• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

As Corporate Profits Soar, Workers are Making Less!

Accordiing to Turtledude

The average man is not paying much in taxes and certainly is not paying their share of the federal government expenses in the US

The average man has no excuse in that case

I used to earn between $85K to $31K. If you take about 23% out of your check ya dont have much except for paying off average to sub-par living expenses. If you take 40% of $300,000 you bet your ass you have money to live a very comfortable life. Just as long as you dont have children like the people on welfare and ruin everything.
 
What the hell are you talking about? Name a middle class man who has to give half his income in taxes.

The reason it is impossible for the average middle class man to get by is because he is now working a service sector job since most of the manufacturing industry was outsourced, and he is getting by on a wage that after inflation, is half as much as his father made.

Taxes are included in your purchases, on duties, etc. that are quite apart from what you contribute off your paycheck.

It's difficult to tell now just how long one American has to work to pay their share of the annual federal and state taxes because the trillions in debt have skewed the entire system, but there is no doubt that taxes have gone up post WWII in proportion to the average wage. Or do you think they are the same?
 
I agree fully

Al Gore, John Edwards and soon to be disbarred dem "master of disaster" tort lawyer Stan Chesley all count too. In fact many of the rich politicians who are rich because of government (did you see what Pelosi is worth) are obvious parasites.


Well politicians can be parasitic too
 
Last edited:
Taxes are included in your purchases, on duties, etc. that are quite apart from what you contribute off your paycheck.

It's difficult to tell now just how long one American has to work to pay their share of the annual federal and state taxes because the trillions in debt have skewed the entire system, but there is no doubt that taxes have gone up post WWII in proportion to the average wage. Or do you think they are the same?

Uh huh. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Handly dandy graph, please show the man what I mean.

110.jpg


Oh boy! Feel that burdening tax! Oh wait...its low? How could that be?
 
Last edited:
Oh here is another handy dandy graph. This time I'm including all federal taxes: individual income, payroll, corporate income, excise, etc.

total_federal_graph.png


And state and local income tax burden.

state_graph.png
 
The law of supply and demand is in play. When there are few jobs available and many people vying for those few jobs, income decreases. When we have full or near full employment, pay increases.
 
This is a non-story. It's just the media trying to help Obama and Co. out with their "Corporations should start hiring" message they are pushing. Its really rather sad to watch.
 
This is a non-story. It's just the media trying to help Obama and Co. out with their "Corporations should start hiring" message they are pushing. Its really rather sad to watch.

Only you could argue that the worker's share of the national income falling to a record low is a "non-story".
 
Oh here is another handy dandy graph. This time I'm including all federal taxes: individual income, payroll, corporate income, excise, etc.

total_federal_graph.png


And state and local income tax burden.

state_graph.png

Tax Freedom Day in the UNited States is April 12, which is quite good compared with many other countries.

But this is quite bad.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

The question is how long will Americans have to work to pay off the money they already owe, as well as the accumulating debt?

I don't think they can. It seems they have pissed the American dream away.
 
Critical Thought said:
Only you could argue that the worker's share of the national income falling to a record low is a "non-story".


:shrug: I would. Why should I care that some are wealthy?
 
Last edited:
The law of supply and demand is in play. When there are few jobs available and many people vying for those few jobs, income decreases. When we have full or near full employment, pay increases.

I'm gonna give you a chance to look at these two graphs and to explain why you are wrong.

171-0615071941-shrinkingworkers.jpg


unemployment-history.png


I'll give you a hint. If the two variables are connected as you say they are the two graphs should....
 
Only you could argue that the worker's share of the national income falling to a record low is a "non-story".

It is a non-story. Businesses don't exist to make workers rich, welcome to reality.
 
um. your two graphs above in no way respond to what he is saying - which is that labor exists on the supply/demand curve like everything else.
 
I'm gonna give you a chance to look at these two graphs and to explain why you are wrong.

171-0615071941-shrinkingworkers.jpg


unemployment-history.png


I'll give you a hint. If the two variables are connected as you say they are the two graphs should....



How do you think America can pay off its debts? Will it ever see a balanced budget again?
 
If an owner can hire a full team of all stars at 1 million a player why should he pay more?

Which was the strategy of WH and the Florida marlins in 2003/2007. Wait, they didn't have any all stars:shock:
 
How do you think America can pay off its debts? Will it ever see a balanced budget again?

Exactly what does that have to do with the two graphs I just posted? Your comment came out of left field there buddy. I'll be happy to answer it, but I would like to know the relevance to those graphs.
 
Exactly what does that have to do with the two graphs I just posted?

well, to be fair, his comment was about as relevant as you posting them in the first place.
 
well, to be fair, his comment was about as relevant as you posting them in the first place.

Well that demonstrates how little you know.

The graphs show a direct relationship between unemployment and labor share of national income for every recession but the last one. The last one is an indirect relationship. I'm guessing you can't possibly understand the significance of that at all.
 
Last edited:
Exactly what does that have to do with the two graphs I just posted? Your comment came out of left field there buddy. I'll be happy to answer it, but I would like to know the relevance to those graphs.

You posted those graphs and you want to know their relevance?

My comment did not come out of left field because I mentioned earlier how debt, in regard to how long it takes to work to pay off the annual tax, skews the entire stats. Are you disregarding the debt? Do you have any idea what to do about it, or to where it might lead?

The thread is all about workers making less, and I contend that the problem lies with government and their reckless and irresponsible spending. Your graphs mean nothing unless that is taken into account, as well as annual deficits of over $1 trillion.
 
The graphs show a direct relationship between unemployment and labor share of national income for every recession but the last one.

ah that clicks it into place - i was reading the titles differently.

let's see:

1950: unemployment goes up, labor share goes down
1954: unemployment goes up, labor share goes down
1958: unemployment goes up, labor share goes down
1961: unemployment goes up, labor share spikes and then goes down
1970: unemployment goes up, labor share goes down
1974: unemployment goes up, labor share goes down
1980: unemployment goes up, labor share goes down
1982: unemployment goes up, labor share goes down
1991: unemployment goes up, labor share goes down
2001: unemployment goes up, labor share goes down
2009: unemployment goes up, labor share goes down


well, I sit corrected. those two charts are relevant. they seem to demonstrate that LesGovt was correct, and the price of labor falls as unemployment rises.
 
So if we use that formula for companies losing money, people get salary cuts. Also much of the profit for the largest corporations comes from overseas. Shouldn't we take into account the increase in standard of living throughout the world instead of just looking at the U.S.

And that happens. If business is poor, people get fired and some do take cuts. It happens. Earlier there was talk about balance here in this thread. Business and labor need each other. Balance, farness is important.

As for looking at the rest of the world, which can't really be avoided, I still don't think we want to down grade here too much. Our ambition shouldn't be to have workers working for third world wages.
 
Why do you hate companies making a profit?

That is a good question. Answer is, I want the corporations to take all the marbles home, and let you work for a cup a gruel. I mean whats wrong with that? Whats wrong with the company store and eliminating taxes, let you work for items on their shelf. Whats wrong with that? I think you should be paid with a can of beans. LOL!
 
Back
Top Bottom