Fair Share

[Tom]

If we think that the rich should be penalized a greater portion of their wealth to take care of others who for whatever reason are not capable of carrying their own weight, does it also make sense that those who receive the extra wealth are not contributing their fare share of work? Should they be required to do whatever tasks need doing, such as cleaning parks, sorting recyclables at local dumps, shoveling snow in downtown areas, etc, you know, actual labor in return for their checks?

Why should the fair share only come from the wealthy?
Why should one group be exempt?

mostie??
hcap??

[ArlJim78]

this will all be handled by the Income Redistribution Czar, once that position is filled.

[LottaKash]

http://i405.photobucket.com/albums/pp137/lottakash/caric_obama_seal_sf.jpg

Makes you proud to be an American, doesn't it....Sharing is good....:jump:

best,

[bigmack]

"Something for nothing" just doesn't have that 'ring' to it like "something for something."

[Robert Fischer]

If we think that the rich should be penalized a greater portion of their wealth to take care of others who for whatever reason are not capable of carrying their own weight, does it also make sense that those who receive the extra wealth are not contributing their fare share of work? Should they be required to do whatever tasks need doing, such as cleaning parks, sorting recyclables at local dumps, shoveling snow in downtown areas, etc, you know, actual labor in return for their checks?

Why should the fair share only come from the wealthy?
Why should one group be exempt?

mostie??
hcap??

interesting set of labor tasks.

[Actor]

If we think that the rich should be penalized a greater portion of their wealth to take care of others who for whatever reason are not capable of carrying their own weight, does it also make sense that those who receive the extra wealth are not contributing their fare share of work? Should they be required to do whatever tasks need doing, such as cleaning parks, sorting recyclables at local dumps, shoveling snow in downtown areas, etc, you know, actual labor in return for their checks?

Why should the fair share only come from the wealthy?
Why should one group be exempt?

mostie??
hcap??
I can't help but wonder if you consider yourself one of the rich who is penalized a greater portion of your wealth.

[fast4522]

Class Warfare hurts everyone, be real about what you think fair share means.

Killjoys who want to cut the beanstalk down so no one can climb.

[sammy the sage]

All I know...the discrepency between the upper 1% vs working middle class vs the non-working bums is NOW GREATER than in 1929...

Yet MANY of you here THINK that IS a good thing :faint: :rolleyes:

[Tom]

I can't help but wonder if you consider yourself one of the rich who is penalized a greater portion of your wealth.

I am one of the 53%.
That is enough. I would be a hell of lot richer if I kept all that I earned.

But you duck the question. Why is that?

[sammy the sage]

I am one of the 53%.
That is enough. I would be a hell of lot richer if I kept all that I earned.

But you duck the question. Why is that?

And you're ducking THE issue I brought up...do you WANT a repeat of the 30's...cause that's WHERE we are headed....

[Tom]

That might be true, but it has nothing to to with this thread.

[chickenhead]

the majority of the tax money that goes back to people is in the form of social security and medicare. I do think and hope that some of those people that are able are doing some kind of community service with their spare time -- if nothing else just to keep them busy and engaged.

For the foodstamps and welfare crowd, I've got no problem with compulsary community service to receive.

Buffets point about taxes, if that has anything to do with this, isn't that he thinks necessarily that the rich should even pay a higher percentage than the middle class -- just that they should pay at least the same. He pays around 11% federal tax rate, because its all money made with capital. He doesn't believe that capital deserves such a heavy break compared to labor, at least once the returns on those capital get up into the millions of dollars per year for an individual.

Buffet said, which I think was kind of a cute quote -- "All this talk about class warfare I don't understand...it is warfare, and my class has won, decisively. Just look at the numbers. It's been a route."

[jognlope]

I agree. I was just chatting with a woman who lives in my building who said how she faked anxiety to get disability. But then again, maybe she's pretending to have faked it to cover up the real story. Anyway a woman walks by to chat also, and is bragging she and her husband get $2,000 in social security. Bratty me says, "Oh are you retired?" She says she has a "back problem," walking around just fine by the way. If they're going to play that game, there should at least be better monitoring or somehow make them do some community service, enroll in job training (especially technical areas that computers are requiring and can't fill jobs, like welding, electrical).

It's not penalizing the rich to ask them to pay a slightly higher tax rate than a plumber. Or just cut the hell out of the entitlements.

[cj's dad]

I agree. I was just chatting with a woman who lives in my building who said how she faked anxiety to get disability. But then again, maybe she's pretending to have faked it to cover up the real story. Anyway a woman walks by to chat also, and is bragging she and her husband get $2,000 in social security. Bratty me says, "Oh are you retired?" She says she has a "back problem," walking around just fine by the way. If they're going to play that game, there should at least be better monitoring or somehow make them do some community service, enroll in job training (especially technical areas that computers are requiring and can't fill jobs, like welding,electrical).

It's not penalizing the rich to ask them to pay a slightly higher tax rate than a plumber. Or just cut the hell out of the entitlements.

Yeah, I've seen lots of 50 year old apprentices walking around on the job.
Hysterical.

I was thinking more along the lines of circus performers like lion tamers or high wire acts.

[badcompany]

I agree. I was just chatting with a woman who lives in my building who said how she faked anxiety to get disability. But then again, maybe she's pretending to have faked it to cover up the real story. Anyway a woman walks by to chat also, and is bragging she and her husband get $2,000 in social security. Bratty me says, "Oh are you retired?" She says she has a "back problem," walking around just fine by the way.

Karl Marx believed that Socialism would create a new "Socialist Man," who was selfless and altruistic. This, of course, is fantasy. What really is created is an entitled, whining, schemer.

[mostpost]

I am one of the 53%.
That is enough. I would be a hell of lot richer if I kept all that I earned.

But you duck the question. Why is that?
You think you would be richer, but that is not necessarily so. If no one paid taxes there would be no government. No government means no law enforcement. No anti trust laws. No minimum wage. No limit on the work week.
Eventually one conglomerate could own all the companies. With no competition there would be no need to pay anything. Even if that did not happen, your pay could be stolen or extorted by your friendly, neighborhood thug.

[mostpost]

If we think that the rich should be penalized a greater portion of their wealth to take care of others who for whatever reason are not capable of carrying their own weight, does it also make sense that those who receive the extra wealth are not contributing their fare share of work? Should they be required to do whatever tasks need doing, such as cleaning parks, sorting recyclables at local dumps, shoveling snow in downtown areas, etc, you know, actual labor in return for their checks?

Why should the fair share only come from the wealthy?
Why should one group be exempt?

mostie??
hcap??

Your question is flawed. For one thing, the wealthy did not earn everything they have. Anything they have as a result of not paying a just wage they did not earn. Anything they have as a result of financial trickery, ie derivatives, they did not earn. Even earnings form legitimately held stocks is suspect if the stocks were received as a bonus when that bonus was in excess of the value of the work performed.

The second problem is that we are not asking for anything beyond what the should rightfully give. Stop using the numbers like 1% and 10% and comparing that to the taxes they pay. One is about people; the other is about wealth. If ten percent of the people pay 70% of the taxes, that is unfair because that 10% owns 83% of the wealth. Why aren't they paying 83% in taxes?

As to your question of should welfare recipients be required to perform community service while receiving welfare checks. I would not be opposed to that, but there are problems with that approach.

Many of the activities you listed are already performed by municipal workers. There was a thread a while back where city workers complained because scouts, as part of their merit badges, were doing work that was the province of the city workers. Let's say we do make welfare recipients do those jobs. Now we don't need so many city workers. They get laid off. They go on welfare. Vicious cycle.

Many welfare recipients are single mothers with young children. Who takes care of the children? Day care is not cheap.

Finally, there is no real benefit to having those people do the jobs you suggest. They aren't producing anything. They aren't adding any value to the economy and they may be taking a job away from someone who has one.

[Dave Schwartz]

If we think that the rich should be penalized a greater portion of their wealth to take care of others who for whatever reason are not capable of carrying their own weight, does it also make sense that those who receive the extra wealth are not contributing their fare share of work? Should they be required to do whatever tasks need doing, such as cleaning parks, sorting recyclables at local dumps, shoveling snow in downtown areas, etc, you know, actual labor in return for their checks?

Personally, I do not see this as THE problem.

The problem is actually not "the rich" but the SUPER RICH anyway.

And, IMHO, the problem is that the SUPER RICH make far too much relative to the workers that drive the profit. (One could call workers "slaves" and be accurate.)


I saw a graph one day (might have been here) that showed the relationship between "business owner/CEO" and worker income. This is from memory, but the graph showed the business owner making substantially more for decades, but as the years past the relationship was pretty stable.

Suddenly - I think it was in the mid-'70s - the "owner/CEO" shot through the roof where today the owners are making MANY TIMES what the workers are making.


IMHO, the problem is that the worker does not make a "fair share" of the profit. The solution to THAT is to simply raise the minimum wage to a respectable level. (I do not know what that level should be but I would guess about double what it is.)

In this way, you still have to work to get paid - no "guaranteed income."

Oh, BTW, this would generate lots of increased taxes because the workers would now make twice as much money. And some of those $500 million a year CEOs would have to cut all the way back to only $200 million.


Just my opinion.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Tom]

mostie's reply was pretty much what I expected - busllshot.

You totally dodge my question because you cannot answer it.
There is no legal "fair wage" and the way things are now are legal, whether you like it or not. And for that matter, you have no clue how much work some people put in for thier money - probably making less than minimum in may cases.

Yes, many of those on welfare ( and where in my question was the word welfare used?)

But millions are on unemployment now for how many weeks? 99?

Every single on of them must be ready to work to quality for UI, so that entire group has time to kick in. How about they all hae to put in 24 hours a week at the PO, seeing how they can't get the job done.

[bigmack]

because that 10% owns 83% of the wealth. Why aren't they paying 83% in taxes?
Not only is your logic SERIOUSLY flawed, your figure is NOT correct. Back it up with a CREDIBLE source for the U.S. NOT the world.

[Actor]

I am one of the 53%.But are you one of the top 1% of that 53% or one of the bottom 3% ?
That is enough. I would be a hell of lot richer if I kept all that I earned.Would you now? Remember, no taxes means no government. No government means...

No police. How much would you have pay for private police protection? Or would you make the "choice" to go unprotected? If so then rest assured that I and others will make every effort to take what you have earned from you. And I want it all, not just what the government takes. And I would not be doing this because I am evil and greedy but because I would have no choice. In this state of anarchy it's dog eat dog, and you would be trying to do the same to me.
No roads except privately owned toll roads. You won't be able to visit your grandma without paying a toll.
No armed forces. Which means that some other country that has a government and a tax supported military will simply come over here and impose their government and taxes upon you.
No Food and Drug Administration. No Center for Disease Control. Every bite you eat, every pill you take is risky.
Etc, etc, etc.


But you duck the question. Why is that?

The question is vague and not well stated.
The issue does not interest me. I'm more interested in where you are coming from. The class war is under way and I'm just wondering which side you are going to be on.

[Tom]

I am on the side of those who take responsibility for themselves.

Would you now? Remember, no taxes means no government. No government means...

Right now, only 53% of us are making those thinks happen. How about this - the other 47% do not get to use those service?

If the rest does not interest you, please stay out of the thread, on the off change one lefty has the balls to intelligently address my questions.

So far,not a one has

But if you need help, feel free to quiz me about each sentence, one by one, of all those you cannot grasp.

[newtothegame]

Personally, I do not see this as THE problem.

The problem is actually not "the rich" but the SUPER RICH anyway.

And, IMHO, the problem is that the SUPER RICH make far too much relative to the workers that drive the profit. (One could call workers "slaves" and be accurate.)


I saw a graph one day (might have been here) that showed the relationship between "business owner/CEO" and worker income. This is from memory, but the graph showed the business owner making substantially more for decades, but as the years past the relationship was pretty stable.

Suddenly - I think it was in the mid-'70s - the "owner/CEO" shot through the roof where today the owners are making MANY TIMES what the workers are making.


IMHO, the problem is that the worker does not make a "fair share" of the profit. The solution to THAT is to simply raise the minimum wage to a respectable level. (I do not know what that level should be but I would guess about double what it is.)

In this way, you still have to work to get paid - no "guaranteed income."

Oh, BTW, this would generate lots of increased taxes because the workers would now make twice as much money. And some of those $500 million a year CEOs would have to cut all the way back to only $200 million.


Just my opinion.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

dave, your argument is taken respectfully and I almost believe it. But there is one problem in it. Who is to say that if the minimum wage is raised that it would come DIRECTLY from thos on the upper pay scales?
It WOULDN'T! it would be added in to the cost of goods and services provided by that company. Therefore, you and I would be paying it and the minimum wage increase would essentially be voided out by the raising of price passed on to the consumer.
So, here we stand at the great divide again.....how do you fix the problem? Regulate what a company executive can make?

[Actor]

If we think Who are "we?" that the rich should be penalized Penalized? If you mean taxed, say taxed. Don't wallow in euphemism. a greater portion of their wealth to take care of others who for whatever reason are not capable of carrying their own weightThis group is essentially undefined. Although its meaning is plain enough if used in Sunday School the writer, by his subsequent writings, clearly means something else, a group, which he considers villainous, and which includes anyone he wishes whether he lists them or not. I'll leave it to the OP to clarify what he means., does it also make senseGrammar! The writer appears to mean "does it not also make sense."that those who receive the extra wealthPronoun trouble. On first reading "those who receive the extra wealth" appears to mean the wealthy, an view encouraged by the previous grammatical error, which makes his following remarks somewhat delightful. :D are not contributing their fare share of work? Should they be required to do whatever tasks need doing, such as cleaning parks, sorting recyclables at local dumps, shoveling snow in downtown areas, etc, you know, actual labor in return for their checks?There is hardly enough such work to solve the unemployment problem. Most such jobs are given to persons sentenced to "community service." Plus, looking for a job is itself a full-time job. Forcing someone who is receiving unemployment compensation to perform menial labor works counter to the desired end, to get that person employed.

Why should the fair share only come from the wealthy?Because that's what the American people were promised! Prior the passage of the 16th Amendment its backers assured the people that the personal exemption would mean that only the wealthy would pay income tax. A middle class family would not pay income tax. It was a "soak the rich" scheme. They did not figure on inflation. By the end of WWII inflation had pushed nearly everyone's income into the taxable region. Indexing exemptions, the standard deduction and tax tables has not reversed the trend. By all rights we should go back to the original promise. The common man should not pay income tax at all and only the wealthy should take the hit. If the American people had been told that this would be a burden for their grandchildren and succeeding generations the 16th Amendment would not have passed.

[mostpost]

dave, your argument is taken respectfully and I almost believe it. But there is one problem in it. Who is to say that if the minimum wage is raised that it would come DIRECTLY from thos on the upper pay scales?
It WOULDN'T! it would be added in to the cost of goods and services provided by that company. Therefore, you and I would be paying it and the minimum wage increase would essentially be voided out by the raising of price passed on to the consumer.
So, here we stand at the great divide again.....how do you fix the problem? Regulate what a company executive can make?

A couple of things wrong with your argument. One an increase in wages would not trigger a similar increase in product price, because the number of products being sold is much greater than the number of employees receiving the pay raise. Two, there are now many people with extra money to spend. Sales could increase enough to offset the cost of the raises. Remember it's a demand economy, not a supply side economy.

So, let us say That your factory makes toasters and you make a profit of $10 on each one you sell. You sell 100 toasters per week. Now you sign a labor contract with the union that gives your employees a $1/hr raise. As a result of this your profit on each toaster drops to $9. So you raise the price enough that you are once again making a $10 profit. In other word you raise it by $1. Your workers make enough extra to pay the price increase in 1 hour. The other 39 hours per week are gravy. And you may find you are selling a lot more toasters than before, since people have more to spend.

I know you will say that there a lot of other things that people need to buy besides toasters and that is true. But there are also a lot of people who don't need toasters and raising the price of a toaster has no effect on other prices.

[mostpost]

Who are "we?" Penalized? If you mean taxed, say taxed. Don't wallow in euphemism. This group is essentially undefined. Although its meaning is plain enough if used in Sunday School the writer, by his subsequent writings, clearly means something else, a group, which he considers villainous, and which includes anyone he wishes whether he lists them or not. I'll leave it to the OP to clarify what he means.Grammar! The writer appears to mean "does it not also make sense."Pronoun trouble. On first reading "those who receive the extra wealth" appears to mean the wealthy, an view encouraged by the previous grammatical error, which makes his following remarks somewhat delightful. :D There is hardly enough such work to solve the unemployment problem. Most such jobs are given to persons sentenced to "community service." Plus, looking for a job is itself a full-time job. Forcing someone who is receiving unemployment compensation to perform menial labor works counter to the desired end, to get that person employed.

Because that's what the American people were promised! Prior the passage of the 16th Amendment its backers assured the people that the personal exemption would mean that only the wealthy would pay income tax. A middle class family would not pay income tax. It was a "soak the rich" scheme. They did not figure on inflation. By the end of WWII inflation had pushed nearly everyone's income into the taxable region. Indexing exemptions, the standard deduction and tax tables has not reversed the trend. By all rights we should go back to the original promise. The common man should not pay income tax at all and only the wealthy should take the hit. If the American people had been told that this would be a burden for their grandchildren and succeeding generations the 16th Amendment would not have passed.
An excellent post which, I am sure, will have the effect of Tom renouncing his conservative ways. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
No, it won't. He will remain obsessively stubborn, refusing to listen to reason.
:bang: :bang: :bang:

And he'll tell you that you did not answer his question, which you clearly did.
And he will get all worked up about us ignoring him and will convince himself that it is because we can't compete with his geniusness.
He will be wrong.

[elysiantraveller]

If ten percent of the people pay 70% of the taxes, that is unfair because that 10% owns 83% of the wealth. Why aren't they paying 83% in taxes?

In Sweden, whose Gini you love to quote btw, the richest 5% own 77% of all stock. So which is it since you can't have it both ways? Either the Gini is junk or wealth can be unevenly distributed even in a near perfect system?

[bigmack]

No, it won't. He will remain obsessively stubborn, refusing to listen to reason
Yo, Bub. Have ya got them links on the 10/83% thing you been harpin' on in several posts?

Then we can get to the actual work of showing you how haywire your scheme is.

[mostpost]

In Sweden, whose Gini you love to quote btw, the richest 5% own 77% of all stock. So which is it since you can't have it both ways? Either the Gini is junk or wealth can be unevenly distributed even in a near perfect system?
Stock is only a part of financial wealth. In the United States 46% do not own any stock and I am sure that a lot of the other 54% own only a small amount. People own houses, they have savings accounts. They own cars. All of which counts as wealth.

[elysiantraveller]

Stock is only a part of financial wealth. In the United States 46% do not own any stock and I am sure that a lot of the other 54% own only a small amount. People own houses, they have savings accounts. They own cars. All of which counts as wealth.

Dodging again... :bang:

The richest 5% own 77% of all stock...

Thats a lot of cars mostie.... :lol:

[Actor]

Stock is only a part of financial wealth. In the United States 46% do not own any stock and I am sure that a lot of the other 54% own only a small amount. People own houses, they have savings accounts. They own cars. All of which counts as wealth.Not to disagree with you in principle but I do not consider cars as wealth. (Collectible cars would be an exception but I do not own one of those.) A car is a consumable item, just like a roll or toilet paper. It has a lifespan of about 10 years after which it costs too much to maintain IMHO. So I buy a new one.

On the other hand, if I had a 10 year supply of toilet paper I just might consider that wealth. :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

No police. How much would you have pay for private police protection? Or would you make the "choice" to go unprotected? If so then rest assured that I and others will make every effort to take what you have earned from you. And I want it all, not just what the government takes. And I would not be doing this because I am evil and greedy but because I would have no choice. In this state of anarchy it's dog eat dog, and you would be trying to do the same to me.
No roads except privately owned toll roads. You won't be able to visit your grandma without paying a toll.
No armed forces. Which means that some other country that has a government and a tax supported military will simply come over here and impose their government and taxes upon you.
No Food and Drug Administration. No Center for Disease Control. Every bite you eat, every pill you take is risky.
Etc, etc, etc.
[/list]Police are run and paid for by municipalities, not the Federal Government. Same goes for most roadways...run by the states and local governments.

[newtothegame]

A couple of things wrong with your argument. One an increase in wages would not trigger a similar increase in product price, because the number of products being sold is much greater than the number of employees receiving the pay raise. Two, there are now many people with extra money to spend. Sales could increase enough to offset the cost of the raises. Remember it's a demand economy, not a supply side economy.

So, let us say That your factory makes toasters and you make a profit of $10 on each one you sell. You sell 100 toasters per week. Now you sign a labor contract with the union that gives your employees a $1/hr raise. As a result of this your profit on each toaster drops to $9. So you raise the price enough that you are once again making a $10 profit. In other word you raise it by $1. Your workers make enough extra to pay the price increase in 1 hour. The other 39 hours per week are gravy. And you may find you are selling a lot more toasters than before, since people have more to spend.

I know you will say that there a lot of other things that people need to buy besides toasters and that is true. But there are also a lot of people who don't need toasters and raising the price of a toaster has no effect on other prices.
No mostie.....your logic is flawed. Let me explain if I may. ANY cost increase to a company, that will affect their profitability, WILL be passed on to a consumer. See, this ia a capitalistic society where a company (if listed on any of the stock exchanges) has to produce results. A mere penny shortfall per share on results can send a stock tumbling downwards. A company also a responsibility to its shareholders. A falling stock price indicates a selling of stock. Thereby indicating lack of investors and lack of capital to grow, research, expand etc etc. A company will protect this at all most any cost.
So, lets assume the minimum wage is raised a mere dollar an hour....
In a company as large as say Wal-Mart or Home Depot, where there are 300,000 plus employees, that's 300,000 per hour worked added in cost.
x40 hours per week (and yes I know not all are full time) but for sake of keeping this easy, 300,000 x40 hours is an additional 12,000,000 million dollars a week in salaries. x 52 weeks per year is an additional 624,000,000 per year.
Please do not tell me that this additional cost will not affect them and cause a reaction by the company.
One of two things will happen...Layoffs or cost to the consumer goes up. And to take it even further, the goods that these companies buy so as to retail them again are also going up as ALL employees around the country get this minimum wage increase...so not only will you see an increase in price, it will not be just from these retailers......
I assure you sir...the price consumers pay will DEFINITLY go up.
Another reason this can and DOES happen regularly is look at how many items each of the two retailers I mentioned actually stock in their stores for you and I too purchase.
Home Depot carries over 60,000 different sku's (stock keeping units better known as items lol)....if they raise them by a mere few cents each, you as a consumer would hardly even notice. Trust me, it HAPPENS !!

[Tom]

Got to hand it to Actor - no one dodges reality quite as in depth as he does.

I have to ask.....are you LJB?
There is a certain similarity that I have noticed.......

[Tom]

There is hardly enough such work to solve the unemployment problem. Most such jobs are given to persons sentenced to "community service." Plus, looking for a job is itself a full-time job. Forcing someone who is receiving unemployment compensation to perform menial labor works counter to the desired end, to get that person employed.

Who said anything about solving unemployment? I say get some return from our investment.

And do honestly presume I am such an idiot to swallow the line you cast tout there that an unemployed person in his 99th week of gubbermint checks has put in 99 40 hours weeks looking for work? :lol:

[Tom]

My conclusion after this thread's replies - not one snigle lib here has a clue what fair share means.

This explains Obama.

:lol::lol::lol:

[hcap]

In Sweden, whose Gini you love to quote btw, the richest 5% own 77% of all stock. So which is it since you can't have it both ways? Either the Gini is junk or wealth can be unevenly distributed even in a near perfect system?
What about total wealth in both countries? Do you know the stats for the US? Mostpost is correct, stock ownership does not cover it all.



I found this as of 2007. I am sure the top 5% have increased their share of the pie since then,

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_1.gif




....In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 38.3% of all privately held stock, 60.6% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top 10% have 80% to 90% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America.

The rest of the world

.....Thanks to a 2006 study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research -- using statistics for the year 2000 -- we now have information on the wealth distribution for the world as a whole, which can be compared to the United States and other well-off countries. The authors of the report admit that the quality of the information available on many countries is very spotty and probably off by several percentage points, but they compensate for this problem with very sophisticated statistical methods and the use of different sets of data. With those caveats in mind, we can still safely say that the top 10% of the world's adults control about 85% of global household wealth -- defined very broadly as all assets (not just financial assets), minus debts. That compares with a figure of 69.8% for the top 10% for the United States. The only industrialized democracy with a higher concentration of wealth in the top 10% than the United States is Switzerland at 71.3%. For the figures for several other Northern European countries and Canada, all of which are based on high-quality data, see Table 4.



Table 4: Percentage of wealth held in 2000 by the Top 10% of the adult population in various Western countries


wealth owned by top 10%

Switzerland........ 71.3%
United States... 69.8%
Denmark........... 65.0%
France.............. 61.0%
Sweden........... 58.6%
UK.................... 56.0%
Canada.............. 53.0%
Norway.............. 50.5%
Germany............ 44.4%
Finland............... 42.3

And the GINI index absolutely takes into account the soccial net programs not covered by the above. THAT is why the GINI will be low for countries with a greater degree of socialism in their economical mix.


....But it is sometimes said that income inequality is reduced significantly by government programs that matter very much in the lives of low-income Americans. These programs provide "transfer payments," which are a form of income for those in need. They include unemployment compensation, cash payments to the elderly who don't have enough to live on from Social Security, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (welfare), food stamps, and Medicaid.

.....The table that follows shows the income inequality index (that is, the Gini coefficient) at three points along the way: (1.) before taxes or transfers; (2) after taxes are taken into account; and (3) after both taxes and transfer payments are included in the equation. (The Citizens for Tax Justice study of income and taxes for 2009, discussed earlier, included transfer payments as income......


Table 8: Redistributive effect of taxes and transfer payments

Income definition Gini index
Before taxes and transfers 0.5116
After taxes, before transfers 0.4774
After taxes and transfers 0.4284

Source: Congressional Research Service, adapted from Hungerford (2009).

....As can be seen, Hungerford's findings first support what we had learned earlier from the Citizens for Tax Justice study: taxes don't do much to reduce inequality. They secondly reveal that transfer payments have a slightly larger impact on inequality than taxes, but not much. Third, his findings tell us that taxes and transfer payments together reduce the inequality index from .52 to .43, which is very close to the CIA's estimate of .45 for 2008.

.....In short, for those who ask if progressive taxes and transfer payments even things out to a significant degree, the answer is that while they have some effect, they don't do nearly as much as in Canada, major European countries, or Japan.


So once again you have neglected to include what portion of total wealth gets redirected towards the lower quintiles. And that is why the GINI is a much better metric to determine inequality in western industrialized countries, substantially more accurate than just looking at stock ownership. Wealth distribution as a percentage of the whole pie must look at ALL forms of wealth and how a country has integrated it's social programs .

http://www.wider.unu.edu/publications/working-papers/discussion-papers/2008/en_GB/dp2008-03/?

... The World Distribution of Household Wealth
dp2008-03.pdf dp2008-03.pdf (586.54 kilobytes)
There has been much recent research on the world distribution of income, but also growing recognition of the importance of other contributions to well-being, including those of household wealth. Wealth is important in providing security and opportunity, particularly in poorer countries that lack full social safety nets and adequate facilities for borrowing and lending. We find, however, that it is precisely in the latter countries where household wealth is the lowest, both in absolute and relative terms

[Mike at A+]

My conclusion after this thread's replies - not one snigle lib here has a clue what fair share means.

This explains Obama.

:lol::lol::lol:
BINGO! They just don't seem to understand simple math. My wife's cousin (a hard code lib) posted this pretty multi-color graph on Facebook showing the differences in income and income growth among 5 different groups of earners (20 percentiles each). The point he was attempting to make is that the higher income earners get larger DOLLAR increases as time goes by. WELL DUH! If someone earning $250K/yr and someone earning $50K/yr both get 5% salary increases over an extended period, that initial $200K difference in year 0 turns into almost double that difference after 14 years. Change that 5% increase into a 7% increase as it was in better times and the disparity grows to well over a half million dollars.

And of course my wife's stupid cousin makes no mention of differences in job performance among those groups, the education level among those groups or the levels of job responsibility among those groups. All he sees is that the DOLLAR difference keeps increasing and as a brain dead lib, his knee jerk reaction is that it's not fair. Libs totally dismiss qualifications when discussing income disparity. It's almost as if he expects everyone in the lower groups to get higher percent increases to compensate for the initial difference when just the opposite usually takes place because of minor technicalities like education, work ethic and increased responsibilities.

Thankfully we don't discuss politics at family gatherings because both our wives have read us the riot act but some of the stuff he posts on Facebook is right out of the Twilight Zone. And of course he sees no wrong in the Wall Street protesters turning lower Manhattan into a public toilet, spewing anti-Semitic rhetoric or inconveniencing innocent commuters trying to get to work even though he lives in Manhattan.

Oh, and one more thing. He's well into his 50's and still hits the bong regularly.

[hcap]

BINGO! They just don't seem to understand simple math. My wife's cousin (a hard code lib) posted this pretty multi-color graph on Facebook...... .
What? You got something against black and whit?? :lol: :lol:

[Mike at A+]

What? You got something against black and whit?? :lol: :lol:
No, just nit and whit. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[hcap]

I am one of the 53%.
That is enough. I would be a hell of lot richer if I kept all that I earned.



http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/chart-of-the-day-these-are-the-47-percent.php?ref=fpb

These Are The 47 Percent

.....and when you break down who comprises this now-famous "47 percent" -- the poor, the disabled, and the elderly -- it makes you wonder why anybody thought it was a good idea to pick a public fight with them.

What's really going on here is that about 47 percent of households paid no federal income tax in 2009. Either they owed nothing, or they got as much back from the federal government as they paid -- or more.

This ignores payroll taxes, state and local taxes, gas taxes, excise taxes and much more. But to hear conservatives talk about it, you'd think these people's entire tax burden was $0.00. In April, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), citing similar data, claimed "According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 49 percent of households are paying 100 percent of taxes coming in to the federal government." Notice the absence of the key qualifier, "income." And Grassley's far from alone.

As Benjy Sarlin explained at length the Republican answer to this problem, remarkably, is that Congress should raise these people's taxes.

So who are these people? This chart, courtesy of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, explains just about everything you need to know


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/CBPP47percent.jpg

Right now about one-third of the 47 percent are people who are too old to work, full time students, disability beneficiaries, long-term unemployed and other such despicable freeloaders. Because the 47 percent figure comes from using "households that file" as the denominator it includes people who have part time jobs and low paying jobs, Social Security and unemployment beneficiaries. The rest were people whose jobs paid little enough that, on net, they owed no income taxes. These people may have benefited from the stimulus' Making-Work-Pay tax credit, or saw their incomes drop enough during the recession to qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and so on.

In this regard, attacking the 47 percent for gaming the system is an implicit call for taxing Social Security income, taxing disability benefits, further taxing unemployment benefits, and so on.

Moreover, and this is key, the 47 percent is only 47 percent because of the recession. As CBPP wrote in May, the high number "reflects the unique circumstances of 2009, when the recession greatly swelled the number of Americans with low incomes and when temporary tax cuts created by the 2009 Recovery Act -- including the "Making Work Pay" tax credit and an exclusion from tax of the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits -- were in effect. Together, these developments removed millions of Americans from the federal income tax rolls. Both of these temporary tax measures have since expired. In a more typical year, 35 percent to 40 percent of households owe no federal income tax. In 2007, the figure was 37.9 percent."

As CBPP tax expert Chuck Marr explained to me, this is a good phenomenon, and one that helped prevent the economy from sinking even further in 2009.

"The place to start on this though is that the years discussed are just not typical -- this is the worst economic climate since the Great Depression," Marr said. The numbers have been bumped by about 10 percentage points "that's what you want -- should we argue that we should raise taxes on these people to keep it at 37 percent?"

That's what a lot of Republicans seem to want. But the result would be terrible for an already weak economy.


.

[Tom]

P36x8rTb3jI

[hcap]

Maybe you can post a "Welfare Queen" youtube, showing her driving up to social services with her 8 ids in a Caddy while watching Oprah, while eating fried chicken and while trading food stamps for drugs?

That will prove once and for all who the 47% really are.

[cj's dad]

Maybe you can post a "Welfare Queen" youtube, showing her driving up to social services with her 8 ids in a Caddy while watching Oprah, while eating fried chicken and while trading food stamps for drugs?

That will prove once and for all who the 47% really are.

I find it strange that Tom posts a video which is reality, yet you are the one who resorts to racial stereotyping. Very strange indeed. Is this what your deep, dark feelings are about black Americans ?

[Tom]

I planned that........:kiss:

[hcap]

I just took Tom's anecdotal "evidence" of who the 47% really are, and re-translated it into the extreme talking points made famous by republican Ronald Reagan. The usual wink and a nod stuff

Demonizing all the 47% who are senors, disabled, the working poor by one silly video, is just what racial stereotypes you guys dredged up when Saint Ronnie fought the glorious rethug battle against the poor.

[mostpost]

No mostie.....your logic is flawed. Let me explain if I may. ANY cost increase to a company, that will affect their profitability, WILL be passed on to a consumer. See, this ia a capitalistic society where a company (if listed on any of the stock exchanges) has to produce results. A mere penny shortfall per share on results can send a stock tumbling downwards. A company also a responsibility to its shareholders. A falling stock price indicates a selling of stock. Thereby indicating lack of investors and lack of capital to grow, research, expand etc etc. A company will protect this at all most any cost.
So, lets assume the minimum wage is raised a mere dollar an hour....
In a company as large as say Wal-Mart or Home Depot, where there are 300,000 plus employees, that's 300,000 per hour worked added in cost.
x40 hours per week (and yes I know not all are full time) but for sake of keeping this easy, 300,000 x40 hours is an additional 12,000,000 million dollars a week in salaries. x 52 weeks per year is an additional 624,000,000 per year.
Please do not tell me that this additional cost will not affect them and cause a reaction by the company.
One of two things will happen...Layoffs or cost to the consumer goes up. And to take it even further, the goods that these companies buy so as to retail them again are also going up as ALL employees around the country get this minimum wage increase...so not only will you see an increase in price, it will not be just from these retailers......
I assure you sir...the price consumers pay will DEFINITLY go up.
Another reason this can and DOES happen regularly is look at how many items each of the two retailers I mentioned actually stock in their stores for you and I too purchase.
Home Depot carries over 60,000 different sku's (stock keeping units better known as items lol)....if they raise them by a mere few cents each, you as a consumer would hardly even notice. Trust me, it HAPPENS !!

Using your figures and info I found on line, Walmart had $419B in sales last year. The $624M that a one dollar increase in the minimum wage would cost them amounts to .14%. That is fourteen one hundredths of one percent.

As for your argument that Home Depot carries 60,000 SKU's and I wouldn't even notice if they raised the price a few cents on each. That is correct and it proves my point. Since I am unlikely to buy all 60,000 of those items, I only need to worry about the few I will buy. So, if I buy twenty items from Home Depot over the course of a year, at an extra cost of 20 cents an item (far more than the two or three cents an item you propose.), I will be spending an extra $4 a year at Home Depot. In the mean time I am earning an extra $2080 a year.

Your mistake is in thinking that an increase in salary is applied only among the workers receiving the raise, when it is applied among all the people purchasing the product. While 300,000 workers receive a raise from Walmart, that raise is paid for by millions and millions of Walmart customers.

[Actor]

Police are run and paid for by municipalities, not the Federal Government. Same goes for most roadways...run by the states and local governments.So what? The same principle applies. No taxes (Fed, state, local, school district) equals no government (Fed, state, local, school district) equals no services.

[mostpost]

What about total wealth in both countries? Do you know the stats for the US? Mostpost is correct, stock ownership does not cover it all.



I found this as of 2007. I am sure the top 5% have increased their share of the pie since then,

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_1.gif




....In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 38.3% of all privately held stock, 60.6% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top 10% have 80% to 90% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America.

The rest of the world

.....Thanks to a 2006 study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research -- using statistics for the year 2000 -- we now have information on the wealth distribution for the world as a whole, which can be compared to the United States and other well-off countries. The authors of the report admit that the quality of the information available on many countries is very spotty and probably off by several percentage points, but they compensate for this problem with very sophisticated statistical methods and the use of different sets of data. With those caveats in mind, we can still safely say that the top 10% of the world's adults control about 85% of global household wealth -- defined very broadly as all assets (not just financial assets), minus debts. That compares with a figure of 69.8% for the top 10% for the United States. The only industrialized democracy with a higher concentration of wealth in the top 10% than the United States is Switzerland at 71.3%. For the figures for several other Northern European countries and Canada, all of which are based on high-quality data, see Table 4.



Table 4: Percentage of wealth held in 2000 by the Top 10% of the adult population in various Western countries


wealth owned by top 10%

Switzerland........ 71.3%
United States... 69.8%
Denmark........... 65.0%
France.............. 61.0%
Sweden........... 58.6%
UK.................... 56.0%
Canada.............. 53.0%
Norway.............. 50.5%
Germany............ 44.4%
Finland............... 42.3

And the GINI index absolutely takes into account the soccial net programs not covered by the above. THAT is why the GINI will be low for countries with a greater degree of socialism in their economical mix.


....But it is sometimes said that income inequality is reduced significantly by government programs that matter very much in the lives of low-income Americans. These programs provide "transfer payments," which are a form of income for those in need. They include unemployment compensation, cash payments to the elderly who don't have enough to live on from Social Security, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (welfare), food stamps, and Medicaid.

.....The table that follows shows the income inequality index (that is, the Gini coefficient) at three points along the way: (1.) before taxes or transfers; (2) after taxes are taken into account; and (3) after both taxes and transfer payments are included in the equation. (The Citizens for Tax Justice study of income and taxes for 2009, discussed earlier, included transfer payments as income......


Table 8: Redistributive effect of taxes and transfer payments

Income definition Gini index
Before taxes and transfers 0.5116
After taxes, before transfers 0.4774
After taxes and transfers 0.4284

Source: Congressional Research Service, adapted from Hungerford (2009).

....As can be seen, Hungerford's findings first support what we had learned earlier from the Citizens for Tax Justice study: taxes don't do much to reduce inequality. They secondly reveal that transfer payments have a slightly larger impact on inequality than taxes, but not much. Third, his findings tell us that taxes and transfer payments together reduce the inequality index from .52 to .43, which is very close to the CIA's estimate of .45 for 2008.

.....In short, for those who ask if progressive taxes and transfer payments even things out to a significant degree, the answer is that while they have some effect, they don't do nearly as much as in Canada, major European countries, or Japan.


So once again you have neglected to include what portion of total wealth gets redirected towards the lower quintiles. And that is why the GINI is a much better metric to determine inequality in western industrialized countries, substantially more accurate than just looking at stock ownership. Wealth distribution as a percentage of the whole pie must look at ALL forms of wealth and how a country has integrated it's social programs .

http://www.wider.unu.edu/publications/working-papers/discussion-papers/2008/en_GB/dp2008-03/?

... The World Distribution of Household Wealth
dp2008-03.pdf dp2008-03.pdf (586.54 kilobytes)
There has been much recent research on the world distribution of income, but also growing recognition of the importance of other contributions to well-being, including those of household wealth. Wealth is important in providing security and opportunity, particularly in poorer countries that lack full social safety nets and adequate facilities for borrowing and lending. We find, however, that it is precisely in the latter countries where household wealth is the lowest, both in absolute and relative terms

Yeah, but.....but....don't you realize that chart was prepared by a :eek: :eek: :eek: sociology professor. Which of course makes it invalid. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I know because burger boy told me so.
I love to say "Burger Boy" :jump: :jump: :jump: :jump: It aggravates him so much.

[newtothegame]

Using your figures and info I found on line, Walmart had $419B in sales last year. The $624M that a one dollar increase in the minimum wage would cost them amounts to .14%. That is fourteen one hundredths of one percent.

As for your argument that Home Depot carries 60,000 SKU's and I wouldn't even notice if they raised the price a few cents on each. That is correct and it proves my point. Since I am unlikely to buy all 60,000 of those items, I only need to worry about the few I will buy. So, if I buy twenty items from Home Depot over the course of a year, at an extra cost of 20 cents an item (far more than the two or three cents an item you propose.), I will be spending an extra $4 a year at Home Depot. In the mean time I am earning an extra $2080 a year.

Your mistake is in thinking that an increase in salary is applied only among the workers receiving the raise, when it is applied among all the people purchasing the product. While 300,000 workers receive a raise from Walmart, that raise is paid for by millions and millions of Walmart customers.

lol mosty...you keep trying but your lack of business sense is so evident....
but here, is an article I found...I am sure you can find whatever graphs, charts..whatever.

a clip....."In summary, the impact on business of the federally mandated minimum wage increases appears to be minimal. Although, some businesses anticipate cutting back employee hours, hiring fewer employees, and raising the price of products, most already pay more than the federal minimum wage."

another clip...."
"...the last minimum-wage increase cost the restaurant industry more than 146,000 jobs, and restaurant owners put off plans to hire an additional 106,000 employees."


http://humanresources.about.com/od/salaryandbenefits/a/min_wage_up.htm

[Actor]

Who said anything about solving unemployment? I say get some return from our investment.You did not say anything about solving unemployment. In fact you said next to nothing. You simply set up this imaginary group of people who are getting government checks. Using deductive reasoning (that's where you reach a logical conclusion based on known facts. It requires intelligence.) I reach the following conclusions.

They are receiving some kind of government check.
You expect them to perform manual labor. From this we can conclude...
...they are able bodied.

From this we can come up with a list of people who probably do not populate your set.

Paraplegics and quadriplegics.
Amputees.
The gravely ill.
Schizophrenics, assuming they have been diagnosed.
Sufferers of severe Tourette's Syndrome.
The blind and/or deaf.

and borderline cases who might populate your set.

Sufferers of mild Tourette's Syndrome.
The autistic.
Asthmatics.

Etc, etc, etc.

After eliminating all these I can't think of a better fit to your criteria that an unemployed person. In fact, offhand I can't think of any other type that fits. Help me out here. Perhaps you mean social security recipients? After all, we all know these tales that they paid into the system for 50 years is just an urban legend.

And do honestly presume I am such an idiot to swallow the line you cast tout there that an unemployed person in his 99th week of gubbermint checks has put in 99 40 hours weeks looking for work? :lol:I damned well did! Feb 1970 to Sep 1971. Ok, that's only 78 weeks. Seemed a lot longer. Anyway, 99 weeks is your number, not mine. I take it you want to cut them off after 99 weeks.

[Actor]

Got to hand it to Actor - no one dodges reality quite as in depth as he does."That's a feeble thing to say." - Robert Bolt

Why don't you just admit that you lost the debate?

[Tom]

I can't have lost the debate - your were never in it! :lol:

Get yourself a step ladder - the point was way over your head.

[mostpost]

lol mosty...you keep trying but your lack of business sense is so evident....
but here, is an article I found...I am sure you can find whatever graphs, charts..whatever.

a clip....."In summary, the impact on business of the federally mandated minimum wage increases appears to be minimal. Although, some businesses anticipate cutting back employee hours, hiring fewer employees, and raising the price of products, most already pay more than the federal minimum wage."

another clip...."
"...the last minimum-wage increase cost the restaurant industry more than 146,000 jobs, and restaurant owners put off plans to hire an additional 106,000 employees."


http://humanresources.about.com/od/salaryandbenefits/a/min_wage_up.htm

Thank you for posting a link that proves my point.
Here is a clip that you posted with the correct words emphasized.
In summary, the impact on business of the federally mandated minimum wage increases appears to be minimal. Although, some businesses anticipate cutting back employee hours, hiring fewer employees, and raising the price of products, most already pay more than the federal minimum wage.

Some other interesting facts from your link:
"Of the small business owners surveyed by SurePayroll, only 3 percent pay the national minimum wage to some of their employees. Only 6 percent of the respondents pay a state-mandated minimum wage to some of their employees. The other 91% pay more than the minimum wage to all employees.

BTW if the state minimum wage differs from the national minimum wage, the higher is paid.

You also provided a clip stating that the latest increase in minimum wage caused the restaurant industry to lay off 146,000 workers and not hire 100,000 others. The latest increase in minimum wage took place during the worst recession in 80 years. You cannot tell me that the increase in the minimum wage was the sole factor in those layoffs. Or even that it was a major factor.Those layoffs were caused by the same thing that caused layoffs in other industries. In this case people were not going out to eat as much.

[Dave Schwartz]

dave, your argument is taken respectfully and I almost believe it. But there is one problem in it. Who is to say that if the minimum wage is raised that it would come DIRECTLY from thos on the upper pay scales?

NewToTheGame,

I agree completely.

I said that this was the problem. I did not say that I had a mechanism that would work as a solution.

:bang:

[hcap]

Yeah, but.....but....don't you realize that chart was prepared by a :eek: :eek: :eek: sociology professor. Which of course makes it invalid. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I know because burger boy told me so.
I love to say "Burger Boy" :jump: :jump: :jump: :jump: It aggravates him so much.I always capitalize both (b)''s as in Burger Boy.

Burger Boy is the guy that finds 1/4 ass-ed criticisms authored by fringe righty bullshit groups, aimed at standard widely accepted metrics like the GINI, non partisan governmental organizations like the CBO, and tells me I am a "simpleton" and that he has to school me.

And he wonders why Burger Boy is so appropriate

I suspect he would ruin more than a few 1/4 pounders w/cheese if he knew what the gang at McDonald's really call him when he is busy bullshiting about longer hours, cutting benefits, and dropping the minimal wage.

What a hep cool cat :lol: :lol:

To bad he is allergic to graphs and charts and such :jump: :jump: :jump:

[bigmack]

Yo, mosty. Where's that 10/83 documentation? You said you have a dozen sources.

[newtothegame]

Oh[, its amazing how little you read...it had very little impact CAUSE MOST BUSINESSES DIDN'T HAVE TO COMPLY. One that did were negatily impacted causing what I posted...layoffs and price increases... lol QUOTE=mostpost]Thank you for posting a link that proves my point.
Here is a clip that you posted with the correct words emphasized.


Some other interesting facts from your link:
The other 91% pay more than the minimum wage to all employees.

BTW if the state minimum wage differs from the national minimum wage, the higher is paid.

You also provided a clip stating that the latest increase in minimum wage caused the restaurant industry to lay off 146,000 workers and not hire 100,000 others. The latest increase in minimum wage took place during the worst recession in 80 years. You cannot tell me that the increase in the minimum wage was the sole factor in those layoffs. Or even that it was a major factor.Those layoffs were caused by the same thing that caused layoffs in other industries. In this case people were not going out to eat as much.[/QUOTE]

[newtothegame]

[QUOTE=Dave Schwartz]NewToTheGame,

I agree completely.

I said that this was the problem. I did not say that I had a mechanism that would work as a solution.

:bang:[/QUOTE
Actually dave, here is exactly what you posted.....

"The problem is actually not "the rich" but the SUPER RICH anyway."

then you said in reference to the wage disparity....

"IMHO, the problem is that the worker does not make a "fair share" of the profit. The solution to THAT is to simply raise the minimum wage to a respectable level. (I do not know what that level should be but I would guess about double what it is.)"

and you even went so far (either sarcastically or not) gave possible outcomes...

"Oh, BTW, this would generate lots of increased taxes because the workers would now make twice as much money. And some of those $500 million a year CEOs would have to cut all the way back to only $200 million."

So, not sure how you're saying you didnt have a mechanism as a solution when you posted it right there....unless somehow I read that wrong. If I did read it wrong, my apology in advance....

[sammy the sage]

Yo, mosty. Where's that 10/83 documentation? You said you have a dozen sources.

How 'bout YOU actually documenting that it's NOT true... :lol:

[sammy the sage]

Got to hand it to Actor - no one dodges reality quite as in depth as he does.....

Don't ever LOOK in a mirror :lol: :rolleyes:

[bigmack]

Don't ever LOOK in a mirror :lol: :rolleyes:
Look? You wanna capitalize look?

[sammy the sage]

Look? You wanna capitalize look?

Tom knows EXACTLY what I mean...I really think YOU outta find those figures DISPROVING Mostie/hcap...hell you never admit they're right when THEY do :D

Got something for Tom though...53% link w/a reply....which is pretty much were I stand...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/12/1025555/-Open-Letter-to-that-53-Guy

By the way...I'll ask/imply again...do either of ya want a repeat of the 30's?

[bigmack]

By the way...I'll ask/imply again...do either of ya want a repeat of the 30's?
How long you been pullin' this "Chicken Little" routine - 20 years?

[Tom]

Don't ever LOOK in a mirror :lol: :rolleyes:

Sammy, consistency is always appreciated. Thanks you for making no sense once again.

[hcap]

Here's a good explanation of wealth inequality, unemployment, Bank and CEO profits and a few other items. Compiled by The Business Insider

And a mother load of charts and graphs I gathered from many sources-ALL in one place

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1

CHARTS: Here's What The Wall Street Protesters Are So Angry About...

So any one who wants to look at the underlying problems, check it out.



A few that I have not seen before.....

First a comparison of wealth in industrialized nations

http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4cd7fa6b49e2ae461a060000-547/and-the-top-01-in-america-are-doing-way-better-than-the-top-01-in-other-first-world-countries.jpg


Here is a very interesting one on what exactly our banks have been doing with capitol.

http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4e94613669bedd1f4800001a-547/so-what-have-banks-been-doing-since-2007-if-not-lending-money-to-american-companies-lending-money-to-americas-government-by-buying-risk-free-treasury-bonds-and-other-government-guaranteed-securities.jpg

[cj's dad]

I just took Tom's anecdotal "evidence" of who the 47% really are, and re-translated it into the extreme talking points made famous by republican Ronald Reagan. The usual wink and a nod stuff

Demonizing all the 47% who are senors, disabled, the working poor by one silly video, is just what racial stereotypes you guys dredged up when Saint Ronnie fought the glorious rethug battle against the poor.

Why are you bringing Hispanics into this ?

[Tom]

hcap - you have totally missed the point of the thread - as expected. Your last post about wealth distribution is 100% irrelevant to the topic. FAIR SHARE is not confined to just wealth. I suspect this is why do don't understand the economy.

[hcap]

hcap - you have totally missed the point of the thread - as expected. Your last post about wealth distribution is 100% irrelevant to the topic. FAIR SHARE is not confined to just wealth. I suspect this is why do don't understand the economy.
I have already shown that those 47% you throw under the bus on a regular basis do not deserve your characterization as "anchors" on the rest of the country. My last post is particularly important as to why the ranks of those 47% has grown significantly

It has EVERYTHING to do with FAIR share. I realize you miss the larger point. I understand your reluctance to admit that the recent recession has shit on the poor and middle class even more than the slower overall downward trend, over the last 30+ years. You guys would then have to admit Regan et al, trickled down pablum economics, and demeaned the legitimate role of government. Especially when the private sector won't do what is needed in a downturn.

Reagan had it partially correct. Big government can be bureaucratic and unresponsive, and a big problem, but Big Business can be also. And what makes things worse is when we have government owned by global private interests. Short term gains throw us all under the bus. What is needed is a check on both.

[Tom]

Nice try, but sorry, no clue yet.
I suppose we could always force the rich to give you one of theirs.

You would appreciate is so much more it were given to you, not earned, I presume.

[hcap]

Nice try, but sorry, no clue yet.
I suppose we could always force the rich to give you one of theirs.

You would appreciate is so much more it were given to you, not earned, I presume.I guess Glenn Beck was right about the devious Marxist takeover down on Wall Street. But it seems he inadvertantly exposed a real commie in our midst thru' his prophetic ramblings.

Sit down Ton. You may faint!


"....The EITC uses tax revenues (derived from our progressive tax system) to provide additional income to people below certain income levels under a formula so that it gradually phases out as incomes increases. Qualifying families receive a monthly check from the government.

Despite years of opposing social insurance programs, Reagan's support of the EITC gave rise to what has become one of the most effective antipoverty measures the federal government has ever devised--by the late 1990s, the EITC was lifting 4.3 million people out of poverty every year. Reagan's decision to expand it was "the most important anti-poverty measure enacted over the past decade," wrote The Wall Street Journal's Al Hunt. The exemption of millions of low-wage earners from income taxes through the EITC and other reforms in 1986 added a significant measure of progressivity to the tax code."




So, Ronald Reagan was a redistributor, that stole billions and billions of hard earned cash from the gallant job creating heroic John Galts of the USA and gave the bounty illegally to those lazy shiftless unwashed, unfocused rabble rousing awful poor folks and anchors. That must mean he was a socialist, even a communist. Heavens to Mergatroid !!!

That's what happens when you pal around with Mikhail Gorbachev. :lol: :lol:

[Tom]

As I said earlier, not a clue.
And still not a thing to do with this thread.

Give it up hcap, the concept is above your pay grade (parrot).

[Actor]

As I said earlier, not a clue.
That's because you choose to remain clueless. You inevitably respond to well though out posts with little quips that basically say "my mind's made up, don't confuse me with facts."

[fast4522]

Fair Share

[Tom]

That's because you choose to remain clueless. You inevitably respond to well though out posts with little quips that basically say "my mind's made up, don't confuse me with facts."


You were the first that was unable to respond intelligently to my questions - and here you are now, flying your ignorance like a flag.

You are so cluless you don't even know what the question was. :lol:

[badcompany]

So, let us say That your factory makes toasters and you make a profit of $10 on each one you sell. You sell 100 toasters per week. Now you sign a labor contract with the union that gives your employees a $1/hr raise. As a result of this your profit on each toaster drops to $9. So you raise the price enough that you are once again making a $10 profit. In other word you raise it by $1. Your workers make enough extra to pay the price increase in 1 hour. The other 39 hours per week are gravy. And you may find you are selling a lot more toasters than before, since people have more to spend.

Since you've reinvented the demand curve so that higher prices equate to greater demand, why not give the boys a $20 an hour raise?

Then, on holidays, you can have sales, where instead of giving discounts, you can charge a premium and really make a killing.:bang:

[Actor]

You were the first that was unable to respond intelligently to my questions - and here you are now, flying your ignorance like a flag.

You are so cluless [sic] you don't even know what the question was. :lol:
Quod erat demonstrandum !!

[Actor]

Why should the fair share only come from the wealthy?
I gave you an answer to this in post #24. I'd really like to hear your response. By "response" I mean something that addresses the point, as opposed to name calling.

I realize that your original post consisted of more than one question but, forgive me, I think this one is central. I'll address others in time.

[Actor]

Should they be required to do whatever tasks need doing, such as ... sorting recyclables at local dumps ... In Ohio the "local dumps" are privately owned and operated (that should warm conservative hearts). These companies already employ people to sort recyclables.

...such as cleaning parks...Already done by prisoners doing community service. And those prisoners are not paid, quite the opposite. The cost of their room and board is added onto their fines and court costs.

... shoveling snow in downtown areas...Done by people with dump trucks and loaders. Some are public employees. During heavy snows contractors are brought in.

I submit these three as examples of problems that would be encountered in implementing your idea, not as a rejection of it. (I'm holding out the olive branch here.)

[Actor]

If we think that the rich should be penalized a greater portion of their wealth to take care of others who for whatever reason are not capable of carrying their own weight, does it also make sense that those who receive the extra wealth are not contributing their fare share of work?
When your car gets damaged in an accident and your insurance company pays for its repair you are not receiving "extra wealth." Rather you are receiving a benefit which you paid for in the form of premiums.

In 1972 I worked as a bookkeeper for a small business. Every month the owner sent a check to the state (Kansas) for "unemployment insurance." Persons receiving unemployment checks got their money from this insurance. Thus, I would argue, people receiving these checks are not receiving "extra wealth." Instead they have paid for insurance against a risk (the risk of unemployment). When the insured event occurs they receive the benefit.

Of course you could take the view that since the employer paid the premium the employee is still getting "extra wealth" but I don't think this argument holds water for two reasons: (1)there is an understanding that the payment is for the employee and (2)at the end of the year the accountant included these premiums under "cost of labor" along with the cost of other fringe benefits.

I realize this is no longer 1972 and I no longer live in Kansas. Still, I submit this as evidence that "those who receive the extra wealth are not contributing their fare share of work" is not always true.

[Tom]

I get the point, Actor...you can stop now.
You have no clue what the thread was about. I concede that.

Please stop making an ass of yourself. You are sounding like mostie now.

You should be concentrating your energies on what you are going to protest before you have come back home. That would be horrible to spend your whole day marching and not know why.

[Actor]

That would be horrible to spend your whole day marching ...Marching? You have to march? Since when? Back in the 60s I just laid around in the grass. Now you have to march? Who made this rule? Sounds like another grievance.

[hcap]

That would be horrible to spend your whole day posting and not know why.

What is that cute term you are so fond of?
Oh yeah,

FTFY



PS: Far out man! ;) ;) ;)

[Tom]

Certified Fair and Balanced.
And I've got the chart to prove it.

Remember that.

[hcap]

Certified Fair and Balanced.
And I've got the chart to prove it.

Remember that.You may be right about Certified. :)

Did you have a look at my post 66?

...a mother load of charts and graphs I gathered from many sources-ALL in one place

http://www.businessinsider.com/what...ut-2011-10?op=1



You are welcome to post any one of them any time.

You know I can not remember when was the last time you posted a chart or graph....and..oh wait, NOW I REMEMBER! Pretty classy Tom.








http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/andrewingram/2005/11/02/graph.png

http://www.funnypictures.nu/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/pacman.jpg

:lol: :lol:

[bigmack]

Anybody need a CrapGraph? hcrap can get you a graph to say anything.

It's ALL BS, but it IS a graph. :jump:

[Tom]

Anybody need a CrapGraph? hcrap can get you a graph to say anything.

It's ALL BS, but it IS a graph. :jump:

It is what it is.....Turns out Jumpin' Jack Barack wasn't just a gas gas gas.

[skate]

Buffet said, which I think was kind of a cute quote -- "All this talk about class warfare I don't understand...it is warfare, and my class has won, decisively. Just look at the numbers. It's been a route."


i doubt that anyone would think otherwise.

this is what we know....yep

So, the answer is whay?

Take from the rich through the Gov., or create a system that does THAT on its own?

All that is needed is a little adjusment and i aint givin answers no moo.:cool:

enjoy:kiss:

[PaceAdvantage]

So what? The same principle applies. No taxes (Fed, state, local, school district) equals no government (Fed, state, local, school district) equals no services.Did I miss the post where someone advocated for absolutely NO taxes ANYWHERE, EVER?

[mostpost]

Did I miss the post where someone advocated for absolutely NO taxes ANYWHERE, EVER?Tom posted that he would have a lot more money if he didn't have to pay taxes. Actor and I pointed out that no taxes means no government and no government means anarchy and the likelihood that Tom would have no money anyway.
Whether that means Tom was advocating NO taxes ANYWHERE, EVER, remember, we are talking about Tom here.

[Tom]

remember, we are talking about Tom here.

No, you were just missing yet another point.
Not unexpected.