Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

[goldy_331]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticke...7.html?tickers=^DJI,^GSPC,SPY,MCD,WMT,XRT,DIA

There's one article. There's about 1000 out there.

I haven't had time to go through it, but most of the stats he cites seem to be talking a lot more about the stupid economic decisions being made by the American public. They are living beyond their means. It is not saying their means are shrinking but their consumption outstrips their income and they refuse to save. I agree to that. It's not evil gov'mint policies, it's idiocy of the consumer.

I'll look at it later as there may be more there than I'm seeing at first blush.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I'll look at it later as there may be more there than I'm seeing at first blush.

There isn't. The stats cited either point to income / wealth inequality (again, falling into the trap of assuming "the rich" somehow = the same group of people year after year), or illustrate the obvious (people living paycheck to paycheck and postponing retirement during a brutal recession). It's not exactly what I would call a well-reasoned argument for the decline of the middle class or its inevitable extinction.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

No, it hasn't.

In the meantime, we're slouching towards plutocracy.

Hail King Pluto!

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

No, it hasn't.

In the meantime, we're slouching towards plutocracy.

Is that like marching to Pretoria?

 

[ScottM]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Hail King Pluto!

But, I voted for Mickey ...

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

But, I voted for Mickey ...

I'd be fine with either at this stage.

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Bill Moyers - Welcome to the Plutocracy:

Video here: http://www.bu.edu/buniverse/view/?v=20ZaW9PO

Transcript here: http://www.truth-out.org/bill-moyers-money-fights-hard-and-it-fights-dirty64766

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Which is not at all related to their share of income increasing.

and the middle-class tax rates decreasing.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Hey dumb****...That just shows that income has become more imbalanced. A progressive tax structure is defined by its rates, not its collection.

You really, really, need to take Econ 101 again. And listen to the entire thing, not just the talking points you agree with.

There a little thing called effective rates. Those have been widening because of targeted tax deductions/credits. This is why the percentage of people who pay no income tax has been increasing. And you can increase the rate on the rich, but that doesn't matter if they move their income or stop working. What matters is how much of the pie they actually pay. Of course that doesn't fall into your permanent mindset of "the rich don't pay their fair share".

BTW. What would be the fair share.? What percentage of income taxes would the "rich" have to pay for people to stop making that argument?

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Don't bother. No one here has ever understood that. The middle class is shrinking and all the data supports that. And it's not shrinking towards being rich either. In 50 years the middle class will be all but extinct and we will have a two class system in this country which is against what I thought America was about.

Sorry to burst your talking point, but the primary reseason for the middle class shrinking is due to more of them being classified as rich

True, fewer people today live in households with incomes between $30,000 and $100,000 (a reasonable definition of "middle class") than in 1979. But the number of people in households that bring in more than $100,000 also rose from 12 percent to 24 percent. There was no increase in the percentage of people in households making less than $30,000. So the entire "decline" of the middle class came from people moving up the income ladder. For married couples, median incomes have grown in inflation-adjusted dollars by 25 percent since 1979.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Of course that doesn't fall into your permanent mindset of "the rich don't pay their fair share".

BTW. What would be the fair share.? What percentage of income taxes would the "rich" have to pay for people to stop making that argument?

Considering we're running a structural deficit that is only going to get worse, no one is currently paying their fair share. Tax rates for everyone need to rise to meet out financial obligations.

I can't give you a specific amount of what constitutes "fair." But I think it would be fair if we raise taxes incrementally, and each time the higher brackets get raised slightly more than the lower ones. If we need to add a new "ultra-rich" bracket at some point, so be it.

I'm not advocating for a return to the 90% confiscatory marginal rate for the top bracket. But going up to 40-50% at the high end would be in the range of possibilities. Eliminating the corporate income tax and instead taxing capital gains the same as ordinary income would be another possibility.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

There's a great deal of income mobility in this country - it's not like the bottom quintile of income earners this year are the same people 20 years from now.

Citation please?

Here is an argument that social mobility in the US is actually dramatically less than previous estimations would indicate. Because it has nuance on both sides it will either be unread or misunderstood by the folks who already have their minds made up on both sides.

And always remember, we are not permitted to ever utter a word against The One. The original, that is:

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

What matters is how much of the pie they actually pay.

You could charge a 90% tax on incomes up to 10,000 - and a 10% tax on incomes over 1,000,000, and the latter will still pay the majority of the pie. That doesn't somehow make such a scheme "progressive" under any definition of the word.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Considering we're running a structural deficit that is only going to get worse, no one is currently paying their fair share. Tax rates for everyone need to rise to meet out financial obligations.

I can't give you a specific amount of what constitutes "fair." But I think it would be fair if we raise taxes incrementally, and each time the higher brackets get raised slightly more than the lower ones. If we need to add a new "ultra-rich" bracket at some point, so be it.

I'm not advocating for a return to the 90% confiscatory marginal rate for the top bracket. But going up to 40-50% at the high end would be in the range of possibilities. Eliminating the corporate income tax and instead taxing capital gains the same as ordinary income would be another possibility.

The reason we're running a structual defecit is purely because of spending. Revenues have increase above the rate of inflation and population growth over time. Therefore the reason we are running defecits is because we are spending even faster.

The "rich" are already paying above 50% in many states. They are also the ones who are the most able to get out from under higher and higher taxes. For starters, they don't have to work. If you truly want to raise revenue for the gov't (and I'm not advocating this at all) you would keep the high end tax rates the same and tax the middle class more. Taking the Bush tax cut as an example you'd raise $1.4T versus $700B and they wouldn't be able to escape the taxes.

As far as raising capital gains. You actually lower revenue when doing that. On top of that, the gov't is already crowding out investment. That will only make the crowing out worse and hamper production gains for the ecnonmy due to lack of investment. It isn't a coincidence that the tech boom happened a couple years after capital gains rates were drastically cut.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

The reason we're running a structual defecit is purely because of spending.

You can say that all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you can cut the entire discretionary budget and we'd still be running a deficit.

You can theoretically get most of the way there purely with spending cuts, but any reasonable solution will include tax increases, too.

Edit: Whenever I do one of those "balance the budget" simulators - I usually wind up with a solution that's 60% cuts - 40% tax increases. Take that for what it's worth. Of course, I also wind up with trillion dollar surpluses by about 5-10 years out. What can I say, I'm a deficit hawk.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Whenever I do one of those "balance the budget" simulators - I usually wind up with a solution that's 60% cuts - 40% tax increases. Take that for what it's worth. Of course, I also wind up with trillion dollar surpluses by about 5-10 years out. What can I say, I'm a deficit hawk.

You also don't have to run for office on those simulators.

There actually was a great political-economic sim a few years ago -- I don't recall the name, maybe "Democracy." You had to manage the expectations of dozens of constituencies on hundreds of policies, all of them contradictory and some even mutually exclusive. It was a great exercise in the difficulty of actually holding together enough of a coalition to do the right thing, because nobody is invested in doing the right thing -- everybody has their ideological or demographic fixation. Just reviewing the comments on the Forum is an education that most people will dig their heels in and wail "2 + 2 = 5" if their prejudices are offended or the talking points drilled into their heads are challenged.

Think about how few people actually change their political stances when confronted with refutation. We aren't really talking about reason at that point -- it's much more akin to religious faith.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

You can say that all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you can cut the entire discretionary budget and we'd still be running a deficit.

Which shows how big of an issue we have going foward with entitlements.

You can theoretically get most of the way there purely with spending cuts, but any reasonable solution will include tax increases, too.

If you allow for a 5 yr timeframe you can get there with just cuts. If there was some kind of guarentee (like an amendment that wouldn't allow gov't spending to exceed 19% of GDP) then I'd go along with tax increases too. In that case the spending constraints would allow taxes to come back down in the long run anyways.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Sorry to burst your talking point, but the primary reseason for the middle class shrinking is due to more of them being classified as rich

So you're argument is that 100,000 today is the same as 100,000 in 1979. That's heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelarious.

And households making 30,000 still considered "middle class" is even funnier yet.

 

[geezer]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

So apparently the house Dems are willing to go to battle against Obama... how bizarre. I'll support them if they're trying to cut SS to match the payroll tax decrease. But I don't think even they know what they want, other than claiming dead people's $ for themselves.

 

[trucker]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Sometimes I think stuff back then was made better, and in some cases it definitely was. But on the other hand, you replaced headlights on your car regularly as well as other car parts you rarely if ever replace now. Though on the other hand you have all sorts of complicated junk on the car you can't work on at all yourself, unlike my '73 Vega that I did all sorts of work on.

My first car was a '72 Vega. I used to ask the gas station attendant (another thing of the past) to fill the oil and check the gas. I also worked on that car even though I had no business doing it. When it wouldn't start I used to pour gas right into the carburator and it caught on fire one time. And I had to park on hills for three months when I didn't have the money to replace the battery. Became an expert at popping the clutch. That car brings back good memories.