Should US wealth be redistributed?

[jnsaver]

Yes, the Clinton Era was good.

But that doesn't mean that the problems we have now weren't under the surface the whole time. If we're to learn anything from the last five years, it's that throwing money at problems doesn't solve them. Isn't this why we're branded by the rest of the world as "stupid Americans?"

Also, does anyone really know if things got better as a result of taxing the rich rather that the emergence of the internet creating a more profitable enviornment for small businesses? It was called a tech boom, not a tax boom.

[cercis]

You said 1 year and filing bankruptcy is not an indication of poverty.

I see bankruptcies all the time when people are not poverty stricken. People who have made good money their whole lives.

As for violent crime? Any one with money is highly likely to be victims of violent crime, especially when it's published that they have money. As for committing violent crime? Yeah, that's a function of a lot of things, and growing up in poverty is only part of it. And believe me, rich people commit violent crimes, but somehow it isn't published as much. I did a search on the court system in OK and was shocked at who had been prosecuted for various crimes.

Let me ask you on the bankruptcies - were they chap 7 or chap 13? It makes a difference.

[VJW]

Originally Posted by jnsaver

But pay attention to places where it sucks to be poor. Pay attention to hip hop culture. Pay attention to people who just got out of jail. Pay attention to urban youth. Pay attention to the local drug dealer on the corner...

According to the Justice Department:

The majority of drug users are White and suburban. The majority of crime is committed by Whites. The majority of Violent Crime is committed by Whites.

Your views are skewed.

Yes, the Clinton Era was good. But that doesn't mean that the problems we have now weren't under the surface the whole time.

Nonsense.

Everything was going in opposite directions:

* During the first period, real wages were rising every year. During the second period, real wages were falling every year.

* During the first period, poverty was declining every year. During the second period, poverty increased every year.

* During the first period, shrinking federal budget deficits turned into surpluses. During the second period, federal budget surpluses turned into massive deficits.

* During the first period, unemployment fell as the national workforce expanded. During the second period, the Unemployment Rate fell as more jobless workers became the Long-term Unemployed, as the national workforce contracted.

If we're to learn anything from the last five years, it's that throwing money at problems doesn't solve them.

Exactly.

Throwing money at the Rich & Corporate has NEVER worked economically.

Also, does anyone really know if things got better as a result of taxing the rich rather that the emergence of the internet creating a more profitable enviornment for small businesses? It was called a tech boom, not a tax boom.

The economy turned in late 1993. There wasn’t widespread dial-up internet access until 1995-1996, and the internet economy was a tiny fraction of the overall national economy for years after that.

Not to mention, according to the IRS, the majority of the increased income tax revenue, which was used to pay down the federal debt, arose from the tax increases on that top 1.2% of taxpayers (who, by the way, also simultaneously increased their prosperity).

#

[jnsaver]

Originally Posted by VJW

According to the Justice Department:

The majority of drug users are White and suburban. The majority of crime is committed by Whites. The majority of Violent Crime is committed by Whites.

Your views are skewed.





Nonsense.

Everything was going in opposite directions:

* During the first period, real wages were rising every year. During the second period, real wages were falling every year.

* During the first period, poverty was declining every year. During the second period, poverty increased every year.

* During the first period, shrinking federal budget deficits turned into surpluses. During the second period, federal budget surpluses turned into massive deficits.

* During the first period, unemployment fell as the national workforce expanded. During the second period, the Unemployment Rate fell as more jobless workers became the Long-term Unemployed, as the national workforce contracted.





Exactly.

Throwing money at the Rich & Corporate has NEVER worked economically.





The economy turned in late 1993. There wasn’t widespread dial-up internet access until 1995-1996, and the internet economy was a tiny fraction of the overall national economy for years after that.

Not to mention, according to the IRS, the majority of the increased income tax revenue, which was used to pay down the federal debt, arose from the tax increases on that top 1.2% of taxpayers (who, by the way, also simultaneously increased their prosperity).

#

I think you are skewing what was said as well as the statistics. The first comment is subject to a baseline fallacy. Of course whites do most of everything; there are more whites than there are of anyone else. Baseline fallacies are one reason why we can have two contradictory statistics in this country at once: while most people suffering of diabetes are white, blacks are more likely to become diabetic. That's because a small percentage of whites might actually include more people than a large percentage of blacks. You can check on that at the Office of Minority Health website. You thinly accuse me of racism, but I ask you what is more racist: ignoring de facto racism and pretending people don't have problems or blatantly pointing out that real problems exist that are completely independent of money?

The descriptive comments about the economy try turn correlation into causation. I have admitted that things were good in the Clinton era and things haven't been so hot during the Bush era. Enough about that already. During both eras there have been millions of changes and milestones that neither president were responsible for. It's probably more likely that one of these changes or milestones was more responsible for good times and bad times than any particular person. Will presidents try to take responsibility for these things? You bet, that's politics. But all of their claims don't really mean anything. Clinton was not really responsible for the tech boom and Bush is not really responsible for the fact that we haven't been attacked since 2001. Additionally economists believe that it take several months to years for any public policy to impact the ecomomy. Poor policy during the Reagan years dragged down the economy during the Bush years. It's more likely that the expense and stupidity of the Monica Lewinsky cr*and the near impeachment of the president caused the economic downturn five years ago. It's likely that the true expense of this war, the tax cuts for the rich and impact of Katrina may not be felt for many many years . . . maybe even when a Democrat, an Independent, a Libertarian is in office.

[jnsaver]

Also, I'm not advocating throwing money at the rich. I'm advocating creating an enviornment condusive to small businesses. Affirm individualism in the middle class to fix problems at the community level, rather than throwing money at poor people on the national level and hoping everything will turn out ok.

[jnsaver]

Originally Posted by cercis

You said 1 year and filing bankruptcy is not an indication of poverty.

I see bankruptcies all the time when people are not poverty stricken. People who have made good money their whole lives.

As for violent crime? Any one with money is highly likely to be victims of violent crime, especially when it's published that they have money. As for committing violent crime? Yeah, that's a function of a lot of things, and growing up in poverty is only part of it. And believe me, rich people commit violent crimes, but somehow it isn't published as much. I did a search on the court system in OK and was shocked at who had been prosecuted for various crimes.

Let me ask you on the bankruptcies - were they chap 7 or chap 13? It makes a difference.

Read the articles. Just google it. There aren't details about the bankruptcies, but I believe they were chapter 7s for the most part.

Actually people with less money are more likely to be victims of violent crime. I know this because people with less money are more likely to have PTSD than people with more money. PTSD is usually the result of being the victim of or witnessing a violent situation. Rates of PTSD in poor urban areas are more than comprable to rates of PTSD among soldiers who have just gotten back from war. Additionally people with PTSD due to violent crimes are more likely to become repeat crime victims.

Anyway, read the articles. These people say that their lives are worse after winning the lottery than it was before they won. Also, if EVERYONE who earns less than $8000 a year won the lottery, how long do you think it would take before 50% of these people or their progeny filed for bankruptcy? I think it would be wayyyyyyy less than 5 years.

[cercis]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. You still believe everyone can either live the american dream or it's too late for them, so why should we even try.

I believe that we're creating two radically divided classes and are going to end up with massive revolt from the lower class.

I also believe that a large portion of our problems could be solved with 2 things - 1) good nutrition assured for everyone (our last school provided free breakfast to all the kids based on the idea that if it was free for all, no parent would be too embarrassed to apply for free or reduced meals) and 2) free medical care so that women can be taken care of while pg and so people can maintain their health from cradle to grave. People who are chronically malnutritioned and sick are going to be kept down.

[VJW]

Originally Posted by jnsaver

I think you are skewing what was said as well as the statistics.

I’m afraid not. You “think” wrong.

Of course whites do most of everything; there are more whites than there are of anyone else.

Which is why it is a MUCH larger problem for the nation.

You thinly accuse me of racism...

Not at all. No “thinly” accusation by me. Your use of code words, phrases, and false stereotypes is rather blatant.

I have admitted that things were good in the Clinton era and things haven't been so hot during the Bush era. Enough about that already.

Why, because it reinforces the point rather effectively ?

During both eras there have been millions of changes and milestones that neither president were responsible for. It's probably more likely that one of these changes or milestones was more responsible for good times and bad times than any particular person.

To the contrary, I think it exemplifies the importance of just who is at the helm of the ship of state.

Clinton was not really responsible for the tech boom

Never claimed he was, but the so-called “tech boom” was not responsible for the economy.

and Bush is not really responsible for the fact that we haven't been attacked since 2001.

That’s rather obvious, since there have been no terrorist attacks stopped in progress since the numerous ones prior to the Millennium.

Additionally economists believe that it take several months to years for any public policy to impact the ecomomy.

Those “economists” are documentably wrong.

Poor policy during the Reagan years dragged down the economy during the Bush years. It's more likely that the expense and stupidity of the Monica Lewinsky cr*and the near impeachment of the president caused the economic downturn five years ago.

Sorry, but no. Your chronology is way off.

The bogus attempt at impeachment was in ’98, the economy was strong through 2000. President Clinton left office with the highest approval rating of any President since FDR, and Consumer Confidence was still at historic record high levels up until the November 2000 election.

It's likely that the true expense of this war, the tax cuts for the rich and impact of Katrina may not be felt for many many years . . . maybe even when a Democrat, an Independent, a Libertarian is in office.

They have already had quite an impact. For example, the "tax cuts for the rich" caused the switch from surplus to deficits beginning in 2001.

#

[VJW]

Originally Posted by jnsaver

Also, I'm not advocating throwing money at the rich. I'm advocating creating an enviornment condusive to small businesses. Affirm individualism in the middle class to fix problems at the community level

Translation: I got mine, screw you, everybody else, you’re on your own.

rather than throwing money at poor people on the national level and hoping everything will turn out ok.

As opposed to throwing FAR MORE money at Corporate America and the wealthy, which has already proven not to work ?

#

[Bruce Wayne]

I know VJW doesn't really like to listen to examples from across the pond but Britain is a highly taxed country similar to that advocated by him so is a useful example of what America could become.

The government here takes almost 50% of GDP in taxes, with the average individual taxed over 30% of their income each year. We have healthcare and education that is free at the point of service. Standards in both are falling whilst expenditure on management and administration has doubled in the past decade. The government continue to tax the private (wealth creating) sector to fund these schemes and is on the verge of sending the economy downhill fast as there is so little incentive to try and make money.

The welfare system is such that a couple with children can happily live with all modern conviniences without having to pay rent, tax or any of the other things working people are burdened with.

Public sector workers are being hired in their thousands to deflect from poor unemployment statistics and the government are awarding these workers above average pay and vastly superior pension schemes (private sector workers get a state pension at 68, public sector workers get it at 60!) that will burden the tax payer for decades to come.

The efficiency of the economy is dropping like a stone as the government pilfers money from the private sector and spends vast sums on inefficient public projects. The UK economy is now on a par with Europe, which also likes high tax policies, whilst the rest of the world speeds away from us in productivity and success.

And what do you get for the increased tax spend? In 1997 when Labour came into power you had free university education for all, free dental care, free eye tests. Now, despite tax doubling in the eight years since, students are charged £3,000 a year to attend university, dental care is effectively privatised and eye tests are very difficult to obtain. I'm happy to pay these fees myself but am much less happy to be taxed twice as much for services that are declining.

Voter turnout is dropping with the Labour victory this year achieved with less than 25% of the populations votes. Wealthy sectors of the UK (ie England) actually voted for the Conservative party but the poor sectors of Britain (Scotland, Wales etc.) bumped up the Labour vote to get them into office for another term.

We live in a system where you get officials you didn't vote for and don't listen to you deciding how much of your money you get to keep and how much of your money is spent on things you don't neccessarily need and don't neccessarily want.

Think very seriously before you follow our path.

[VJW]

Originally Posted by Bruce Wayne

I know VJW doesn't really like to listen to examples from across the pond but Britain is a highly taxed country similar to that advocated by him...

I’ve never advocated a “highly taxed country”. I’ve advocated that the woefully undertaxed wealthy and corporate pay their fair share of the tax burden. I’ve advocated that taxes be lowered on the Middle-class and Working Poor.

A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ARGUMENT.

America has had much higher taxation on the wealthy and corporate twice in the 20th Century, from 1993 through 2000, and in the late 1950s/early 1960s. They were the greatest period of economic prosperity ever in our nation’s history, and the second greatest period of economic prosperity ever in our nation’s history, respectfully.

Think very seriously before you follow our path.

I’ve never advocated to “follow” your “path”. Do try and pay attention.

Your ‘Straw Man’ argument is quite transparent.

#

[Bruce Wayne]

Conversely in the 1970's the upper tax level was 50%, with corporation tax set at 52% and a base tax level of 32% and it coincided with mass unemployment and the infamous 'winter of discontent'. This event was triggered partly because the Labour government of the time wanted to control the rate at which pay could rise, resulting in mass strikes throughout the nation.

This period assisted the Conservative party of Margaret Thather in entering government, which coincided with Britains period of economic growth as things like share ownership and home ownership rose throughout the 80's.

[dealsaver]

I can't believe this is an actual topic. No wait, I guess I can. People with a looter's mentality have always been with us and always will be. They either want what you have or they want to give away what you have to others who they feel are more deserving. Beware the looters.

[cercis]

Or maybe they look around and see that some people have an entitlement mentality and have figured out how to get paid more than 450x the average salary of "normal" people and justify it based on "that's what other people get paid".

They've figured out how to get the "help" they need from employees for minimum wage (because people have to have a job and if all they can get is minimum wage or $8/hr, they'll take it and be grateful, other people have nothing). Thereby ensuring that there are people who are hungry and have no medical care. Ensuring that their kids will be malnutritioned and unable to get the things they need to progress further (which doesn't mean some don't, it just means that they have to be a special person).

It has been proven that kids who do not get good nutrition have lower IQs. Why? Because their brains didn't develop to their full potential. How important is IQ? It depends. If your genetic potential is 140 and you don't get there but instead get to 130, it isn't so important. If you genetic potential is 100 and you only get to 90, it's darned important.

Children with parents who are middle-middle class and up generally get the nutrition they need and reach their full genetic potential. They may not live the american dream of doing better than their parents, but they probably won't sink into poverty. Kids who have parents who are lower-middle class and below are less likely to get the nutrition they need and are more likely to sink into poverty and less likely to be able to rise above it. They, quite frankly, do not develop the intelligence they could have (and like I said, some do end up with higher than average IQs, but it wasn't their genetic potential).

There are those of us who feel that we live in a country who used to believe you took care of each other. We believe that no one should be malnutritioned. And we believe that if you are benefitting very heavily in a company where you control the wages of those below you, you should either ensure they have a living wage or be prepared to pay taxes to provide for their minimal needs.

It is unconscionable that we have CEOs making millions of dollars while their employees are struggling just to eat. The CEO and board members of the company I worked for actually got 7 figure bonuses when they laid us all off. They took away our jobs (because the company couldn't afford it) and then got bonuses that would have paid all of our salaries for several years. It didn't mind so much for myself, DH was a SAHD and was able to find a job at roughly the same salary, most of my co-workers weren't so lucky. We were a somewhat specialized field and there just weren't that many jobs in our field in our town. They couldn't just up and move, their spouses had jobs they couldn't leave. They ended up sinking into major debt while they struggled to find any job - not even walmart of mcdonalds would hire them (they won't unless you lie about your education and experience, if you're too educated or experienced they don't want to hire you because you'll clearly leave as soon as you find a job in your field).

I happen to think that if you are laying people off, then you should be prepared to give up your bonus and even forego a raise (or maybe even take a cut in pay). Not start by taking away jobs.

And if you're not prepared to do that, oh well, pay enough in taxes so that they can at least have health insurance and food. No one NEEDS 7 figure salaries. I'd go so far as to say, no one is worth a 7 figure salary.

[VJW]

There was actually a news story a while ago about a bunch of CEOs complaining that their employees aren’t as loyal to their companies as they used to be.

DUH.

#

[VJW]

Originally Posted by Bruce Wayne

Conversely in the 1970's the upper tax level was 50%, with corporation tax set at 52% and a base tax level of 32% and it coincided with mass unemployment and the infamous 'winter of discontent'. This event was triggered partly because the Labour government of the time wanted to control the rate at which pay could rise, resulting in mass strikes throughout the nation.

This period assisted the Conservative party of Margaret Thather in entering government, which coincided with Britains period of economic growth as things like share ownership and home ownership rose throughout the 80's.

Further evidence that attempting to draw conclusions by comparing completely different situations is silly.

#

[Bruce Wayne]

Originally Posted by VJW

Further evidence that attempting to draw conclusions by comparing completely different situations is silly.

#

You wanted to tax the wealthy more and I showed you an example of when this happened in Britain, a country very similar to America. How is that a different situation?

As for the ceo's earning too much thing I'd like to add a couple of points.

Firstly, running a large company isn't an easy thing to do so ceo's deserve a good wage (plus of course the company wants the best ceo so has to compete in the marketplace for ceo's and pay competitive salaries etc.). Of course the same labour market works further down the chain too, so if you have skills that are in demand you will be paid very well. If you have skills that are not in demand (relative to supply) then you won't get paid so well.

Secondly life isn't fair. Ceo's got where they are partly through skill, partly through luck, partly through connections etc. and they, along with other people like pro athletes, are paid large sums for doing what they do. Life will never be fair because human beings simply aren't designed that way. A person working in government is no more likely to be fair and just than a person working for a corporation. The difference is that choice is more readily available with corporations.

The point I'm trying to make is that sometimes life sucks, sometimes you don't get what you deserve, but instead of complaining or expecting other people to run your life for you, you have to get on and do it yourself. It's your life, no one elses and you shouldn't feel as though you are owed a life by anyone else.

The price of food is a poor excuse for failure as it is cheaper than almost any time in the past and more readily available. Of course it could be much cheaper if governments stopped subsidising their farmers and allowed competition from third world countries, but then many farmers would complain about the loss of livelyhood etc., just as many other companies and industries do when the threat of less favourable trade terms are mentioned.

[VJW]

Originally Posted by Bruce Wayne

You wanted to tax the wealthy more and I showed you an example of when this happened in Britain, a country very similar to America. How is that a different situation?

The differences are numerous.

* In the 1990s, the top tax rate was increased from 33% to 39.6%

* The top tax rate in America only applies to the top 1.2% of taxpayers, whereas the top tax rate in Britain applies to a much broader swath of the populous.

* The Corporate Tax rate was increased from 30% to 35%, far lower than in Britain. Not to mention that the vast majority of Corporate America pays little or no income taxes.


* Britain’s entire tax system is overall a lot more regressive, because of the VAT.

The differences continue.

As for the ceo's earning too much thing I'd like to add a couple of points.

Firstly, running a large company isn't an easy thing to do so ceo's deserve a good wage (plus of course the company wants the best ceo so has to compete in the marketplace for ceo's and pay competitive salaries etc.).

If they are concerned with “competitive salaries” for CEOs, then why do American companies pay CEOs TWENTY to FIFTY times what their competitors pay CEOs in Japan and Europe ?

#

[Bruce Wayne]

I doubt US ceo's are paid quite that much more than European ceo's as it wouldn't be competitive. Many leading ceo's in Britain are paid £10m per year + so by your reasoning an American ceo would be earning £500m+. Sorry, but I simply cannot believe that at all.

[jmjj215]

We're back on executive compensation again. Didn't we already discuss this?