• 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!

Originally Posted by apdst
The top 5% of wage earners pay 95% of the taxes.
Click to expand...

The top 5% earners pay more than the bottom 95% earners. The bottom 95% pays 40% in taxes.

The top 1% pay 40% of taxes, the top 2-5% pay 20%; everybody else pays 40%.
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
The top 5% earners pay more than the bottom 95% earners. The bottom 95% pays 40% in taxes.

The top 1% pay 40% of taxes, the top 2-5% pay 20%; everybody else pays 40%.
Click to expand...

The bottom 50% pay nothing, so it's not, "everybody else".
 
Krhazy said:
Articles like this expose the laughability of the claim that rich people shouldn't pay more in taxes because they would then be contributing an amount disproportional to the services they get. The entire system as it currently exists seems to benefit solely the rich.
Click to expand...

that is really stupid. the rich do well no matter what. its the poor who are fed and clothed under our system. Throughout most of history, they would starve
 
Middleground said:
Apart from the 1%, it seems that the American Dream is dead. Sad.
Click to expand...

The American Dream is alive and well. More and more people apparently do not know how to achieve it, but it is still there for those who have the desire and fortitude to go after it.
 
apdst said:
Do you even understand what trickle down economics means?



That's because there was no government involvement. No one is advocating no government involvement. Obviously, there need to be regulations in place to protect workers and businesses, but not so much regulation that it oppresses those same businesses.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do understand, and I see no evidence that it actually trickles down in the context of the discussion . . . , you know . . . , giving them breaks.

And yes, you do seem to be advocating no involvement. But it is good to see that we do need some involvement. But then the argument becomes where is the line and not to remove government. One man's oppression is another man's needed regulation. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes, I do understand, and I see no evidence that it actually trickles down in the context of the discussion . . . , you know . . . , giving them breaks.

And yes, you do seem to be advocating no involvement. But it is good to see that we do need some involvement. But then the argument becomes where is the line and not to remove government. One man's oppression is another man's needed regulation. ;)
Click to expand...

I think that you fail to understand that trickle down economics isn't confined to rich people. Trickle down economics is effected by all income levels, who aren't on government assistance.
 
apdst said:
I think that you fail to understand that trickle down economics isn't confined to rich people. Trickle down economics is effected by all income levels, who aren't on government assistance.
Click to expand...

Trickle down economic only works in two ways. By the rich spending retard amounts of money or by the rich raising wages. Neither is happening nor has happened in quite some time. Not even under Reagan

MrVicchio said:
It is a non-story. Businesses don't exist to make workers rich, welcome to reality.
Click to expand...

When the evil maximum is the most esteemed value, you have a broken society.
 
Last edited:
xpiher said:
When the evil maximum is the most esteemed value, you have a broken society.
Click to expand...

interesting libertarian perspective you have. Corporations exist to make their owners money. And that is not evil. Evil is demanding other people conform to your utopianistic pillowheaded ideals
 
TurtleDude said:
interesting libertarian perspective you have. Corporations exist to make their owners money. And that is not evil. Evil is demanding other people conform to your utopianistic pillowheaded ideals
Click to expand...

Capitalism demands people/society to have a moral backbone. The evil maximum is pursing profit at the cost of everything else. That has become the most esteemed value in our society, and its lead to many of its ills. Go re-read The Wealth of Nations.
 
TurtleDude said:
interesting libertarian perspective you have. Corporations exist to make their owners money. And that is not evil. Evil is demanding other people conform to your utopianistic pillowheaded ideals
Click to expand...

And communities exist for the populations that inhabit them. If a corporation can't have a symbiotic relationship with its community, there's no reason why it should exist in that community.

Why should a nation allow something that hurts them to exist? Usually, we list such things as threats to be monitored, or destroyed.

Capitalism demands people/society to have a moral backbone. The evil maximum is pursing profit at the cost of everything else. That has become the most esteemed value in our society, and its lead to many of its ills. Go re-read The Wealth of Nations.
Click to expand...

Pretty much this.

One of the assumptions behind a capitalist system is that there are qualities and behaviors one can possess that exceed the value of money, and that people who have wealth will also want those qualities (all the more so since they already have wealth). It's one of the qualities that reconcile self-interest with the public good, that eventually a person's self-interest will be satisfied and they can be sincerely interested in the public good.

Wall-Street doesn't give the impression that any amount of money is good enough for its members, that they can turn their attention to other things. The wealthier people get, the greater their compulsion to get more wealthy becomes. It encourages recklessness and greed on a level no civilization can support.

The bottom 50% pay nothing, so it's not, "everybody else".
Click to expand...

Because their salaries are plummeting. And the salaries of the upper income brackets are rising.

You can only tax where the money is.
 
Last edited:
xpiher said:
Trickle down economic only works in two ways. By the rich spending retard amounts of money or by the rich raising wages. Neither is happening nor has happened in quite some time. Not even under Reagan
Click to expand...

Another one that has zero clue of how trickle down economics works.
 
apdst said:
Another one that has zero clue of how trickle down economics works.
Click to expand...

No, that is the way it actually works. Rich person gets more money sends/invest/gives workers higher wages, that spent/invested money increases demand, demand increase job, more jobs means more more demand of most goods, etc... This only works if the money flows down eventually, instead of circulating at the top. If the section with the most money don't do anything with it, trickle down ever happens. Right now, the section with most money is the top 10% and they aren't spending.
 
xpiher said:
No, that is the way it actually works. Rich person gets more money sends/invest/gives workers higher wages, that spent/invested money increases demand, demand increase job, more jobs means more more demand of most goods, etc... This only works if the money flows down eventually, instead of circulating at the top. If the section with the most money don't do anything with it, trickle down ever happens. Right now, the section with most money is the top 10% and they aren't spending.
Click to expand...

I was wrong. You don't not have a clue about how trickle down works. You really don't have a clue about how trickle down works.

By your logic, only the super rich spend money and the rest of us are on welfare. :lamo
 
apdst said:
I was wrong. You don't not have a clue about how trickle down works. You really don't have a clue about how trickle down works.

By your logic, only the super rich spend money and the rest of us are on welfare. :lamo
Click to expand...

No, you are just want to misconstrue something someone says in order to further your argument. Trickle down works only if the sector that has the most money combined spends it. Right now thats not happening, and has happened in quite sometime.
 
xpiher said:
No, you are just want to misconstrue something someone says in order to further your argument. Trickle down works only if the sector that has the most money combined spends it. Right now thats not happening, and has happened in quite sometime.
Click to expand...

Nope, you sure as hell don't get it. :lamo

Trickle down economics occurs when any income bracket spends money.

Example: Today, I bought a steering box for a truck. I bought it from a guy that has his own power steering shop here in town. The money trickled down from my customer, to me and then I spent $550 + taxes with the power steering guy.

Now, some trickle down that didn't occur was that I didn't pay a mechanic to replace the steering box, I did it myself.

That's how trickle down economics happens and it happens at all income levels, except those on government assistance. It's not just rich folks spending money, that's stupid.
 
apdst said:
Nope, you sure as hell don't get it. :lamo

Trickle down economics occurs when any income bracket spends money.

Example: Today, I bought a steering box for a truck. I bought it from a guy that has his own power steering shop here in town. The money trickled down from my customer, to me and then I spent $550 + taxes with the power steering guy.

Now, some trickle down that didn't occur was that I didn't pay a mechanic to replace the steering box, I did it myself.

That's how trickle down economics happens and it happens at all income levels, except those on government assistance. It's not just rich folks spending money, that's stupid.
Click to expand...

No, that not how trickle down economics works. You are confusing the general economy with a specific theory in it. Money circulates in the economy, that's all your example shows. Trickle down works when the money flows down from one portion of the economy to the next lower portion of the economy and only really works when the portion of the economy with the most money spends. The middle class could, as a collective, have more money than the rich, and them spending money will trickle down to the poor, but this is not what is happening because the majority of the wealth is in 1 sector of the economy and is staying there.
 
Last edited:
Trickle-down is the theory that if more tax breaks are given to those at the top of the economic ladder, they in turn will utilize that money through investment, the creation of new businesses, and to a lesser extent consumerism. However, such a policy does not work because those at the top tend to concentrate their money rather than investing in new areas of business. One of the probelms the economy is now facing is that companies are just sitting on their money rather than creating jobs. The whole system has come to a stop because since our economy relies on consumer spending (3/4 of the economy) and consumerism is down due to high unemployment.

Growth-based economics postulates that if more tax breaks are given to the Middle Class, more of this money will be recirculated into the system and keep the economy going. Because unlike most of those at the top, the Middle Class do not as individuals possess enough capital to invest largely in overseas operations or what have you, thus they spend on comforts and wants and this stimulates the economy. Look at it this way, if 5 people each have 5 million and they are to buy a new car, there are only 5 new cars sold to stimulate the economy. However, if you take that $25 million and spread it out over a much larger population, say 100, then rather than only 5 new cars purchased there have instead been 100 new cars purchased and thus more jobs are supported and rather than being left out, the wealthy make money when their products are sold.
 
tlmorg02 said:
Growth-based economics postulates that if more tax breaks are given to the Middle Class, more of this money will be recirculated into the system and keep the economy going. Because unlike most of those at the top, the Middle Class do not as individuals possess enough capital to invest largely in overseas operations or what have you, thus they spend on comforts and wants and this stimulates the economy. Look at it this way, if 5 people each have 5 million and they are to buy a new car, there are only 5 new cars sold to stimulate the economy. However, if you take that $25 million and spread it out over a much larger population, say 100, then rather than only 5 new cars purchased there have instead been 100 new cars purchased and thus more jobs are supported and rather than being left out, the wealthy make money when their products are sold.
Click to expand...

What's the difference between a millionaire starting a factory in China and a million people shopping at WalMart? I'll tell ya, a circus freak show. And that place sells guns, that's frightening.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
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....
Click to expand...

Thanks for the opportunity to see your charts. Sorry, but I believe there is more to the story of the charts you present than what you are saying. Common sense says that if companies are begging for employees, I can get more in salary or wages than if there were a hundred people applying for that same job. If you disagree with this, please explain why you do. Thanks.
 
MrVicchio said:
Do you really think politicians give a rats ass about you? Social Welfare programs exist for one reason: To bribe you with "gold from the treasury" for you votes. They aren't taking care of you; they're USING you.

And another thing, Corporations provide jobs, sustainable jobs, you can invest in them, purchase their services or goods, or you can choose not to do any of the above. Government has the force of law to ensure you behave a certain way.
Click to expand...

I have to ask you a few questions, as frankly I am perplex & puzzled here. Seriously

1. Do you think a person worth 5 million needs social welfare programs, or for that matter could qualify for benefits?
2. Are you a selfish greedy bastard when other people's money is being spent to help others?
3. Is your scope of the world, your brain power (logic, reasoning, conclusions) so small you actually think social welfare programs exist for one reason?
4 Do you actually believe corporations care about you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom