Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    6:24 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Wealth Distribution Is Good For The Economy Back to Topics
SemiSteve
Champion Author
Tampa

Posts:20,536
Points:478,065
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2013 7:53:31 PM

When wealth is spread out among many people they have increased discretionary spending power. When they buy things it helps the economy.

Conversely, when wealth is concentrated in great amounts held by a relatively few number of people there is a lack of wealth distribution; and most people have little discretionary spending power. They don't buy as much; so the economy slows down. That is what had been happening for the last 35 years.

It is better for the economy for most people to be doing fairly well than it is for a few to be doing extremely well and most people just getting by. Therefore, in order to improve our economy we should be looking for ways to reduce wealth inequality.

Raising the minimum wage is one way to ensure that the lower paid workers have more buying power. Another way would be to limit the income of the executives of large corporations to a multiple of their average workers income. Breaking up the largest corporations and banks so that there is more competition in markets would also help. Increased unionization also reduces wealth inequality. It would be very beneficial to take away the special treatment the biggest banks get from the Federal Reserve and allow market forces to work naturally.

"The primary mechanism for uploading wealth is debt-based creation of new money under the system of fractional reserve lending under the central control of the private bank-owned Federal Reserve, which supplies money, at interest, to the U.S. Government. Commercial banks create electronic entry money when they make loans, typically up to ten times the amount in their reserves. This contributes to cyclical asset hyperinflation bubbles and busts, in which the Big Five money-center banks are key players and from which the super-wealthy emerge relatively wealthier. This has resulted in a virtually permanent super-elite."

"In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[9] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%.[8][9][10]"

"A 2011 study found that US citizens across the political spectrum dramatically underestimate the current US wealth inequality and would prefer a far more egalitarian distribution of wealth.[7]"

wiki: Wealth inequality in the United States

[7.] ^ Norton, M.I.; Ariely, D. (2011). "Building a Better America – One Wealth Quintile at a Time" (PDF). Perspectives on Psychological Science 6: 9–12.

[Edited by: SemiSteve at 2/19/2013 7:54:46 PM EST]
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Cirdan
Champion Author Nevada

Posts:2,703
Points:143,385
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Mar 27, 2015 1:00:37 AM

"Little bit of communism?"

Ever notice that EVERY "communist" country is a vicious dictatorship that imprisons or executes anyone who disagrees with the Government?

I'll pass thank you.
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,536
Points:478,065
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 7:19:16 PM

LOL
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,245
Points:621,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 6:56:29 PM

"What on earth is a little bit of communism?

Example? "

I was thinking some red stars and vodka... lol
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,536
Points:478,065
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 6:36:23 PM

What on earth is a little bit of communism?

Example?
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,245
Points:621,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 1:24:44 PM

"Just a little bit of communism is good?"

It very well could be. No pure ideology is good, however a hybrid system invoking the best ideas of capitalism, socialism and perhaps even *gasp* communism would have the fewest unintended consequences.

People who remember the Cold War still use communism like it is a bad word, and likewise those whose parents fought in WWII think socialism is also a bad word.

The reality is that they each have their strong points, as well as glaring, proven deficiencies...

[Edited by: Weaslespit at 3/25/2015 1:25:06 PM EST]
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,245
Points:621,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 1:19:58 PM

"Then, you refer to the income redistribution tax policies of the 50's and 6's."

I made no such inference. I was, as I have always been, referring to the levels of income inequality - specifically as seen in that period.

In fact, I have very clearly stated this in this very thread;

"Taxes are not an appropriate vehicle to stem the decades-long trend of increased income inequality."

SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,631
Points:29,120
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 12:53:15 PM

"Is there no middle ground?"

Just a little bit of communism is good?
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,536
Points:478,065
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 12:45:34 PM

"Promote the general welfare means keeping the economy strong."

Well to do that something has to be done about extreme wealth inequality.

And why is it that as soon as we talk about reducing wealth inequality so many conservatives see that as communism?

What?

Is there no middle ground?

For them the limited choices seem to be extreme wealth concentration or absolute communism with no property, no choices, no difference in anyone's standard of living.

It's sort of like if they were a TV the only choice would be on or off. No other channels to watch, just: is it on or is it off.

SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,631
Points:29,120
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 10:58:31 AM

"Is there something not clear here?"

Apparently, there is. You claim you are not talking about income redistribution. Then, you refer to the income redistribution tax policies of the 50's and 6's.

The 50's and 60's had tax policies that confiscated income at tax rates of 70 to 90%. High salaries just were not paid, as it became pointless use of resources. Some income came in the form of deferred compensation, corporate expenses, etc.. But, not enough. It wasn't until the 1980's that corporate officers could practically be paid what they were worth.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,245
Points:621,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 10:41:17 AM

"Weaslespit quote: "As I continue to talk about the ever-increasing gap in income inequality, my focus is on earned income, not net worth."

Weaslespit quote: "When I reference historical norms, If I recall I was looking specifically at the 50's and 60's which seemed to have a good balance of economic growth and reasonable levels of income inequality.""

Is there something not clear here? Please ask a question and I will be more than happy to answer it for you.
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,631
Points:29,120
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 10:16:53 AM

" It has been my experience that companies understand more today about lost production, thus revenue, from (significantly) mistreating employees who then leave and then must be replaced and retrained."

That was a longstanding GM philosophy. Worked well for GM shareholders.
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,631
Points:29,120
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 10:06:40 AM

"Why are some still talking about equalizing income? Nobody else here is, or was my previous post answering this misperception not clear enough? "

Because you talk in circles.

Weaslespit quote: " As I continue to talk about the ever-increasing gap in income inequality, my focus is on earned income, not net worth."

Weaslespit quote: "When I reference historical norms, If I recall I was looking specifically at the 50's and 60's which seemed to have a good balance of economic growth and reasonable levels of income inequality."
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,245
Points:621,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 8:28:41 AM

"Hmm. Strong unions and a high marginal tax rate. Anathema to the right wing."

True. Given shifts in the private sector today however, I don't think strong unions are a necessary part of the current equation. It has been my experience that companies understand more today about lost production, thus revenue, from (significantly) mistreating employees who then leave and then must be replaced and retrained. The conditions that necessitated the formation of the unions in the private sector then are drastically different today.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,245
Points:621,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 8:22:52 AM

"What do you think communism does? Its a system of equalizing outcome...Be careful what you wish for."

Why are some still talking about equalizing income? Nobody else here is, or was my previous post answering this misperception not clear enough?
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:24,221
Points:3,197,915
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 8:19:18 AM

"When I reference historical norms, If I recall I was looking specifically at the 50's and 60's which seemed to have a good balance of economic growth and reasonable levels of income inequality."

Hmm. Strong unions and a high marginal tax rate. Anathema to the right wing.
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,971
Points:156,955
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 8:04:07 AM

I always like to have a little definition of general statements such as?

"Promote the general welfare means keeping the economy strong."

you see to many that means hands off totally free markets, while I am a free markets supporter I am not a supporter of dumping products on our country because other countries socialistic (Welfare)system keeps everyone there working at the cost of our jobs and industries.
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,631
Points:29,120
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 1:46:04 AM

"It is about having a place where everyone can succeed; because that will 'insure domestic Tranquility.' "

I'm not sure what you mean by domestic tranquility. But, I'll reference the recent Forbes 400 wealthiest US Citizens, again: About 75% are self-made, most from average family backgrounds. New people enter the list every year. No rich person is holding anyone back.
Cirdan
Champion Author Nevada

Posts:2,703
Points:143,385
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 1:16:54 AM

4 words.

'Promote The General Welfare'

James Madison - the guy who wrote/edited the Constitution, said "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

Promote the general welfare means keeping the economy strong. It would have never occurred to the founders that we would have a nation of tax eaters. They believed people should take care of themselves, not live off the hard work of others.
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,536
Points:478,065
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 24, 2015 8:31:07 PM

"So as to the first -- then if its not working why do we continue to do it? If you figure out that beating your head against the wall hurts and does no good maybe the first thing you should do is stop beating your head against the wall."

You're preachin to the choir, man. You know I want to end the dole.

"As to the second where do you get the idea that it is up to the federal government to ensure citizens have a "comfortable home" (define it please) and "all the basic necessities of life" whatever that means to each of us."

4 words.

'Promote The General Welfare'

The idea is that this country is not supposed to be about giving power to the rich and letting them have their way, running slipshod over all others and generally making life miserable for them wherever they please. It is about having a place where everyone can succeed; because that will 'insure domestic Tranquility.'
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,631
Points:29,120
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Mar 24, 2015 7:47:37 PM

"No country on earth does that. And neither is anyone proposing for it to be done in the US."

What do you think communism does? Its a system of equalizing outcome. If you look at the net worth held by citizens in the US vs communist and heavily socialist countries, there is no comparison. The average individual owns more wealth in the US.

My stepson just returned from a year in China. It was not the utopia he was convinced existed. He lived the lifestyle of some of the more privileged Chinese at a Chung King university. He lost 30 pounds on Chinese dormitory food and he had no body fat, to speak of , when he arrived there.

Be careful what you wish for.
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:30,218
Points:1,711,155
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 24, 2015 6:25:57 PM

Steve said - "Since the value of work is already negatively affected by government policy (the dole) which helps the poor and inadvertently helps the large corporations which hire many of them at bargain rates; then it is incumbent upon government to also set minimum wages/hours standards to offset this affect and ensure that all workers can at least maintain a safe comfortable home and have all the basic necessities of life." I got two thoughts from that - the first being that the present "dole" or welfare system is causing harm to the country.

The second is that you believe that it is the job of the Federal Government to "ensure that all workers can at least maintain a safe comfortable home and have all the basic necessities of life."

.
.
.
So as to the first -- then if its not working why do we continue to do it? If you figure out that beating your head against the wall hurts and does no good maybe the first thing you should do is stop beating your head against the wall.

As to the second where do you get the idea that it is up to the federal government to ensure citizens have a "comfortable home" (define it please) and "all the basic necessities of life" whatever that means to each of us.

Here I was thinking the govt is supposed to insure we have things like "life" "liberty" and the chance to "pursue happiness". All we are supposed to get from the federal govt is a chance to work for what we want in freedom - thats it!

Steve - you have the freedom to go out and buy whatever house you want - work for it and pay for it yourself. You have the right to become qualified for whatever job you think you can handle and then work in that job if its needed and someone is willing to hire you to do it to EARN your "basic necessities of life". Heck you can ever get a bunch of luxuries if you want to work for them - but by no means do you have any right to demand the govt give them to you.
.
.
.
My sone learned about that stuff when he was 15. He came to dad and said - 'dad I'm gonna be getting my license soon and I want a car - what are you gonna get me?' Dad being an old curmudgeon said 'I aint getting you nuttin' boy - if you want a car go out and get a job and save your money and buy your own.' He thought dad was unkind but he did it and years later he said 'thanks dad you taught me a good lesson'.
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,536
Points:478,065
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 24, 2015 2:50:05 PM

Acknowledging that the two are likely very close. Just wanted to make the distinction in case there is a difference.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,245
Points:621,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 24, 2015 2:42:54 PM

"Better than 'return to previous levels' how about we analyze the economy and decide how much inequality is optimal and then strive to achieve it?"

When I reference historical norms, If I recall I was looking specifically at the 50's and 60's which seemed to have a good balance of economic growth and reasonable levels of income inequality.
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,536
Points:478,065
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 24, 2015 2:37:37 PM

Better than 'return to previous levels' how about we analyze the economy and decide how much inequality is optimal and then strive to achieve it?

Or does that make too much sense for those who fear everything government...
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,245
Points:621,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 24, 2015 1:38:09 PM

"Countries that have equalized income or equalize wealth simply insure a lower standard of living for everyone."

Again, from my previous post;

'Higher positions certainly deserve more income, that is not in question. The point isn't what people like nstrdnvstr like to make it out to be when they say the liberal position is that everybody should receive equal pay (which is a tragic misunderstanding of the points being made to him). It is about income being taken from those who have also earned it and thus widening the gap regarding income inequality.'

It isn't about 're'-distributing wealth or giving everybody equal pay - it is simply about returning to historically 'normal' levels of income inequality.

There will always be income inequality, and that is not a bad thing. It is a bad thing, however, when the gap continues to widen exponentially as it has for the past 3+ decades. That is not healthy for our economy.
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,536
Points:478,065
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 24, 2015 1:28:30 PM

Nice try, SoylentGrain. I'll just point out a few discrepancies with your view.

"Countries that have equalized income or equalize wealth simply insure a lower standard of living for everyone. "

No country on earth does that. And neither is anyone proposing for it to be done in the US.

"If you produce in this country you get paid for it. It might not be what you think you are worth, but it's sure a lot better than any place else on the planet."

Since the value of work is already negatively affected by government policy (the dole) which helps the poor and inadvertently helps the large corporations which hire many of them at bargain rates; then it is incumbent upon government to also set minimum wages/hours standards to offset this affect and ensure that all workers can at least maintain a safe comfortable home and have all the basic necessities of life.

We do not have a free market. (good thing, because that is prone to have highly destructive wild swings and swindlers) So we must use social standards to guide government controls over the market. Therefore, the value of work at the low end of the scale can not be allowed be controlled by the market alone and must be set and enforced by government.

Those fearful of a strong large government like to pretend these forces are not at work, but like it or not, they are. To ignore these things would be like ignoring the giant tidal wave about to crash on you as you smile for pictures on the beach. Quite foolish.
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,631
Points:29,120
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Mar 24, 2015 11:32:55 AM

"You accumulate wealth through income."

That's what has made the United States unique in the past: the opportunity to get paid what you are worth and keep what you have earned. Countries that have equalized income or equalize wealth simply insure a lower standard of living for everyone.

A few months ago, I had lunch with 6 people employed or previously employed by a major software development company. The lowest paid person at the table received $140,000 in compensation. the highest, just below $250,000. The topic of conversation: their CEO got paid too much. Seems to me that they should be thanking their CEO for the compensation.

If you produce in this country you get paid for it. It might not be what you think you are worth, but it's sure a lot better than any place else on the planet.
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,536
Points:478,065
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 24, 2015 11:29:35 AM



"Those sweetheart deals are often the result of corruption where big money buys off govt."

SoylentGrain: "Do you know of a stadium constructed, because an NFL team owner bribed city officials?"

If you are trying to imply that if I can't prove this occurs that it doesn't guess again.

Lots of corruption takes place that I can't prove. Just because I can't prove it does not mean it does not occur.

I suspect there is a little of both types of 'persuasion' going on - both the carrot and the stick; with the carrot being the corruption of elected officials through perks, wine and dine, campaign contributions and even possibly outright bribery, and the stick being: 'if you don't tax them and build it, kiss your (my) sports team goodbye.'
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,245
Points:621,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 24, 2015 10:41:51 AM

"Which issue is it for you, wealth or income? You go back and fourth."

You accumulate wealth through income. I was addressing AC's comment which mentioned wealth, of which income is a significant variable.
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,631
Points:29,120
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Mar 23, 2015 9:56:06 AM

"My perception is that we need for those accumulating the wealth to simply see the bigger picture on their own -"

Which issue is it for you, wealth or income? You go back and fourth.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,245
Points:621,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 23, 2015 9:07:14 AM

"I squarely blame our fool politicians for knuckling under to them."

Agreed. Here in Cincy when the new football stadium was built (about 10 years ago now), at least it was just Hamilton County that faced the additional taxes since that was where the asset was located.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,245
Points:621,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 23, 2015 8:53:54 AM

"--OK, then how do you propose to either prevent wealth from being concentrated by the idea-makers who have used the free market to create and accumulate wealth?"

That is the question of the day, it would seem. It cannot be legislated as the negative unintended consequences would outweigh any benefits.

My perception is that we need for those accumulating the wealth to simply see the bigger picture on their own - and having gained a basic understanding of human tendencies I'm not holding my breath for any change there either...
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:32,346
Points:3,608,170
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Mar 22, 2015 11:09:00 PM

My friends, I'm libertarian enough to say to the fool sports teams: "lump it!"

I also do not believe that "the people" should be paying higher taxes to support private businesses (sports teams).

A quick story - I have a relation that lived in a county outside of Milwaukee - but not Milwaukee County - another one. The Brewers wanted a new stadium and threatened to move. The state instituted an additional sales tax on six counties in and around Milwaukee - Namely - Milwaukee, Waukesha, Washington, Ozaukee, Racine and Kenosha counties. But I'm not understanding that when the asset sat in Milwaukee county? Why didn't the residents of Dane county have to pay? Or what about Door County, or Rhinelander County? It seemed a ripoff to me. But again, I can't entirely blame the business folks. I squarely blame our fool politicians for knuckling under to them.
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,631
Points:29,120
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Mar 22, 2015 2:13:13 PM

"Those sweetheart deals are often the result of corruption where big money buys off govt."

Do you know of a stadium constructed, because an NFL team owner bribed city officials?
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,536
Points:478,065
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 22, 2015 1:51:17 PM

Those sweetheart deals are often the result of corruption where big money buys off govt. Govt generally tries to please constituents; but veers away from that to please big money.
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,837
Points:4,786,360
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Mar 22, 2015 5:27:14 AM

SemiSteve, "One example is how citizens are taxed to pay for new stadiums for super-rich sports team owners who could very well afford to pay for these stadiums themselves but instead use the threat of moving the team away to force localities into enacting these taxes."

You are confused, that is the government ripping off the taxpayers, not "the rich". The government is the one that agrees to pay for the stadium. The owners are asking for it, but the government could say no.
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:32,346
Points:3,608,170
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Mar 21, 2015 1:30:45 AM

SemiSteve made the statement in his base post: "Conversely, when wealth is concentrated in great amounts held by a relatively few number of people there is a lack of wealth distribution;"

--OK, then how do you propose to either prevent wealth from being concentrated by the idea-makers who have used the free market to create and accumulate wealth? People who have marketed successful ideas are going to be, generally speaking, commercially successful. Your premise, based on what you've stated is nonsense.
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,631
Points:29,120
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Mar 20, 2015 11:01:22 AM

"One example is how citizens are taxed to pay for new stadiums for super-rich sports team owners who could very well afford to pay for these stadiums themselves but instead use the threat of moving the team away to force localities into enacting these taxes. "

Every entity and person has a value based on what they produce. If its in the best financial interest of a city to build a stadium, they probably should do it. Hey, I don't agree with government "investing" in capital assets, either. Another good reason to restrict what bureaucrats can do fo/to you.

On those lines, there's no need for the state and federal governments to own as much land as they do. Many of the state and federal parks would be much better cared for if privately owned.

[Edited by: SoylentGrain at 3/20/2015 11:03:48 AM EST]
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,536
Points:478,065
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 20, 2015 10:52:59 AM

"And exactly how does someone else making a lot of money affect you?"

There are so many ways it is too much to list. The number of ways that the rich rip off the poor is limited only by the imagination of the rich and whomever they can hire to dream up new schemes.

One example is how citizens are taxed to pay for new stadiums for super-rich sports team owners who could very well afford to pay for these stadiums themselves but instead use the threat of moving the team away to force localities into enacting these taxes.
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,536
Points:478,065
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 20, 2015 10:50:17 AM

"The topic is wealth redistribution. "

Only in the twisted dreams of a biased observer.

This topic is clearly about the condition of the economy and how the proportions of wealth in different sectors affect economic activity.

And I ought to know. I penned it.

Those proportions are changing. Wealth is becoming increasingly concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people, leaving the rest to struggle for what has not been scarfed by the super-greedy and powerful few.

The inequality of the proportions is staggering and growing greater.

That trend is hurting our economy.

We need to find a way to reverse that in order to have a healthier, more robust economy.

Conservatives argue that we should keep doing the same things we have been doing. They want to reward the richest with perks, special treatment, and tax cuts. They claim that once these already-rich people have even more money that they will then invest it in expansion of business which will create more jobs and thus 'trickle down' to the rest. They ignore the FACT that this has already been done for decades and it has produced not increased economic activity and more jobs but instead fewer jobs that pay less, leaving the general public to tighten the belt loops and curtail spending which would create more demand.

Pay people more, let them work more hours and they will earn more money and be able to spend it and that spending will create demand which is necessary to expand business.

Business already has all the money it needs to expand. And they used it not as much for expansion as they have rewarded their shareholders and driven up the prices of their stock. CEOs are looking only at short-term gains because that is what they are measured by and that is what their personal rewards are based on.

If you give tax breaks to the rich and corporations they are just going to keep it and do no more expansion; because demand is not there to support such expansion. This is what they have done every time they have gotten a tax break in the past decades and it is what they will do if given more such breaks.

The irony here is that by being so greedy and taking primarily short-term gains, jobs and demand have been suppressed; and this has produced many more needy who then turn to government for the assistance that conservatives rail about after having caused the very condition that produces this.

And they blame liberals for a condition they have caused themselves.

They don't want government to take care of the needy with 'their tax money' but when they are in power they don't end the programs because they are afraid of the backlash which would result from acting so insensitive to the poor.
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,631
Points:29,120
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Mar 20, 2015 10:43:30 AM

"A bit too simple of an exercise, it would seem, since most "large corporations" have a CEO, CFO, COO, CTO, CIO, CMO,..."

Like I said, if all corporate officers are included, its still a few dollars a month. Below the corporate level, people aren't getting rich. Sure, some individuals can make a lot of money $500,000 or more. But, the bulk of the worker bees, division president on down don't get paid that much, compared to what they have invested in experience and education.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,245
Points:621,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 20, 2015 10:35:16 AM

"...don't do anything for what they get paid, or don't need any more money. "

Which I don't agree with.

"...to people who think the rich get paid too much..."

Higher positions certainly deserve more income, that is not in question. The point isn't what people like nstrdnvstr like to make it out to be when they say the liberal position is that everybody should receive equal pay (which is a tragic misunderstanding of the points being made to him). It is about income being taken from those who have also earned it and thus widening the gap regarding income inequality.

"There's a mental exercise I offer..."

A bit too simple of an exercise, it would seem, since most "large corporations" have a CEO, CFO, COO, CTO, CIO, CMO, multiple members of the Board, and multiple Presidents, Sr. VP's, VP's, Senior Directors, Directors, and many other very well-paid positions of various departments.

Nice deflection though.
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,631
Points:29,120
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Mar 20, 2015 10:00:03 AM

"Really? You might want to reflect on that again..."

There's a mental exercise I offer to people who think the rich get paid too much, don't do anything for what they get paid, or don't need any more money.

I ask: "How many people work for your company?"

Then I ask: "How much does your CEO get paid?"

Third question: "What would it mean to you if your CEO worked for free and his salary were given to all the employees?

Of course, I have to help with the math. The answer usually comes out to several dollars a month for every employee for a large corporation ($2-$5). It makes no difference if you include just cash compensation, all compensation, or every corporate officer in the organization. It's a few dollars per month.

Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,245
Points:621,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 20, 2015 8:51:57 AM

"So accountants charge less fees to rich people than those less well off?"

When you read a post, do you just pick responses out of a hat? Or do you purposefully misrepresent what the other person has posted?
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,837
Points:4,786,360
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Mar 19, 2015 6:49:33 PM

Weaslespit, ""I guess in the liberal world, accountants work for free and all the records"

I guess you missed the 'drop in the bucket' part of the post, or simply didn't understand it..."

So accountants charge less fees to rich people than those less well off?
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,837
Points:4,786,360
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Mar 19, 2015 6:26:34 PM

SemiSteve, "But I am also correct in the luck factor part of it. Of course this couple you know did have some good luck going for them because apparently nothing major happened in the way of bad luck which impacted their savings. No major health event which wiped them out, no child needing huge amounts of money to solve some horrible problem such as a life threatening disease or getting into big trouble, no horrific auto accident which caused great medical bills, no job loss, no big law suit requiring lots of money to prevail, etc."

No, you are not correct, there is insurance for those kind of things.
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,837
Points:4,786,360
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Mar 19, 2015 6:22:52 PM

"Everyone faces challenges. It's part of life. And yes some people are fortunate. I wouldn't call it luck. Its more of a developed skill to recognize opportunities that cross your path and capitalizing on them."

Exactly right SoylentGrain!
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,245
Points:621,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 19, 2015 4:52:46 PM

"And exactly how does someone else making a lot of money affect you? It doesn't."

Really? You might want to reflect on that again...

"Taxing the guy nest to you more who makes twice, three times, or ten times what you do will not increase your income one dime."

I agree, which is why I believe a balanced approach to increased revenue as well as spending cuts are required to balance the Federal budget - but what you are referring to is more aligned with wealth 're'-distribution, not wealth distribution. Taxes are not an appropriate vehicle to stem the decades-long trend of increased income inequality.
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,631
Points:29,120
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Mar 19, 2015 3:46:13 PM

" As I continue to talk about the ever-increasing gap in income inequality, my focus is on earned income, not net worth. "

The topic is wealth redistribution. And exactly how does someone else making a lot of money affect you? It doesn't. Taxing the guy nest to you more who makes twice, three times, or ten times what you do will not increase your income one dime. That's the type of activity that will get you unemployed.
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,631
Points:29,120
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Mar 19, 2015 3:28:26 PM

"But I am also correct in the luck factor part of it. Of course this couple you know did have some good luck going for them because apparently nothing major happened in the way of bad luck which impacted their savings."

The hours they weren't working they "worked" on their side business, training draft horses.The husband broke his back training horses. He was unable to work for months and that may have contributed to early retirement. The wife has a blood disorder requiring significant medical expense.

They did lead a smart life and avoided lawsuits.

Everyone faces challenges. It's part of life. And yes some people are fortunate. I wouldn't call it luck. Its more of a developed skill to recognize opportunities that cross your path and capitalizing on them.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,245
Points:621,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 19, 2015 12:28:38 PM

"You folks are kidding right?????

What the heck kind of lifestyle do you think you should live that 3 million is not enough to live on?"

You might need to seek some retirement perspective. You are not going to be living the lifestyle of the 1%, I can guarantee you that (at least, not for long).

"...and assuming that you have 1 million of the 'estate' in home value"

Wow, that is a heck of an assumption there not really relevant to most people...

"Are you folks seriously trying to say you cant live very comfortably on that much money????????"

Not even a close. This is actually what I said;

"It is a requirement to maintain a comfortable retirement as that becomes your source of income for the next 20-30 years after living a middle-class lifestyle..."

Really not sure how after making this statement, you went on to indicate that I implied you could not live comfortably on that much money when those were almost 'exactly' the words I used - verbatim.

Post a reply Back to Topics