Top 1 percent take record share of U.S. income

RedShirt73
reply to post by Biigs

 

Your in business to do two things, Make Money and Save Money. If something is going to cost me less clams to make in China then it is to make in the states, what incentive(s) do I have to bring that back to the states? When it comes to being a patriot for your country and bringing jobs back, well, in business patriotism of any kind takes a backseat.

You are wrong. Many companies are made in the USA only and they do quite well in business. Just look at companies like Toyota who is more than happy to build companies in the states because of our workforce. Greed is the only reason why companies have stuff built overseas.

reply to post by Biigs


Now I get what your saying, lol. But still, that same four dollars can start to addup over time thereby decreasing the companies profit overall.

reply to post by RedShirt73


Absolutely it does.

The point is that apple prefers to take its business to china for a saving on less than a % at the sake of the country that founded it, built it and shipped it some other place with less tax and cheaper labor.

Id think that if apple made the iPhone and it had Made in USA on the back, the USA market would eat it up making more and more sales and jobs.

they sold you out, the love is lost.

tothetenthpower
reply to post by beezzer

 

When the rich were paying in upwards of 80% on their income, America was flourishing. Single income households were entirely possible, in fact two income house holds were over kill in a lot of ways.

The middle class was strong and it's buying power was strong, hence the strong economy. The middle class were living large and the rich were still living like sultans.

The idea that the wealthy help create wealth in the economy for others is a myth and the more data we research on the topic, the more apparent it becomes.

~Tenth

Once again Barry, I should have left you on the space station! Where's my drink? I'm afraid the collective hangover might kill me...

I agree. We are not seeing a "trickle down" economy, we are seeing a "trickle up" one. The top 1% are vacuming up the wealth of this country and sitting on it, or shipping it overseas. If these top 1% weren't short-sighted, they see that what they give back/put into the economy is what they will reap.

I almost get the feeling that the richest people in the world know something is going to happen. They didn't get rich being stupid, as they have some of the best education available to them. If they have half a brain, they'd see that an economy like ours isn't sustainable.

So why, why then are they allowing the economy to carry on like this? I feel as if the rich are on a smash & grab shopping spree, looting as much as they can before some eventual "event" happens. They need to horde as much money and resources as they can to weather whatever they seem to think is coming.

That's my .2

Biigs
reply to post by RedShirt73

 

Absolutely it does.

The point is that apple prefers to take its business to china for a saving on less than a % at the sake of the country that founded it, built it and shipped it some other place with less tax and cheaper labor.

Id think that if apple made the iPhone and it had Made in USA on the back, the USA market would eat it up making more and more sales and jobs.

they sold you out, the love is lost.

edit on 17-9-2013 by Biigs because: (no reason given)

Exactly, Apple took there business there to save money, it was a business decision, not based on patriotism or anything else, just money. Basically their bottomline, lol. I think though that for some of these companies it would be too costly for them to make such a move (ie. moving manufacturing back to the states). I doubt too many CEO's want a lower paycheck, lol.

reply to post by RedShirt73


When a company moves an operation like that abroad, you dont just have the literal salary saving, you have taxes, easier to bribe or influence local areas, the insurances you have to pay on your employees i mean the list just goes on.

The end of it means; less people (total) in the states who pay tax on it, earning more per head.

reply to post by MystikMushroom

I almost get the feeling that the richest people in the world know something is going to happen. They didn't get rich being stupid, as they have some of the best education available to them. If they have half a brain, they'd see that an economy like ours isn't sustainable.

You think so? The same way they knew about the crash in the 20's perhaps?

Yeah, the globalists control the markets, so they create these problems and the supposed 'solutions' to keep their little game going.

So why, why then are they allowing the economy to carry on like this? I feel as if the rich are on a smash & grab shopping spree, looting as much as they can before some eventual "event" happens. They need to horde as much money and resources as they can to weather whatever they seem to think is coming.

That's simple, the rich won't loose a damn thing during any crashes. Most of the money is in actual resources. The cash for gold scams, who do you think is actually collecting all that gold?

They only made money during the last crash in 2008 and all the other recessions before it. The same will be true when we have our big crash next time.

ETA: And yeah, I sorta miss space, everything was so clear. And Katia kinda just runs me around...

~Tenth

reply to post by Biigs


If the phones were made in the states, Apple would have to pay their workers more thereby increasing the cost of the phones to offset the differences in wages and other various monetary dealings from China to America. I do agree that the cost of shipping would dramatically decrease but would still be a factor in the overall price.

reply to post by RedShirt73


no no.

Making the phone in the states, with all costs considered is 4$ more.

Shipping cost reduction is just a bonus, but when you are talking plane loads of iphones, mass transport is possibly the easiest and least expensive part.

tothetenthpower
reply to post by beezzer

 

When the rich were paying in upwards of 80% on their income, America was flourishing. Single income households were entirely possible, in fact two income house holds were over kill in a lot of ways.

The middle class was strong and it's buying power was strong, hence the strong economy. The middle class were living large and the rich were still living like sultans.

The idea that the wealthy help create wealth in the economy for others is a myth and the more data we research on the topic, the more apparent it becomes.

~Tenth

Tenth, I'm slow. I ride the short bus to ATS every day.

Can you dumb it down for me and explain how taxing the wealthy, (government getting more money) helps me.

How does it help me if Uncle Sugar gets richer?

Taxes never solve any problems ever, any amount. As a matter of fact i directly correlate raising taxes with bigger problems. More funds = bigger government = more regulation = less freedom, simple.

This is a number that needs to change.

RedShirt73
reply to post by Biigs

 

If the phones were made in the states, Apple would have to pay their workers more thereby increasing the cost of the phones to offset the differences in wages and other various monetary dealings from China to America. I do agree that the cost of shipping would dramatically decrease but would still be a factor in the overall price.

Shipping from China is incredibly cheap and fast. Have you ever ordered anything off of ebay from China? I can get a new iphone case for pennies on the dollar, shipped for less than a few bucks, and have it in less than a week.

Most of all the materials used to make the iphone is mined or already in China anyway.

reply to post by beezzer


Beezzer, it's really not complicated at all.

The higher the tax base, the higher the revenue. The higher the revenue the more spending can be done in projects of national importance, like infrastructure or social programs that work.

Government spending has been out of control, but on things that don't benefit the average American. Plus, if 1% Americans were paying those tax rates, it would mean less taxes for you overall, as the gov would have no actual legitimate reason for raising them.

~Tenth

tothetenthpower
reply to post by beezzer

 

Beezzer, it's really not complicated at all.

The higher the tax base, the higher the revenue. The higher the revenue the more spending can be done in projects of national importance, like infrastructure or social programs that work.

Government spending has been out of control, but on things that don't benefit the average American. Plus, if 1% Americans were paying those tax rates, it would mean less taxes for you overall, as the gov would have no actual legitimate reason for raising them.

~Tenth

So in order for the middle class (me) to succeed, government has to get bigger and take more money.

Is that correct?

reply to post by beezzer

So in order for the middle class (me) to succeed, government has to get bigger and take more money.

Absolutely not. In order for you to be successful, you must SHRINK the government and allow it to spend only on essential services. As it used to when American was prosperous. However, that still requires a very large and healthy base of revenue from tax payers.

~Tenth

tothetenthpower
reply to post by beezzer

 

So in order for the middle class (me) to succeed, government has to get bigger and take more money.

Absolutely not. In order for you to be successful, you must SHRINK the government and allow it to spend only on essential services. As it used to when American was prosperous. However, that still requires a very large and healthy base of revenue from tax payers.

~Tenth

Can you point out any recent time period where government took in MORE money and became smaller?

reply to post by beezzer

Can you point out any recent time period where government took in MORE money and became smaller?

That's not what it's about Beezzer and you know it. When's the last time the US had a surplus? Government didn't grow then, technically.

Bill Clinton wasn't it?

In any case, if your government takes in more revenue, it doesn't need to grow necessarily, it just needs to spend more on project of worth. Big projects, create jobs and even if they are only for a few years, like bridge building or damn building, it's a significant boost to the economy when done correctly.

No government can't create jobs, but they can create the environment in which jobs can be created.

A well functioning government isn't worried about it's size, it's worried about it's efficiency and at the end of the day actually, a small size would matter very much.

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Thank you for being patient with me. I wanted to break this down and you were very helpful in that regard.

We can attribute all sorts of lofty aspirations when government takes in more money.
We can ascribe all sorts of social programs that the government can initiate with all the money they bring in.

But at the end of the day, it is the government taking money from all of us, and parceling it out as they see fit.

Now you stated that they would only take more from the rich, but the rich just defray those additional costs in goods and services so that the little people (us) end up paying more.

And it is government growing (either fiscally or in number of programs and departments) that concerns me.

Personally, I feel that government exists to make sure that there is a continued need for government.

Government could care less about us. Our needs. Our goals.

Government cares about government.

And feeding the beast will only make it bigger.

Again, appreciate the back-and-forth.

-beez

reply to post by beezzer

But at the end of the day, it is the government taking money from all of us, and parceling it out as they see fit.

The problem with your perception is you assume that a well functioning government, is still filled with greedy corporatist looking to screw you. A real government works for you, not against you.

Now you stated that they would only take more from the rich, but the rich just defray those additional costs in goods and services so that the little people (us) end up paying more.

No they don't, because the vast majority of the 'rich' aren't producers of anything. They've made money in financial markets, fake ones I might add. The real rich aren't the ones who created Apple and Microsoft and whatever else.

Trickle down economics is a myth in both of it's intended scenarios.

It's a paradigm change. We can't continue to discuss wanting a well organized and operating government, while maintaining the idea it would be fraught with the same problems.

It just wouldn't be.

~Tenth

The answer for the people is to stop voting for politicians who preach about free markets, and start voting for politicians who will represent the people over the corporations. Sadly, that wouldn't be the democrats either.

People in the U.S. should start looking after their own best interests for a change, and start electing politicians who will insist on trade treaties that are fair for U.S. workers.

Real immigration reform that protects the rights, jobs, and educational opportunities for U.S. citizens first.

Government spending that supports hard working U.S. citizens, by building infrastructure, going after corrupt business practices, ending illegal immigration.

Sure Ronnie was a good salesman, but we got sold a bill of goods with this free market crap.