believer;736397 wrote:Link to back up your claim?

In 2008...Gallup said 66% of Republicans think distribution is fair...30% said wealth should be more evenly distributed. Independents said (60%) should be more evenly distributed while 34% think the distribution is fair. The percentages listed for all democrats was 84% and 13% respectively.

In total, 66% of all Americans think the wealth should be more evenly distributed.

But before you jump my bones on my 75% claim....O-Trap had it right. One can think it's "fair" the way it's distributed...and yet not be happy about it.

O-Trap;736556 wrote:Not with that attitude, no.

The people in that top 1% are almost all people who thought outside the proverbial box, and they followed that thought.

And they made a hell of a lot of money doing it.

Their idea. Their risk. Their effort.

Yes they did. That's how it was done. And it will not be done that way in the future.

Footwedge;736557 wrote:But before you jump my bones on my 75% claim....O-Trap had it right. One can think it's "fair" the way it's distributed...and yet not be happy about it.

I wish wealth was more evenly distributed ... through privately owned social programs, charities, and personal donations out of choice. But the key in that sentence was the last three words.

Footwedge;736559 wrote:Yes they did. That's how it was done. And it will not be done that way in the future.

Why not? I get that we've got a global scale to deal with now, but other than an increased pool of competition, why won't that be the case?

tk421;736419 wrote:That's what I hear all the time from the left anytime someone mentions cutting spending. They bring up the ultra rich and the ultra evil businesses as that would somehow solve our problems. I've just shown that even taking 100% from the top 5% of earners in this country wouldn't fund the government for a single year.

There is no amount at all you can raise taxes that will magically solve our problem. If ...........IF the government would cut spending to a balanced budget and then say we're going to raise taxes on that 1% back to pre 2001 levels, and only use that money to pay down the debt, I'd be all for it. No one has ever said that though, they always parrot tax increases as the only thing we need to do.

You didn't read the article did you? The author never once mentioned raising personal income tax as a panacea for the widening gap problem.

O-Trap;736563 wrote:Why not? I get that we've got a global scale to deal with now, but other than an increased pool of competition, why won't that be the case?

The days of creative minds building wealth and entering the top 1% are over. In order to do so, one requires a huge amount of capital. With the top 1% controlling the wealth and the government, the future Bill Gates' of the world will be stymied at every step of the way.

O-Trap;736562 wrote:I wish wealth was more evenly distributed ... through privately owned social programs, charities, and personal donations out of choice. But the key in that sentence was the last three words.

As I mentioned above, the real problem that many don't realize...the US macroeconomic picture is deteriorating....and it is resulting total stagnation regarding economic growth.

Henry Ford got it right...some 90 years ago....his take......without a middle class, there wouldn't be any people that could afford his product. The US is entering the phase whereby dwindling wages are curtailing any economic growth here in this country.

Footwedge;736571 wrote:The days of creative minds building wealth and entering the top 1% are over. In order to do so, one requires a huge amount of capital. With the top 1% controlling the wealth and the government, the future Bill Gates' of the world will be stymied at every step of the way.

It's still happening now. And while some are not ending up in the top 1%, many are still making fantastic lives for themselves doing just this. Give someone like that enough time, and that foothold can grow ... so long as they manage their money and business correctly. I'm seeing it done now.

Footwedge;736577 wrote:As I mentioned above, the real problem that many don't realize...the US macroeconomic picture is deteriorating....and it is resulting total stagnation regarding economic growth.

Possibly, but markets truly do fluctuate. With an upswing, much of that stagnation can be mobilized.

Footwedge;736577 wrote:Henry Ford got it right...some 90 years ago....his take......without a middle class, there wouldn't be any people that could afford his product. The US is entering the phase whereby dwindling wages are curtailing any economic growth here in this country.

Wages aren't dwindling as much as people are having to live off a lower percentage of their wages.

"Henry Ford got it right...some 90 years ago....his take......without a middle class, there wouldn't be any people that could afford his product. "

Out of curiosity, how many BMW or Four Seasons employees purchase their company's products/services?

This is one of the most hackneyed and silly statements that constantly gets repeated. I didn't use my own law firm when we purchased our house, or got our wills drafted...I wasn't about to pay $500/hour for work that wasn't worth that premium. That doesn't mean other people may wish to pay that premium.

Footwedge;736550 wrote:The point is....you, your economics degree...and your working 90 hours a week will not land you anywhere near the top 1%.

LOL

Pessimistic much? I hope to be part of the .00001%.

sleeper;736784 wrote:LOL

Pessimistic much? I hope to be part of the .00001%.

This is not exactly impressive when using .00001 as an IQ score....

tk421;736419 wrote:That's what I hear all the time from the left anytime someone mentions cutting spending. They bring up the ultra rich and the ultra evil businesses as that would somehow solve our problems. I've just shown that even taking 100% from the top 5% of earners in this country wouldn't fund the government for a single year.

There is no amount at all you can raise taxes that will magically solve our problem. If ...........IF the government would cut spending to a balanced budget and then say we're going to raise taxes on that 1% back to pre 2001 levels, and only use that money to pay down the debt, I'd be all for it. No one has ever said that though, they always parrot tax increases as the only thing we need to do.

I agree with you in principle; however, ONLY taxing the top 5% wouldn't fund the government, but add in the other 95% that would be taxed at current tax rates and it would be more than enough to fund the government. So to say if we taxed the top 1-5% at 100% and it still wouldn't be enough may be true, if that is the only people that were paying taxes. But the other 95% of tax paying citizens would also be contributing.

That being said, I don't think the top 1%, 5%, etc. should be punished just for being more successful, just pointing out that you have to factor everyone in that would be paying taxes in your scenario.

dwccrew;737123 wrote:I agree with you in principle; however, ONLY taxing the top 5% wouldn't fund the government, but add in the other 95% that would be taxed at current tax rates and it would be more than enough to fund the government. So to say if we taxed the top 1-5% at 100% and it still wouldn't be enough may be true, if that is the only people that were paying taxes. But the other 95% of tax paying citizens would also be contributing.

That being said, I don't think the top 1%, 5%, etc. should be punished just for being more successful, just pointing out that you have to factor everyone in that would be paying taxes in your scenario.

Uh, 47% of people don't contribute a damn thing to taxes right now.

What bothers me is the notion that reducing taxes on the top 1% or 2% will somehow create jobs or trickle down to the lower classes. That is a myth, pure and simple. If you give someone at that level a tax break, he/she is just going to put it away and not spend one damn cent more to create jobs.

The amazing thing is listening to the poor fools here who defend the top earners' tax rates. You'd think they were part of that group the way they protest and call anyone else communists or socialists. The truth is they are no better than me. If they were, they'd have better things to do than post on some conservative forum in Ohio, of all places.

They make me laugh.

"The amazing thing is listening to the poor fools here who defend the top earners' tax rates. You'd think they were part of that group the way they protest and call anyone else communists or socialists. "

I might be a fool, but I'm not poor, and it doesn't take either to notice that 50% of Americans don't pay their weight in this country...class warfare goes both ways. We're in an unsustainable path, and you can laugh all you want. We have the worst political class in, at least my, lifetime. We have debts we can't begin to think of payinbg off - even if we tax the top 1% at a 100% rate.

stlouiedipalma;737192 wrote:What bothers me is the notion that reducing taxes on the top 1% or 2% will somehow create jobs or trickle down to the lower classes. That is a myth, pure and simple. If you give someone at that level a tax break, he/she is just going to put it away and not spend one damn cent more to create jobs.

The amazing thing is listening to the poor fools here who defend the top earners' tax rates. You'd think they were part of that group the way they protest and call anyone else communists or socialists. The truth is they are no better than me. If they were, they'd have better things to do than post on some conservative forum in Ohio, of all places.

They make me laugh.

The effects, however, are not entirely bad. This island at the center of the world is where big money from all over comes to get coddled, buffed, managed, preserved, and deployed, or simply to hang out with other money. And as the superrich have created their own ecosystem, they have also helped forge a sophisticated $488.8 billion economy, driven by highly specialized services and full of opportunity. For a city that was never blessed with great natural resources—there are no oil reserves in Brooklyn, no veins of gold in the Bronx, and the weather sucks—their great wealth may prove to be to New York what oil is to Saudi Arabia: a power source of seemingly inexhaustible supply that provides a huge array of jobs and other benefits for nearly everybody else.

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/culture/features/11721/

tk421;737153 wrote:Uh, 47% of people don't contribute a damn thing to taxes right now.

Which is why I clearly stated in my post the other 95% of TAX PAYING CITIZENS, not the other 95% of the US population. Reading comprehension.

Manhattan Buckeye;736703 wrote:"Henry Ford got it right...some 90 years ago....his take......without a middle class, there wouldn't be any people that could afford his product. "

Out of curiosity, how many BMW or Four Seasons employees purchase their company's products/services?

This is one of the most hackneyed and silly statements that constantly gets repeated. I didn't use my own law firm when we purchased our house, or got our wills drafted...I wasn't about to pay $500/hour for work that wasn't worth that premium. That doesn't mean other people may wish to pay that premium.

First off....for being such a brilliant guy, you ought to learn how to use the quote feature....just sayin...

If my statement is so "hackneyed and silly", then I would suggest you take up your argument with Henry Ford's family...not me. With that said....let me just add this. HF doubled the hourly rate to increase his bottom line....a concept that totally escapes you.

And finally.....you and others complain about the 1 percenters having to pay all that tax...yet concede that the middle class shoulders the major burden. Well where exactly are the disposable dollars going to come from for things like cars, carpet, windows, furnaces and air conditioners.... if wages and purchasing power continues to erode?

When Americans don't have disposable income for basic necessities, then the local businesses shut their doors....because they have no customers....and that...is exactly what is going on these days.

stlouiedipalma;737192 wrote:What bothers me is the notion that reducing taxes on the top 1% or 2% will somehow create jobs or trickle down to the lower classes. That is a myth, pure and simple. If you give someone at that level a tax break, he/she is just going to put it away and not spend one damn cent more to create jobs.

The amazing thing is listening to the poor fools here who defend the top earners' tax rates. You'd think they were part of that group the way they protest and call anyone else communists or socialists. The truth is they are no better than me. If they were, they'd have better things to do than post on some conservative forum in Ohio, of all places.

They make me laugh.

I agree to a large extent. The low tax rates for the wealthy (US has one of the most lenient tax rates in the world for the high earners) would be A=OK if reinvested in American interests. But it isn't. The top 1% ers reinvest overseas today. Because...that's where the markets are.

dwccrew;737123 wrote:I agree with you in principle; however, ONLY taxing the top 5% wouldn't fund the government, but add in the other 95% that would be taxed at current tax rates and it would be more than enough to fund the government. So to say if we taxed the top 1-5% at 100% and it still wouldn't be enough may be true, if that is the only people that were paying taxes. But the other 95% of tax paying citizens would also be contributing.

That being said, I don't think the top 1%, 5%, etc. should be punished just for being more successful, just pointing out that you have to factor everyone in that would be paying taxes in your scenario.

Good post to which I would like to expound upon. The middle class continues to shoulder more and more of the responsibility in financing the government. Those that work and pay taxes (many who work do not pay taxes) work longer hours for far less purchasing power. This is truly a sad state of affairs.

Footwedge;737336 wrote:Good post to which I would like to expound upon. The middle class continues to shoulder more and more of the responsibility in financing the government. Those that work and pay taxes (many who work do not pay taxes) work longer hours for far less purchasing power. This is truly a sad state of affairs.

I'm open to hearing where you go with this.

From a percentage basis, I do agree that those in the higher tax brackets should not pay a smaller percentage of their income than the middle class.

Interestingly, if the government shrunk, the tax burden could be evenly disbursed on a percentage basis. That won't happen, though.

O-Trap;737392 wrote:Interestingly, if the government shrunk, the tax burden could be evenly disbursed on a percentage basis. That won't happen, though.

Hence we do not have a taxation equitability issue....we have a Big Government spends too much issue.

O-Trap;737392 wrote:I'm open to hearing where you go with this.

From a percentage basis, I do agree that those in the higher tax brackets should not pay a smaller percentage of their income than the middle class.

Are you saying that you are against any progressiveness at all as it relates to income tax? If so, I would love to debate the suubject with you. Just want to make certain that I have understood your premise.

Not at all. However, I don't consider just anything new or changing to be "progressive." Anything that unjustly places additional burden on a segment of the population through no fault of their own is not something I would consider "progressive," at this point.

dwccrew;737322 wrote:Which is why I clearly stated in my post the other 95% of TAX PAYING CITIZENS, not the other 95% of the US population. Reading comprehension.

So, it's perfectly fine that half of all "taxpayers" don't pay a single thing into the system? I wasn't talking about half of the population, I was talking about the 47% of tax fillers who either don't owe a single thing or get money back. Doesn't exactly scream fair share, now does it?