It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


How Unequal Are We? Redistribution of Wealth to the Rich

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 02:18 PM
reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip

Another picture conservatives try to paint is the rich are hard workers and the poor are lazy bums looking for a hand out. Last I checked, it was the guy hauling concrete blocks or digging a ditch that busted a good sweat, NOT the sharp dressed man who shines a seat with his ass.

Conservatism has nothing to do with what you just described, anymore than liberalism has anything to do with it. If your conservative friends are truly conservatives, then they are conserving something, and if that ain't the Constitution then what the hell are they conserving.

If a man, or woman, gains satisfaction and finds fulfillment hauling concrete blocks or digging a ditch then so be it, these jobs certainly need to be done, but to dismiss the efforts of what a "sharp dressed man" does, misses the point. If a ditch digger wants to be wealthy, the first thing he or she should do is get out of the ditch digging business, or at the very least, open his or her own ditch digging business, but even then, it is highly unlikely this will create any wealth.

It is pointless to envy those who are wealthier than you when you are more than capable of creating your own wealth, and if you choose not to be wealthy, then why point to the rich and name them as the problem? Be whomever you choose to be and be happy with that. If you can't be happy with that, then change your mind and be that which makes you happy.

posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 02:19 PM
The luxury of having that much money is to buy superior objects.

Steak over Ramen.

Lobster over hamburger helper.


While the wealth may be heavily unequally distributed, the proportion does not correlate 1 to 1 with the effect it has on the economy.

posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 02:35 PM
Great vid.

posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 02:45 PM
What exactly is the issue here? Anyone who wants to can move up the ranks and earn higher income. You could work two jobs, husband and wife can work. One can work while the other does higher education. Money earned can be invested, compounded.

Nobody is stuck at the bottom, the only limit on your earning potential is YOU.

posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 02:50 PM
good post OP, SF for you!

Your post prompted me to write a post I have been mulling over in my head for a couple weeks on a Mandatory Minimum wage.
I "advertised" your post on mine, since they are very related.
it can be found here

Let me know what you think!?

posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 03:01 PM
reply to post by jjkenobi

Hold on -- during the RECONSTRUCTION African-Americans entered the trade unions to learn technical skills to earn better pay. Guess what -- the WHITES made it illegal to have blacks in the trade unions. Then Jim Crow laws kicked in.

That's structural unemployment -- why? Because there's only so many technical jobs due to automation. Even in China automation is the leading threat to sweatshop apparel jobs!!

posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 03:10 PM
reply to post by tothetenthpower

I work for my employees. I provide for their jobs and I'm overstaffed, but I don't care. People need jobs, and if I retire and sell the business they will downsize and cut wages.

I can't let that happen to people whove worked for me for a decade. My business was built on my employees backs. Without them I'd have nothing.

That's really great of you. We need more like you out there. The former company I worked for also had a good person running our plant. I'll never forget the day when we had a company wide meeting...all shifts...400 employees... when we were given the news that we we were all going to lose our jobs. The plant manager balled his eyes out as he told us. It wasn't his decision and he fought to keep our jobs. He actually quit himself and refused to be a part of the company any longer even though he was offered a higher position and salary. He was a good man.

The shareholders and the CEO didn't care though. Although we were a profitable part of the company, the shareholders got greedy and seen that by relocating to Mexico they could pay crap wages with lax benefits which would make the company more profitable....and up stocks and make them money.

It's BS. Things like this have been happening for years and it's not stopping. We HAVE to reform our trade laws and increase tariffs!!!!!

posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 03:14 PM
reply to post by MysterE

The top 1% paying 40% of the taxes isn't enough I WANT MORE! If we double their taxes then we can ALL be rich!!! Free money for everyone! Welcome to Utopia!!!

Well they used to pay 70 percent of their income in taxes....back before Reagan.

Yeah...those old days where we had a strong middle class and only one parent had to work per family to make ends meet.

But go ahead and defend a dimple of our population while the rest of the 300 million get screwed.

Profits do not create jobs...profits do not create higher wages. That is a FALSEHOOD.

Eisenhower had the top tax rate at 91 percent. OMG how did we survive that insanity!!!!

The top 1 percent would rather watch our whole country fail than to pay more taxes.

THAT IS THE TRUTH. It's apparent in the media and almost every other corporate outlet that feeds the masses.

geezus people....if Warren Buffet is worth 10 billion...and was taxed 5 you think he'd be suffering and going hungry? Would he lose his home?

Come on. Hell he can lose that much in one day on Wall Street.

[edit on 22-4-2010 by David9176]

[edit on 22-4-2010 by David9176]

posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 03:25 PM
reply to post by David9176

Profits do not create jobs...profits do not create higher wages. That is a FALSEHOOD.

Nobody owes you a job, and if you have a job you earn those wages. You have the right to contract. If you are not happy with the wages you are earning make a contract with someone else, or better yet, go into business for yourself.

posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 03:26 PM
Some people seem to think that the only reason poor people are poor is themselves. (ie being a lazy bum)
What about.....
people with disabilities
people with high medical bills
people who were victims of robbery,
identity theft, or arson etc.
people whose credit was ruined by a divorce from a sociopath
(this is my problem, she destroyed everything on the way out)
people who are going to college
people who are single parents of 4 kids
people who are elderly?

Those who think only lazy people are the ones living at or below poverty levels, have their heads up their rectums.

"well the ditch digger needs to start a ditch digging business, blah, blah, blah..."

With what?

Let's do some 3rd grade math.....

Let's say Mr. Ditch Digger makes 10 bucks an hour, and works 50 hours. That is 600 a week with time and a half. Minus 125 for taxes = 475 x 4 = 1900 a month
His house payment is 500 a month (pitiful)
telephone for him and his wife 75
Utilities 300
food for family of four 400 a month ( and that is pitiful)
car insurance 100
cable 100 a month
health insurance 300
Gas 200
OOOOOOOOPS!! That already is 75 dollars a month more than what he has and we haven't got to the other crap like doctor co pays, dentist bills, car repairs, house repairs, clothes, shoes, school supplies, field trips, lunch money, etc.

Start a ditch digging business, huh? Sounds so easy to say from people with a silver spoon in their mouth.

posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 03:28 PM

The 400 American households with the highest incomes also have enjoyed a much faster pace of income growth than the vast majority. And, because tax rates applied to their income have fallen by a third, their after-tax incomes grew substantially faster than their pre-tax incomes. The figure looks at inflation-adjusted pre-tax and after-tax income growth for the 400 top-income families between 1992 and 2007, based on new data recently released by the Internal Revenue Service. It shows that while pre-tax income grew by a staggering 409% over that 15-year period, after-tax income increased even more, by 476%.

The third line in the figure offers some perspective by showing the change in the pre-tax median household income over the same period, which grew just 13.2%. The median pre-tax household income for a family of four in 2007 was $50,233, while the top-earning 400 households earned a median $345 million, almost 6900 times as much income. In contrast, in 1992 the ratio was just a sixth as large, with the top 400 households having 1124 times as much income.

posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 03:47 PM
Personally, I think that we should have a flat tax.

Everyone would know that the governments piece of the action was say 20%.

You make money, you pay 20% to the fed.

I don't think that anyone should get back more money then they pay in. That's just taking money for some people and giving it to others.

posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 03:49 PM
In this world there are tragically victims. Real victims who did little or nothing to deserve the assault/s they took. Then there are those who are victims by choice. What an odd choice, to be a victim. I read all this victimology and sometimes I feel as if there are those who are insisting that my faith in their very real capabilities are unwarranted. Screaming from the hill tops that they refuse to be great because they'd rather be victims. Then I remember, whatever the are screaming, regardless of why they chose to be a victim, they are still more than capable of being great.

Stephen Hawkins was a lay about whose own friends and family thought he would never amount to anything, until his own body collapsed in on him. Then, this man chose to be great.

The man who owns the convenient store down the street was robbed and shot in the chest several years ago. He survived, kept his store open, and now has three of them.

I too had a woman destroy my credit, nearly cost me my job, and did all she could to destroy me. I am not a victim! She is the past! I have learned from that mistake, and move forward because that is where the future is.

All of us, each and every single one of us, are capable of greatness. Whether we ever achieve that greatness, is entirely up to us.

posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 03:54 PM
reply to post by David9176

Tell me this David, how can you have the constitution in your avatar, while argueing that we have too much freedom?

Also tell me how the poor "redistribute" to the rich? The only redistribution is from the rich to the poor, as I said earlier, in the form of taxes/social welfare.


posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 03:59 PM

Originally posted by dolphinfan

Lets stop worrying about how much certain folks have and how little other folks have and focus on what we need to do to clean up the problems we have - and those problems are not due to the fact that a few folks have a ton of dough.

I also never got hired or was given a raise by a poor person.

These are complex problems that require serious discussion and some very heavy lifting to solve. Railing about "rich" folks, most of which are small business owners does not do anything but make some folks feel good. If it makes you feel good, by all means, keep doing it. Don't kid yourself that you are proposing anything that will have even a marginal impact on the problems in this country.

YOU WORSHIP MONEY AND THE RICH (as do most people) and as long as you do you will be their slave.
Who do you think is running everything, the poor people?
The problems are not complex. They are simple.
They are called slavery and war. You are the slave and the cannon fodder.

Government is not the problem, Reagan is the problem.

Where wealth is hereditary, power is hereditary. Locke

[edit on 22-4-2010 by RRokkyy]

posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 04:01 PM
I nation does not reward hard work with great pay. Tricks, laws, politics and wealth protectionism amoung the already wealthy are rewarded.

The lazy but possibly "smart" people are getting the cash and living the lives we all dream of.

Work is work. If you work on schemes as an executive to make money you do not deserve to make a million more than they guys on the bottom floor working hard as what ever they are doing for the company.

Boeing makes windfall profits on government contracts, pays their work force a the very minimum they can get away with and over pay the executives and stock holders with the money the "work force" earned.

All the while with millions in profits they lay off their work force (even when they could afford to keep them on) when the contracts get slim.

THe CEO's and his boys walk away with extreem amounts of bonus cash that could easily keep multiple families employed for years and years even during the slow times.

The American system is rigged to give the hard workers the least rewards.

I just use Boeing as an example because I have first hand expeience with that company.

posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 04:09 PM
reply to post by MysterE

Over 50% of income goes to the military -- to welfare for the rich!

Wealthfare–the money government gives away to corporations and wealthy individuals–costs us more than $817 billion a year. That’s • 47% of what it costs to run the government (which is about $1.73 trillion a year, not counting entitlement trust funds like Social Security and Medicare) • enough money to eliminate the federal debt (now $6.6 trillion, accumulated over 200+ years) in just over eight years • more than four times what we spend on welfare for the poor (currently around $193 billion a year)

For a summary of what goes into that $817 billion figure, look below to the table of contents, which lists the estimated annual cost of the various subsidies, handouts, tax breaks, loopholes, rip-offs and scams this book describes. I’ve calculated these amounts as precisely as possible, but they change every year, and data is often hard to obtain, so they are, of course, estimates. If they seem high to you, cut them all by 50%–or 75%; welfare for the rich would still cost more than welfare for the poor.

Chapter 1: Social Security Inequities 1996 edition: $53 billion a year 2004 edition: $85 billion a year Chapter 2: Tax Breaks for Homeowners 1996 edition: $26 billion a year 2004 edition: $32.1 billion a year Chapter 3: Runaway Pensions 1996 edition: $7.6 billion a year 2004 edition: $7.6 billion a year Chapter 4: Accelerated Depreciation 1996 edition: $37 billion a year 2004 edition: $85 billion a year Chapter 5: Capital Gains 1996 edition: $37 billion a year 2004 edition: $89.8 billion a year Chapter 6: Transnationals 1996 edition: $12 billion a year 2004 edition: $137.2 billion a year Chapter 7: Insurance 1996 edition: $7.2 billion a year 2004 edition: $23.5 billion a year Chapter 8: Business meals 1996 edition: $5.5 billion a year 2004 edition: $8.8 billion a year Chapter 9: Muni bonds 1996 edition: $9.1 billion a year 2004 edition: $6.4 billion a year Chapter 10: Export subsidies 1996 edition: $2 billion a year 2004 edition: $1.8 billion a year Chapter 11: Pentagon Waste 1996 edition: $172 billion a year 2004 edition: $224 billion a year Chapter 12: S&L bailout 1996 edition: $32 billion, every year for thirty years 2004 edition: $32 billion, every year for thirty years (17 more to go) Chapter 13: Agribusiness subsidies 1996 edition: $18 billion a year 2004 edition: $30.5 billion a year Chapter 14: Media handouts 1996 edition: $8 billion a year 2004 edition: $14.2 billion a year Chapter 15: Nuke subsidies 1996 edition: $7.1 billion a year 2004 edition: $10 billion a year Chapter 16: Aviation subsidies 1996 edition: $5.5 billion a year 2004 edition: $5 billion a year Chapter 17: Mining subsidies 1996 edition: $3.5 billion a year 2004 edition: $4.7 billion a year Chapter 18: Oil & gas subsidies 1996 edition: $2.4 billion a year 2004 edition: $1.7 billion a year Chapter 19: Timber subsidies 1996 edition: $427 million a year 2004 edition: $976 million a year Chapter 20: Synfuels 1996 edition: $1.2 billion a year 2004 edition: $600 million a year Chapter 21: Ozone tax exemptions 1996 edition: $320 million a year 2004 edition: $320 million a year Chapter 22: Miscellaneous 1996 edition: $1.6 billion a year 2004 edition: $16.4 billion a year Chapter 23: What’s been left out Untold billions every year Appendix A: Welfare for the poor 1996 edition: $130 billion a year 2004 edition: $193 billion a year

posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 04:23 PM
Reply to post by David9176

The dems always campaign on taxing the rich, but it never happens. The rich have so many writeoffs available its not even funny. This new green movement is providing even more tax write offs. When the dems speak of taxing the rich they are talking about the upper middle class not the rich. What's funny is not one of these jokers could ever live without their money be it bush, obama, clinton, gore, pelosi... They want all the rules to apply to everyone, but them.

As far as regan destroying the middle class... Didn't we experience one of the largest middle classes in our histor under clinton? Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not saying clinton was responsible for the 90s because even if he was he's also very responsible for now...pushing for easy borrowing from banks for the middle class now look. Lol

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 04:33 PM
reply to post by A Novel

Clinton was running drugs for the CIA. Coffers of the poor are raided by the CIA -- Catherine Fitts documents this -- FannieMae, etc. were bilked by the CIA.

Crack profits for the CIA and Dems!!

Put the poor in jail -- slave labor for CIA drugs!

Oh yeah baby where's my sax?

Secret Heartbeat of America - Hopsicker's CIA Mena expose!

posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 04:38 PM
47% of the population paid no taxes this year.
40% of the population got more back from the federal tax then they paid.

The top 5 % of wage earners pay 53% of the taxes.

The top 10 % pay 65%.

I think that it's time for the poor people to have to pay taxes rather than be tax recipients.

new topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in