BoatShoes;432967 wrote:This Article lists 22 stats that supposedly demonstrate the destruction of the middle class;

finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/the-u.s.-middle-class-is-being-wiped-out-heres-the-stats-to-prove-it-520657.html

The Statistics from the Link;

• 83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people.
•
• Over 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009, which represented a 32 percent increase over 2008.
•
• In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one.
• As of 2007, the bottom 80 percent of American households held about 7% of the liquid financial assets.
•
• Average Wall Street bonuses for 2009 were up 17 percent when compared with 2008.
• In the United States, the average federal worker now earns 60% MORE than the average worker in the private sector.
• The top 1 percent of U.S. households own nearly twice as much of America's corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago.•
•
• My Opinion;

It is a favorite method of those on the right to dismiss the incompetent ramblings of democrats and those on the left as "class warfare" and as attempts by jealous socialists to take money from those who have earned it via the sweat on their brow and redistribute to undeserving sloths; whether it be through a confiscatory tax code or punitive, anti-capitalist labor laws.


It's my opinion that those on the right have been had, scammed and tricked. The average republican I know, loves America, watches football on the weekends, enjoys the satisfaction of cashing a check earned with hard work, takes pride in seeing his children adopt his values and graciously waves an American Flag. These good folks have been tricked into supporting policies that have allowed a few, who aren't patriots and don't see nations, nor flags nor fellow country men but only quarterly profits, to send their jobs to Indians, lower their salaries and reduce their quality of life.

Good Americans on the right have been so caught up with protecting their middle class from ravenous, bleeding heart democrats taking this and giving it to the poor and undeserving that they have missed their entire middle class being stripped away and swallowed up by the very top. Words like "freedom" and "liberty" and "small government" have been perverted and used to hide this war.

Class warfare is real and as Warren Buffet has said; the rich are winning.

Since the 80's, tax rates have been lower than before the tax code was a "mass tax", interest rates have been low and the workforce has had more education than ever but the jobs and careers have continued to disappear.

Being lucky enough to have a job, every day I'm faced with a new task to generate foreign tax credits for someone working for some corporation that does not see Americans, neighbors, nations, ideologies....and I'm generally left with the job of advising people how to move their operations off-shore and generate more foreign-source income in their companies general limitation basket for their FTC's which, along with other reasons grounded in the realities of free trade will cost more hard-working republican white americans jobs. That pretty much sums up most of my days. I help rich people rape white middle class americans and then I watch the news or message boards and I listen to the raped defend their rapists; battered women defending their abusive husbands.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

BoatShoes....Just had the pleasure of rereading your post. I've highlighted several bullet points from the link you referenced, and also highlighted your op-ed when I thought it appropriate. I give you kudos for recognizing that your daily work for what it truly is. It must be difficult to effectively present your case.

I worked with 4 mega-corp pharmaceutical companies as part of a contract force of roughly 500 people. I spent the first 17 years working for ma and pa industrial distributor sales...and 11 years of self employment industrial sales before being forced to leave because of health issues on product exposure.

My 8 years of corporate life are over. I was called back to work by my former employer a full 18 months after the lay-off...and I told them to shove their 80K a year job up their ass. Our company contracted with the following corporate giants: Abbott Labs, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Boehhinger Ingelheim. I have a new career in ma and pa America...and I will do well in making 55K...at least in year one. But I have my pride and my soul back...and I will never have to be first hand witness to price fixing, the pissing away of tens of millions of dollars on training junkets to Las Vegas. The gluttonous and hedonist behavior of corporate America is a thing of the past for me.

Good luck to you in resolving your own personal/professional conundrum.

HitsRus;437830 wrote:the top corporate tax for the Netherlands is 25.5%...personal tax ranges from 0-52% and a VAT tax of 6 to 19
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world


In the US the top corporate rate is 35% but then the state adds as much as 12% also. Personal tax tops out at 35%, with the state adding up to 10%.... and there is an additional 15% payroll tax. Typical state sales taxes are in the 6-8% range.


Tax advantage?...ugh Netherlands. Maybe if living in the Netherlands is so wonderful, we should try lowering taxes on corporations!


Look, I'm tired of the obfuscation and all the side tracking....
The thread is about the shrinking middle class and the cause.
Do you understand the concept, that business does not 'pay' tax...that it passes it on to it's consumers, who pay for the tax in the increased cost. The business then collects it for the government? Yes or no?... or if you disagree with that assertion, tell me what you disagree with. Please try to stick to topic and eliminate the socialist, elitist rhetoric and not sidetrack or obfuscate.

I have to go, so I might not be able to respond till tomorrow.

sjmvsfscs08;437854 wrote:It's funny that you do not hesitate to call me a right winger and yet I'm not the one on here who said we should go after huge corporations, break them up, and even proposed a 49% income tax on the super rich.

You're beginning to sound like a fool. I don't mean to get all ad hominem on you be Jesus Lord you didn't even respond to my theory haha you just said I was a rightwinger and thus hate the poor.



Is it or is it not, possible, if at all likely, that because we take such great care of our poor that there could actually be an incentive to have more and more children for the added financial assistance? Yes or no, wise guy. A program that was designed to help out families with an unexpected pregnancy in dire circumstances has more or less turned into an intentional operation to get a fatter monthly check.

general94;437954 wrote:Isadore,
Now you are going to try and bring religion into this. Come on. Please lets not degenerate this conversation further by insisting that Jesus Christ was a communist. I am only a part time Baptist, but I doubt I just happened to miss the Sunday School lesson or sermon on that topic. We must have grown up in a very different religious culture too, because I am pretty sure most or all of the churches I have attended were..... Well lets just say I don't believe they or their good ol boy pastors shared your socialist views.

isadore;437893 wrote:What defines you as a right winger to me is your cold hearted attitude toward those in need.

isadore;437893 wrote:That is much more definitive than your corporate tax policy.

isadore;437893 wrote:"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
Matthew 25:40. Read what you read, let them suffer because the rewards of being poor are so great. Your few little anecdotes are nothing, the suffering of those in poverty throughout this nation is real. And you want to cut their benefits. Now that is real social Darwinism. Maybe I am being too insulting to right wingers as one of them

Manhattan Buckeye;437949 wrote:"before being forced to leave because of health issues on product exposure."

What exposure would that be?

general94;437954 wrote:Isadore,
Now you are going to try and bring religion into this. Come on. Please lets not degenerate this conversation further by insisting that Jesus Christ was a communist. I am only a part time Baptist, but I doubt I just happened to miss the Sunday School lesson or sermon on that topic. We must have grown up in a very different religious culture too, because I am pretty sure most or all of the churches I have attended were..... Well lets just say I don't believe they or their good ol boy pastors shared your socialist views.

BGFalcons82;437779 wrote:Footwedge - the idea was touted as a panacea to the blue dogs during the porkulus debate.

Obama liked it because he thought it would garner him the blue dogs he so desperately wanted for passage. You still didn't answer the fundamental question as to why a business would make a conscious decision to lose money, in your example it would be $18,800 x up to 10 people.

If the additional personnel is not required in order to satisfy demand, replace a lost worker, expand market share, or eeee-gad create additional profits, then there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to hire somebody. Why would your ma and pa be excited to torch nearly $20,000 as they don't need the help?

IF they need the help, then that's a different story. In your scenario, you think businesses should hire people just because it's the socially right thing to do and to reduce unemployment.

How does that increase profits or market share? Your "incentive" to possibly lose up to $20K per person isn't an incentive at all, but possibly could be called extortion or threat.

That's how they roll in Chicago, isn't it? That's what Paulson did to the banks in October, 2008 as well. Don't waste your time on the R or Bush argument, Paulson was and is a Democrat.

I have partially owned 2 businesses in my life and I work for a privately-held company now. I have never worked for "corporate America", so sorry to burst your assumption. I compete every day for new work and the bidding environment is as tough and nasty as I've ever seen it in my 33 years in the business. Guess what...we aren't hiring any help until we see some improvement in the economy, more opportunities to keep our people busy, and the cash in the bank to pay for them.

I am more of a follower of Milton Friedman, although I would take Adam Smith over John Maynard Keynes 24/7/365.

Footwedge;437982 wrote: Well, maybe if you knew the everyday practices of huge corporations,

major sparks wrote:He displayed no such thing. His attitude pertained to his comments on people he had personal experience, who he thought were gaming the system. But you love accusing people of being heartless because they have a different idea of how the needy should be taken care of. Classic political demagoguery.

I believe their should be no corporate tax or income tax. Just one national sales tax on the lines of the "fair" tax. That way everytime American citizens engage in a transaction they can see on their receipt what share of the product they are buying is going to the federal government.

I noticed you did not answer Hits question. Do you understand the concept, that business does not 'pay' tax...that it passes it on to it's consumers, who pay for the tax in the increased cost. The business then collects it for the government? Yes or no?... or if you disagree with that assertion, tell me what you disagree with? You danced around the question like a ballerina.

Its as simple as this. Cost of bringing product to market + Profit + Tax on profit = Cost of product. The bottom line is I have to make a profit. Whether it is a raw material, insurance, legal, taxes, etc. There is no difference.

Now you are twisting scripture to support your statistist ideology.

Matthew 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Practically speaking, where does it say anything about using the taxing power of the government to take from your neighbor to help those in need. Practically speaking as an individual who has wealth. They bible does teach that they should take care of the poor. It never mentions working through the state. Not that it is wrong for a state to do so.

The King by the way is the true King of the nation of Israel. He is judging the nations for their treatment of the nation of Israel.

How about I Timothy 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

I don't think anyone on this thread has called those gaming the system worse than an infidel.

You see Isadore there have always been two types of poor. Those in true need and those that have the ability but fail to provide for themselves. There can be many reasons. Laziness, drugs, criminal behavior, etc. As individuals, private groups, and government must be able to separate the two. Otherwise one will sap of the other and you end up not helping either and create undo burden on the middle class. Of course it is my opinion that deciding who the true needy are should primarily be done at the state, local, private groups, and individual. Those closet to those in need.
Personally I think that every able bodied adult person that receives aid from the state should be required to work a small percentage of community service every .dollar received

queencitybuckeye;437985 wrote:Based on the earnings numbers your threw out for yourself, you were never in the same area code as anyone who actually made any decisions of importance in a large corporation. At best, you were the towel boy for the 12th man on the deal team.

You're pretty goddamn condescending for a graduate of a 4th-rate dogshit diploma mill, and with a self-described career nearly approaching that of Wally from the Dilbert cartoons.

isadore;437990 wrote:Since his coldheartedness toward the poor is just a mirror reflection of your own, Your comments below show that beyond a doubt. And that determines the value I place on your supportive evaluation of his attitudes toward the needy. He has taken a few personal anecdotes that have been filtered through his prejudices and based on them has structured a policy toward the poor with increasing deprivation of their needs. Let’em eat cake, cause we are going to stop providing the bread.
And what tax have you picked to supply the needs of government, Why a sales tax of course, a regressive tax that hurts the poor the most, Why should that be a surprise. No lets not use a truly progressive income tax with earned income credits for the poor, One that hits profit, dividends, capital gains, one that punishes those who try to hide cash overseas bank accounts. No what do you want, lets hit them with a sales tax.
Be far from a religious zealot like yourself but I admire much especially in the New Testament about helping those in need. A lot of that is in Matthew.
Of course you would prefer that as little as possible be spent helping the poor. Or why would you assign responsibility to them to the groups that at times of the greatest need have been shown to lack the resources or at times the motivation to provide the necessary aid. Individuals, local groups, private groups, local and state government when the Depression hit could not handle the need. When this recession hit loss funding quickly and will not meet the need. Also state governments in the South historically deprived poor blacks of needed funds. When need is greatest the national government is who comes through.
We could have your own ideas put into effect., the unemployed working on chain gangs to qualify for a pittance. And with you reigning from on high determining which of the starving meet your prejudices of the worthy poor.

isadore;437990 wrote:And what tax have you picked to supply the needs of government, Why a sales tax of course, a regressive tax that hurts the poor the most, Why should that be a surprise. No lets not use a truly progressive income tax with earned income credits for the poor, One that hits profit, dividends, capital gains, one that punishes those who try to hide cash overseas bank accounts. No what do you want, lets hit them with a sales tax.

"The FairTax is regressive and shifts the tax burden onto lower and middle income people"

The truth: The FairTax actually eliminates and reimburses all federal taxes for those below the poverty line. This is accomplished through the universal prebate and by eliminating the highly regressive FICA payroll tax. Today, low and moderate income Americans pay far more in FICA taxes than income taxes. Those spending at twice the poverty level pay a FairTax of only 11.5 percent -- a rate much lower than the income and payroll tax burden they bear today. Meanwhile, the wealthy pay the 23 percent retail sales tax on their retail purchases.

Under the federal income tax, slow economic growth and recessions have a disproportionately adverse impact on lower-income families. Breadwinners in these families are more likely to lose their jobs, are less likely to have the resources to weather bad economic times, and are more in need of the initial employment opportunities that a dynamic, growing economy provides. Retaining the present tax system makes economic progress needlessly slow and frustrates attempts at upward mobility through hard work and savings, thus harming low-income taxpayers the most.

In contrast, the FairTax dramatically improves economic growth and wage rates for all, but especially for lower-income families and individuals. In addition to receiving the monthly FairTax prebate, these taxpayers are freed from regressive payroll taxes, the federal income tax, and the compliance burdens associated with each. They pay no more business taxes hidden in the price of goods and services, and used goods are tax free.

How can the FairTax generate lower net tax rates for everyone and still pay for the same real government expenditures? The answer is two-fold. Firstly, the tax base is dramatically widened by including consumer spending from the underground economy (estimated at $1.5 trillion annually), and by including illegal immigrants, those who escape their fair share today through loopholes and gimmicks. In addition, 40 million foreign tourists a year will become American taxpayers as consumers here. Secondly, not everyone's average net tax burden falls. For households whose major economic resource is accumulated wealth, the FairTax will deliver a net tax hike compared to the current system.

Consider, for example, your typical billionaire, of which America now has more than 400. These fortunate few are invested primarily in equities on which they pay taxes at a 15 percent rate, whether their income comes in the form of capital gains or dividends. In addition to having the income from their wealth taxed at a low rate, the principal of their wealth is completely untaxed either directly or indirectly. Assuming they and their heirs spend only the income earned on the wealth each year, the tax rate today is 15 percent. In contrast, under the FairTax, the effective tax rate is 23 percent. Hence, the very wealthy will pay more taxes when the FairTax is enacted. In a nutshell, those who spend more will pay more but low, moderate and middle income taxpayers will benefit from the greatest gains in reduced tax liabilities.

isadore;437990 wrote:Be far from a religious zealot like yourself but I admire much especially in the New Testament about helping those in need. A lot of that is in Matthew.

isadore;437990 wrote: Of course you would prefer that as little as possible be spent helping the poor.

isadore;437990 wrote: Or why would you assign responsibility to them to the groups that at times of the greatest need have been shown to lack the resources or at times the motivation to provide the necessary aid. Individuals, local groups, private groups, local and state government when the Depression hit could not handle the need. When this recession hit loss funding quickly and will not meet the need. Also state governments in the South historically deprived poor blacks of needed funds. When need is greatest the national government is who comes through.

isadore;437990 wrote:We could have your own ideas put into effect., the unemployed working on chain gangs to qualify for a pittance. And with you reigning from on high determining which of the starving meet your prejudices of the worthy poor.

isadore;437893 wrote:What defines you as a right winger to me is your cold hearted attitude toward those in need. That is much more definitive than your corporate tax policy. “"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
Matthew 25:40. Read what you read, let them suffer because the rewards of being poor are so great. Your few little anecdotes are nothing, the suffering of those in poverty throughout this nation is real. And you want to cut their benefits. Now that is real social Darwinism. Maybe I am being too insulting to right wingers as one of them

"Is it or is it not, possible, if at all likely, that because we take such great care of our poor that there could actually be an incentive to have more and more children for the added financial assistance? Yes or no, wise guy. A program that was designed to help out families with an unexpected pregnancy in dire circumstances has more or less turned into an intentional operation to get a fatter monthly check."

I want you to want me, I need you to need me
I'd love you to love me, I'm beggin' you to beg me

Footwedge;438039 wrote:First off...you don't know what I made while self employed in the nineties.

Secondly, what does my income have anything to do with the facts I posted?

You attack me for posting my income? LMAO.

Typical ASSinine thinking in your part. 'I make make than you..therefore, I am more intelligent than you...and your facts don't hold any water."

You and cousin MB can head down to Wall Street on Monday together and wallow in your paper shuffling and derivatives dealings. Make sure your shirt is pressed and your tie is straight.