It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Income Inequality Is At An All-Time High: STUDY

page: 2
19
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
You guys can bicker about economic ideology all you want i.e. Marx vs. Smith whatever. Bottomline is America hasn't had a truly free market for a long time, maybe if ever. We have state corporatism. Socialize the losses and privatize the profits.


Yes, although I agree the stimulus packages were necessary (a depression hits Main Street the hardest) it was a case of private profits, socialized losses. We, the average American people, had to bail out Wall Street with our tax dollars while most of us will never see any of the gi-normous profits that are made at the other end. So we still have lousy banking executives who couldn't run a doughnut shop taking home multi-millions while we stand in unemployment lines. Hey, they deserve their little compensations, right? -- it's part of the corporate culture.

A lot of Americans are mad about that and I am one.

It doesn't take Marxist "brainwashing" for people to see the writing on the wall.




posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by yellowcard
Your level of economic intellect skates on the edge of naive, and uneducated.


Your comment, above, is aimed at Grover, I believe. That is a completely inaccurate way to describe him. The theories of economics you follow are not his, but that is just a disagreement, not proof of Grover's educational inferiority or his lack of sophistication.

I believe the new T&C emphasizes arguing ideas, not making personal insults.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
I personally don't support 'Robin Hood' monetary redistribution like the OP does. I believe people only value what they earn, not what they are given.


First off despite what yellowcard claims I am not a shill for anybody...no one tells me what to think...

second of all his argument proves the fallacy of the whole trickle down economics argument...since the rich according to it invest and create jobs...here for Americans. And he is arguing that trickle down works...elsewhere...but why bother giving tax breaks to those who do not invest in their country?

Finally....I am not nor have I argued for a "robin hood" monetary redistribution...the fact remains when an economy is broadly based...when the wealth is more evenly distributed as opposed to stacked up at the top...the nation as a whole benefits.


Apparently someone told you how to think, because you certainly aren't using your head. You are saying that tax cuts lead to income inequality, they do not, taxes should be cut at any time by any means for anybody, rich or poor, none of which lead to income inequality. You are arguing for income redistribution through taxation...what do you think "robin hood" redistribution is? When you don't invest in your own country, you invest in other countries, and as I said, what do you think the foreigners do with that money? Eat it? No, they buy other goods, possibly American goods. You are advocating protectionist socialism, which has never ever created wealth. The people lifted form poverty have needs too, just because you didn't get your 1 dollar and hour raise doesn't mean that there hasn't been an increase in your economic welfare from a globalized economy. If you want to blame anyone for the income inequality, blame the very government that redistributes. Blame welfare traps, that hold people into poverty, blame the government for it's corporate welfare. The rich are only enemies, not because of taxation, but because they want to kill free trade, put up trade barriers to suite their own interests, even some citizens, such as yourself advocate such things.


Originally posted by Sestias

Originally posted by yellowcard
Your level of economic intellect skates on the edge of naive, and uneducated.


Your comment, above, is aimed at Grover, I believe. That is a completely inaccurate way to describe him. The theories of economics you follow are not his, but that is just a disagreement, not proof of Grover's educational inferiority or his lack of sophistication.

I believe the new T&C emphasizes arguing ideas, not making personal insults.


Calling someone uneducated is not a personal insult, they could be educated on another subject which I am not, I suppose "ignorant" is a better choice of words. I feel I have more than enough credentials in economics to sustain my claims, which no one here appears to appreciate. I have said no claim that the great economist Milton Friedman would disagree with, or any Austrian or Chicago school economist would disagree with.

There is no economic theory that I know of that states that taxation effects income inequality in a tax system where the tax rates are similar across the wage spectrum...the only theory I know that this comes from is partisan politics...which is why I say only "shills" make such claims, because it's mostly true.

[edit on 15-8-2009 by yellowcard]



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by yellowcard
 

What is better for a community....10 people with 90% of the wealth or the same amount of wealth spread broadly among 1000 people?

I think the answer is obvious. A deep and broadly based wealth benefits far more people than the type of pyramid scheme that trickle down economics is.

BTW I am anything but ignorant and naive.

Historically speaking extreme income inequity is the fuel that fires revolutions...not a bunch of tea baggers or loud mouths at town meetings.

[edit on 15-8-2009 by grover]



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   
I would rather live free in a mud hut I built myself than die a slave in the corporate pits to pay for a house that will fall apart before the loan is settled.

[edit on 15-8-2009 by wanderingwaldo]



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 09:18 AM
link   
I would like to point out one small fact here....

the "poor" in this country live so much better than the "poor" in other countries because the gov't taxes those more fortunate than the poor to provide them with aid!!

it was taxes that were used to tear down the old slums and build newer, more modern housing for the poor. taxes that provide them with their healthcare needs, taxes that feed and cloth them.
it seems to me that tax policies are more like the tool that negates the worst effects of the gross income inequality, or increases them.
I mean, you want to see the "poor" here living in about the same state as they do in third world nations, well, cut everyone's taxes, and do away with that aide!! I don't think that the truly wealthy want to do that. too much of the money that flows through that system is directly aimed in one or two steps at....the truly wealthy!! the landlord....the health insurance companies and their upper management ect.

NY state just provided $200 for every child under their food stamp/welfare program so they can go out and buy school supplies....
now, wonder why they would do that? can't be because they truly care about all the kids in the schools having what they need, since I lived in that state for almost two decades, paid taxes and well, never had that kind of resources available for school supplies! na, but they are afraid that their back to school sales are gonna look crappier than crap, and that will cost those rich people alot of money! so, well, time to do a little stimulating and help the poor out again! the poor get a perk, the rich, ya know the ones that will lose the most if the stock market truly crashes or if their own businesses suffer because of lack of sales, well, they get a perk....your average working family in NY (if they are any left in NY) though....na, they are the ones paying!



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by yellowcard
 


This is why its allowed to happen. This kind of mentality will keep it going while the elite laugh at us for being a nation of imbeciles.

I remember the first time I witnessed this mindset was in the early 80's. A friend of mine who's family was very poor supported the entire trickle down ideal and was an avid republican.

I used to ask him why he thought this way when he was so poor.

He could not give a valid answer.

I never thought so many would buy into it but here we are.

Weird.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
reply to post by yellowcard
 

What is better for a community....10 people with 90% of the wealth or the same amount of wealth spread broadly among 1000 people?

I think the answer is obvious. A deep and broadly based wealth benefits far more people than the type of pyramid scheme that trickle down economics is.


BTW I am anything but ignorant and naive.

Historically speaking extreme income inequity is the fuel that fires revolutions...not a bunch of tea baggers or loud mouths at town meetings.

[edit on 15-8-2009 by grover]


And how would you specifically go about accomplishing this goal, if not by severely taxing those 10% to bring their wealth down, and giving the monies acquired to the 90% to raise their wealth to equality of the 10%?



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II


And how would you specifically go about accomplishing this goal, if not by severely taxing those 10% to bring their wealth down, and giving the monies acquired to the 90% to raise their wealth to equality of the 10%?


I would suggest laws in place that do not let corporations dictate policy. Get rid of the lobbyists. They need to be limited in size so they dont get so big they can just pack up and take our jobs overseas.

How would YOU fix this problem that will only get worse with the way it is right now?

How?

We will never be able to compete with slave wages overseas and should not be expected to.

The number one selling vehicle in the world is the Ford F-150 truck.

90% of them are sold in America, thats how much buying power we currently have. Tariffs on imported goods if done soon enough will fix the problem. If we wait much longer we will not have that kind of wealth to make tariffs work.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by LoneGunMan
 

We have done it before...the taxes imposed between FDR and JFK under both Democratic and Republican administrations (with the highest rates of upward to 80% imposed under Republican Eisenhower) helped eliminate the great disparity of wealth that this study starts at and helped create the middle class.

AND did it hurt the economy? No...the post war boom lasted from the late 40's into the 70's...the longest expanse of economic growth this country has ever seen happened when the taxes on the highest incomes were the highest.

Don't believe me...look it up...

I keep saying I have no problem with Republicans and conservatives as a rule even though we disagree but what they fail to see that so many others do is that their party and ideology have been highjacked by economic nihilists who are using the parties natural adversion to government as a smoke screen to milk the nation dry for their own benefit...in short

YOU ARE BEING HAD.

[edit on 15-8-2009 by grover]



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
90% of them are sold in America, thats how much buying power we currently have. Tariffs on imported goods if done soon enough will fix the problem. If we wait much longer we will not have that kind of wealth to make tariffs work.


That's probably what they thought back in 1930 when they enacted the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. BZZZT! Didn't work! It drove the nation even further into the depression.

Punishing success to equalize wealth will not work. Even during grover's magic FDR to JFK 'period of prosperity' there was still the rich (successful), the middle (working), and the poor (struggling).



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


It's fantastic. As the US becomes a Third World country in terms of economic distribution, there are still idiots who think that there's such a thing as a free market, and that somehow, the freedom to be poor and dumped on by the richest in society is something to treasure.

Well, with any luck there'll come a point where people will get mad as hell and won't take it anymore. Not that I'm holding my breath.

There was a survey years ago that showed it was easier to achieve the American Dream in other countries than the US - economic mobility was much higher in Sweden, for example. But the myth of Horatio Alger persists.

It's really funny that people who think of themselves as "realists" cling to such beliefs despite all the evidence to the contrary.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


Whats the answer then? I am really curious what you think is the answer?

The working class Americans for the most part are becoming extinct as our jobs go overseas.

You cant educate the people in the importance of buying American because the media has been deregulated tot he point that the multinational corporations that are doing this to us own them.

You say Tariffs didn't work in the past...well thats because back then the world was buying American products. Well guess what? Not only is the world not buying American products but we aren't either.

Its called PRICE. If you have slave labor making products you cant compete with that.

So now tell me in this modern age of the rest of the world not buying our products, then how will tariffs hurt us?

Right now we still have enough buying power that if we make the playing field equal and Americans start buying American again our jobs will come back. If we wait then it wont matter.

Remember what I said about the Ford F-150? Its the perfect example of the buying power we still have. It means that until the rest of the world catches up to our standards we tariff imports to make the price right for Americans to buy American goods. They want you to stick to your free market guns because once America thinks it has to work for less money to compete then the game is over. World wide. they will have a world of near slave labor just for survival and the elite will become like Gods.

If we wait much longer we wont have that buying power. Now we still do.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by LoneGunMan
 


The answer is for us to become competitive in the world market in what we do best. The fields I've seen we excel in is innovation and information. We need to get out of the entitlement and victim mentality, and get to work. I see too many people crying and complaining, and getting nothing done. They want to be paid a lot for doing little, and that is not a viable reality.

I currently work at an IT helpdesk for a realistic salary. And I'm continually reading and researching for what we support at the present and in the future plans. I am MCSE certified, and am working on upgrading that also. Some people I work with don't give a care about what they do, get poor performance reviews, and are constantly complaining about not being paid enough. They're more concerned with their off work lives, and the toys they have and planning to get. No wonder we aren't competitive in the world market with people like this.

We are a very consumer oriented society, and as I said prior, this consumes our minds constantly when we should be more concentrated on other more important matters. As to the Ford F-150 pickup truck your focused on, I've never owned one, and don't plan on buying one. I currently drive a Jeep Compass.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


Don't you understand all America is anymore is a safe place to be for the super wealthy who do not invest here anymore to live...and if they can keep wages of their serfs low all the better...we have been sold out by them and then convinced that it is in our best interest to give them tax breaks...

Don't you see it?

The conservative/Republican (with plenty of help from the Democrats) tax policies over the past thirty years have created an aristocracy...

AND trust me bub...you and I aren't part of it.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II

Punishing success to equalize wealth will not work. Even during grover's magic FDR to JFK 'period of prosperity' there was still the rich (successful), the middle (working), and the poor (struggling).


During the period Grover is talking about there were indeed the rich, the middle class and the poor. But the rich were not so ostentatiously rich, they didn't flaunt it with lavish living and excess the way many do now. The middle class was growing by leaps and bounds during that period (it's been rapidly shrinking since the 80's). Wages were pushed up, partly because of union activity, and they were allowing many formerly working class families to enter the middle class and become good consumers. There were the poor also, of course, but the possibilities of moving up were in reach of more people. The poor today are usually trapped in "wage ghettos" where possibilities of upward mobility are severely restricted, and their numbers are growing, not shrinking.

Meantime the economy was humming. All that prosperity that was causing the middle class to expand translated into more buying power for more people. And consume they did. Wealth doesn't only "trickle down." It also moves from the bottom up, something people don't seem to want to admit anymore. Look at Wal-Mart. It isn't fabulously rich because the upper classes shop there; it's the working and middle classes that make it so successful.

And to add to Grover's comments:

Corporations also paid higher taxes during the boom from the late 40's to about 1970. They pay practically nothing now. Americans felt it was their duty to support the country that made them rich, an attitude you definitely don't see now.

And I don't feel sorry for those people who will have their taxes raised. They can afford the best lawyers who can find the best tax loopholes and shelters and they will avoid paying a large proportion of their tax increases, as they always do.

An expanding middle class will do more good for this country than all the "trickle down" effects of the lifestyles of the rich and famous. "Trickle down" has had its day and while a lot of people have become fabulously rich because of it, it hasn't done much for the average American.

It's time to reinstate "bottom up" prosperity in America.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias
...Wealth doesn't only "trickle down." It also moves from the bottom up, something people don't seem to want to admit anymore...

...Americans felt it was their duty to support the country that made them rich, an attitude you definitely don't see now....

...An expanding middle class will do more good for this country than all the "trickle down" effects of the lifestyles of the rich and famous....


EXACTLY...EXACTLY...EXACTLY!!!

Kennedy's famous...


Ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country.


...has been perverted to read...

Ask not what you can do for your country...ask what tax cut and bailout your country can give to you.

AND ya know what really bites my oh so ample butt is that all of those who are howling over the bank bailouts and all are the very ones who have defended bush minor's tax cuts to the wealthiest...

Now mind you I am not defending the bank bailouts...I think that they are wrong too...

But talk about hypocritical.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Disbanding the Fed and its debt based money would prolly be the number one thing America could do to remedy this situation. Zero income tax (that only services the debt based currency, not infastructure and services) would certainly be a boon to the decimated middle class.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
reply to post by yellowcard
 

What is better for a community....10 people with 90% of the wealth or the same amount of wealth spread broadly among 1000 people?

I think the answer is obvious. A deep and broadly based wealth benefits far more people than the type of pyramid scheme that trickle down economics is.

BTW I am anything but ignorant and naive.

Historically speaking extreme income inequity is the fuel that fires revolutions...not a bunch of tea baggers or loud mouths at town meetings.

[edit on 15-8-2009 by grover]


You just gave yourself away with the "teabaggers" comment, definitely a "shill," probably an MSNBC viewer, since they touted that line to demean anyone who disagrees with their position...which just so happens to help GE. Revolutions have been brought upon nations because of "income inequality," but that's a very Marxist idea, that is the very thing that Marx actually wrote about. The American Revolution was brought upon taxation, lack of freedoms and "loud mouths at town meeting"...even "tea baggers," (the modern "tea baggers" got that idea from somewhere you know :@@
Though, historically speaking the aristocracies that were brought to their knees by the people was because...it was an aristocracy, it was not a free society, it was not a free market.


I assume you are for unionization to have a "strong middle class," but I ask you, using your same logic, would you rather a select few people make $25 an hour with health benefits etc, etc with a company in bankruptcy OR would you rather have a vast amount of people make $15/ hour with a company prospering?

I'll leave you with quotes from a man smarter than both of us.

"A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." - Milton Friedman

"A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." - Milton Friedman

BTW: Your definition of "trick down" economics appears to be anything that doesn't benefit you. You still have yet to address that millions of people in China, Russia, India, etc have been lifted our of poverty that lined in starvation. You're bitching about a 1 dollar an hour raise...and you call the "rich" selfish? I think there needs to be more accountability, but you are advocating redistribution and socialism...and I do not support that, the Constitution doesn't support that...and economics does not support that.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Kennedy's famous...


Ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country.


...has been perverted to read...

Ask not what you can do for your country...ask what tax cut and bailout your country can give to you.

AND ya know what really bites my oh so ample butt is that all of those who are howling over the bank bailouts and all are the very ones who have defended bush minor's tax cuts to the wealthiest...

Now mind you I am not defending the bank bailouts...I think that they are wrong too...

But talk about hypocritical.


I support tax cuts, I don't support bank bails outs, what does that make me? A racist? A "teabagger?"

"President Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." Neither half of the statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society. The paternalistic "what your country can do for you" implies that government is the patron, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man's belief in his own responsibility for his own destiny. The organismic, "what you can do for your 'country" implies the government is the master or the deity, the citizen, the servant or the votary." - Milton Friedman



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join