because of the vast complexity of our now global economy, we have to strike a balance between free market and regulated market.

Number one, I think corporations need to stop being treated like people. The fact that corporations have a bigger influence on politics than people do frightens me. Corporate lobbies pollute politics. I think we need to keep the two separate. Let the market run wild, but keep them out of politics.

The second thing I think needs to happen is the media needs to be heavily regulated. If we want to preserve democracy, which I think most everyone does, we need to have good information channels. There is too much corporate influence on media. There are things that the media won't even cover. When was the last time you saw any real coverage on Iraq on TV? What about Darfur? The only point that I'm trying to make with that is that the media doesn't report on the right topics for the people to make informed decisions about politics, products, etc.

With those two things changed, the rest will work itself out. With people actually making the decisions, instead of lobbyists, and people being ABLE to make good decisions because of good, solid, media channels, the people can actually decide whats best for them, and how to regulate the market as they see fit. But right now, the corporations make all the decisions, write all the legislation, and decide what to show us on the news. Its turned into a "corporatocracy." (like fascism). I don't think anybody really wants this, but its happened.



I don't really know how I got sucked into this debate about how much role the government should take in spreading out money, but my biggest concern is the corporate role in our so called democracy. Private corporations even run our elections now. I just see the sacred creation that is our democracy, and I see it slipping faster and faster into the hands of private interests. Just think about it. If corporations buy elected officials who make decisions on their behalf and run the media companies, how are voters supposed to know any better? Corporations need to get their claws out of government so that the people can decide whats best for them, instead of the corporations.




I have a source. Thom Hartmann: Screwed. I loaned the book to my mother. I am not making this up.



No, I am 100% agreeing that Bush is not a conservative. But I'm also saying that he's not much different than Regan. (Except Regan knew when to pull out of a civil war) Regan borrowed money to make tax cuts to the wealthy, as did Bush. They're very similar in many respects, except Regan was one of the best speakers we've ever had, and bush the worst. =)

Holy shit I am not even half way done with your post. I'm going to have to continue this later. My puppy is freaking out from lack of attention, my fish need feeding, and I need a drink. Adios!

Thank you for taking the time. I will just let you have the last word from this particular post. We have both said pretty much what we need to say and I don't feel like responding to long multi-issue post anymore. I wouldn't mind, however, discussing one topic at a time at our own pace. (My wife is getting mad because I am spending too much time on the internet ). I think discussing the disparity between CEO and worker pay is a good single issue for now. I replied above. Feel free to respond or post your own response when you get a chance.

Take it easy and I'll catch-up with you later....