• 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!

The 1% will own more than the 99% by 2016, report says

Fenton said:
Dont elect Progressive morons to be your President to start.

Dont sign laws that increase cost on the Middle class , dont raise taxes on the " Rich " just to garner support from low information voters.
Click to expand...

What laws are you talking about that increase costs on the middle class? If you are blaming the ACA it is not the cause. Not having HC coverage is not a savings. How will not raising taxes on the top earners help the rest of us? We tried lowering them and that made things worse. Therefore It seems logical that raising them back would be the most likely cure. Rich employers would be more likely to give their employees a raise with their profits if the had to choose between that or just giving it to Uncle Sam. Use it or lose it is a powerful stimulus.
 
Last edited:
TerryOfromCA said:
But thats what Leftsists want, an all powerful government. They are Socialists, just like their Great Leader the Kenyan
Click to expand...

Actually right now we just want employers to give their employees more raises. Right now they are socking away their increased profits because the tax laws allow are so favorable that they can't resist it. It is unsustainable.
 
iguanaman said:
What laws are you talking about that increase costs on the middle class? If you are blaming the ACA it is not the cause. Not having HC coverage is not a savings. How will not raising taxes on the top earners help the rest of us? We tried lowering them and that made things worse. Therefore It seems logical that raising them back would be the most likely cure. Rich employers would be more likely to give their employees a raise with their profits if the had to choose between that or just giving it to Uncle Sam. Use it or lose it is a powerful stimulus.
Click to expand...


is that what you think?

that the average businessman will think to himself....do i want to pay my employees more, or pay the taxman more?

really? are you really that naive?

this is why that will NEVER work.....NEVER

most businessmen will think to themselves, those goddamn commies.....they want to take more of MY money......and he/she may get more involved politically to try to get the laws changed to LOWER their taxes back

but they would NEVER just give their employees more money......wanna know why?

because they feel every one of my employees is already paid fairly......and why would they give them more for doing exactly what they are doing right now?

The taxes may eventually be lowered by the laws being changed........

Have you ever tried to TAKE money back from employees, once you have given it? doesnt work out so well for management in cases like that

employees tend to feel cheated, and feel that their job may be in jeopardy......not good for business

your use it or lose it proposition is NEVER going to happen......bank on it
 
I don't even know what they mean when they say richest 1% anymore. If it's richest 1% by income globally, most people here are probably in the top 1%. According to this site, the top 1% global income earners are earning at least $32,000 per year. For the US, however, the top 1% in income is about $400,000.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
Actually right now we just want employers to give their employees more raises. Right now they are socking away their increased profits because the tax laws allow are so favorable that they can't resist it. It is unsustainable.
Click to expand...


i have 145 employees

i just gave raises to 133 of them

most employers are giving raises....just not big ones

unless the particular employee has made himself/herself more valuable to the company

i gave 2 employees approx 35% raises....my top two performers of the year

i gave about ten 5-7% raises.....they did better than other employees in the last year...top performers

i gave most of the rest 2-3% raises based on cost of living increases

and i gave zero raise to 12 employees (either too new, or bad reviews/bad performance)
 
iguanaman said:
LOL So what are the Conservative policies that do not lead to income maldistribution? That will be the topic for 2016 so you better get some ready. We certainly can rule out tax cuts for the upper brackets and all the other supply-side claptrap, those are what started it all. You and the GOP are going to need something different.

thebestinequalitygraphupdated-figure1-version3.jpg
Click to expand...
Do you have a graph that doesn't conveniently begin in 1979 and conveniently end in 2007? Thanks.
 
iguanaman said:
So what are the Conservative policies that do not lead to income maldistribution?. . . . .
Click to expand...

The question assumes that there should be any sort of income distribution. This ain't Cuba or the Soviet Union, this is America. You've been reading too many Commie books.
 
Last edited:
Khayembii Communique said:
I don't even know what they mean when they say richest 1% anymore. If it's richest 1% by income globally, most people here are probably in the top 1%. According to this site, the top 1% global income earners are earning at least $32,000 per year. For the US, however, the top 1% in income is about $400,000.
Click to expand...
If you're looking at income. We have a high cost of living though, and most of that income is eaten up by the necessary expenditures to maintain our lifestyles. In terms of wealth, it looks like that site puts it at a net worth of $750,000 to be in the top 1% in terms of wealth.

I think it's also worth pointing out that the top 1% is also unevenly distributed.
 
JANFU said:
So lowering tax for middle class would make them poorer? Higher tax on the rich. That is what Obama was proposing?
Click to expand...


Obama really doesn't care about the Middle class.

If he did he wouldn't have signed ObamaCare, or ALREADY raised taxes on the Rich.

No what he CARES about is trying to push more empty Left wing narratives and trying to score Political points.

Its what motivates him. People suffering and the Middle class shrinking ? He doesn't give a rats ass about that.
 
TerryOfromCA said:
The questions assumes that there should be any sort of income distribution. This ain't Cuba or the Soviet Union, this is America. You've been reading too many Commie books.
Click to expand...
There needs to be income distribution. Money is "grease." It facilitates the transfer of goods and services. If there are significant portions of the population that have no "grease," the transfer of goods and services breaks down. Kids don't get educated. Start-ups can't be boot-strapped. Consumers don't have discretionary income to fuel the economy.

It's as if you were to take a motor and grease only a single bearing, and then expect the motor to work.
 
brothern said:
If you're looking at income. We have a high cost of living though, and most of that income is eaten up by the necessary expenditures to maintain our lifestyles. In terms of wealth, it looks like that site puts it at a net worth of $750,000 to be in the top 1% in terms of wealth.

I think it's also worth pointing out that the top 1% is also unevenly distributed.
Click to expand...

Of course but when one mentions "the top 1%" by income that doesn't take into account cost of living.

As for $750,000 net worth, that seems higher but still isn't as high as those who use the term "1%" try to make it out to be.

I'm just pointing out how strange it is for everyone to be fixated on this magical number.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Of course but when one mentions "the top 1%" by income that doesn't take into account cost of living.

As for $750,000 net worth, that seems higher but still isn't as high as those who use the term "1%" try to make it out to be.

I'm just pointing out how strange it is for everyone to be fixated on this magical number.
Click to expand...
1% is a lot easier to say than the top 0.0063587% or whatever arbitrary number is chosen.
 
Last edited:
Fletch said:
Do you have a graph that doesn't conveniently begin in 1979 and conveniently end in 2007? Thanks.
Click to expand...
I do not but I have data from the early 60's.

Wealth gap has widened

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Over the past 40 years, those at the top of the money food chain have seen their wealth grow at a rate far outpacing everyone else, according to a new analysis released by the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal research group.

In the early 1960s, the top 1 percent of households in terms of net worth held 125 times the median wealth in the United States. Today, that gap has grown to 190 times.

The top 20 percent of wealth-holding households, meanwhile, held 15 times the overall median wealth in the early 1960s. By 2004, that gap had grown to 23 times.

https://www.americanprogress.org/is...the-continuing-struggles-of-the-middle-class/
New Census Bureau data released today illustrate once again the extent to which America’s middle class is struggling to recover from both the Great Recession and the decades of unequal economic growth that preceded it. Household incomes remained essentially flat in 2013—far below their pre-recession levels—and the share of the national economic pie that goes to the middle class continued to stagnate close to record lows. At the same time, those at the very top claimed the majority of the income growth seen since the recession’s end.

View attachment 67179144
 
Fenton said:
Lol...

No he's a Progressive all right

His State of the Union claptrap where he unveils his plans to raise taxes on the " Rich " is just one example.
Click to expand...

Did he not want to raise taxes on the rich from the get-go but the Republicans wanted nothing of it???
 
Middleground said:
Started catching major steam during the Reagan era.
Click to expand...

I am not sure of the years when it changed, but productivity increases generally lead to increased profits and wage increases. That stopped / decreased substantially over the decades.
From what I gather US tax rates are lower than what we pay in Canada. That is a guess though.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
I don't even know what they mean when they say richest 1% anymore. If it's richest 1% by income globally, most people here are probably in the top 1%. According to this site, the top 1% global income earners are earning at least $32,000 per year. For the US, however, the top 1% in income is about $400,000.
Click to expand...

You are off by almost half (and this was 2012). According to Forbes:

Before you can talk about the 1 percent, it’s important to put the figures into perspective by understanding exactly what that figure means. The average annual income of the top 1 percent of the population is $717,000, compared to the average income of the rest of the population, which is around $51,000. The real disparity between the classes isn’t in income, however, but in net value: The 1 percent are worth about $8.4 million, or 70 times the worth of the lower classes.

The 1 percent are executives, doctors, lawyers and politicians, among other things. Within this group of people is an even smaller and wealthier subset of people, 1 percent of the top, or .01 percent of the entire nation. Those people have incomes of over $27 million, or roughly 540 times the national average income. Altogether, the top 1 percent control 43 percent of the wealth in the nation; the next 4 percent control an additional 29 percent.
Click to expand...


Average America vs the One Percent - Forbes
 
JANFU said:
I am not sure of the years when it changed, but productivity increases generally lead to increased profits and wage increases. That stopped / decreased substantially over the decades.
From what I gather US tax rates are lower than what we pay in Canada. That is a guess though.
Click to expand...

Do you not think tax breaks had anything to do with it??? In the 40s, they paid about 90%!
 
Middleground said:
I guess freedom means **** all to you. :(
Click to expand...
What does freedom have to do with it? Am I not free to what I will with what is rightly my own? The anti-freedom crowd are the ones who wish to empower the state to confiscate the wealth of some and pass it out to others. That's despotism. Lining your pockets with the property of others isn't freedom. If you think it is, send me what you have and set me free.
 
JANFU said:
What do you think? The middle class is disappearing. At one time increases in productivity equated to wage increases.
https://fortune.com/2015/01/19/the-1-will-own-more-than-the-99-by-2016-report-says/
The richest 1% of the population will own more than half of the world’s wealth by next year as inequality continues its relentless rise across the globe, a new report out Monday says.

The report, by the U.K.-based charity Oxfam, shows that the top 1% have grown their share of global wealth constantly since 2010. After dipping at 44% in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, it rose to 48% by the end of last year and is poised to top 50% by the end of next year.
Click to expand...

To which the appropriate response is: So what?
 
Fletch said:
What does freedom have to do with it? Am I not free to what I will with what is rightly my own? The anti-freedom crowd are the ones who wish to empower the state to confiscate the wealth of some and pass it out to others. That's despotism. Lining your pockets with the property of others isn't freedom. If you think it is, send me what you have and set me free.
Click to expand...

Money is power. Money corrupts. You put the dots together.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom