Census finds record gap between rich and poor

Conservative · Oct 25, 2010

Gray_Fox_86 said:
The government creates a lot of millionaires. Look at my city-and this goes around the whole nation-my mayor gives construction jobs to her friends. Who then charge the city a large amount for the job being done even though it would not cost that by any other construction company. Then the mayor gets bribes from the job done and her friends all end up being rich.

Thus the problem, govt. corruption, yet there are those here that continue to blame private industry for corruption. People have a choice where to spend their money with private business. Try doing that with your federal, state, or local taxes. I have no respect for public sector corruption and choose not to support private sector companies that engage in corruption.

All this class envy is a waste of time when the focus should be on the waste, fraud, and abuse of our taxdollars. Instead of focusing on increasing govt. revenue why aren't more people focused on where the money is spent and eliminating the waste, fraud, abuse, and govt. dependence?

FederalRepublic · Oct 25, 2010

donc said:
I would suggest that you go back and read the threads that I was responding to. Starting at #838, then it might sink in. Then again,perhaps it won’t.:shrug:

While we're making suggestions, I would suggest you go back and read...

TurtleDude said:
....most consumption tax proposals exempt necessities...

...and then do a little research on sales taxes. Groceries are non-taxable items, and I'm pretty sure that includes a $2 loaf of bread.

Conservative · Oct 25, 2010

FederalRepublic said:
While we're making suggestions, I would suggest you go back and read...

...and then do a little research on sales taxes. Groceries are non-taxable items, and I'm pretty sure that includes a $2 loaf of bread.

Wonder what motivates individuals to support a policy of higher targeted tax increases and the socialist agenda. Do these people really understand what is headed this direction? Maybe this will help but somehow I doubt it.

Current European tax rates:

United Kingdom
Income Tax: 50% VAT: 17.5% TOTAL: 67.5%

France
Income Tax: 40% VAT: 19.6% TOTAL: 59.6%

Greece
Income Tax: 40% VAT: 25% TOTAL: 65%

Spain
Income Tax: 45% VAT: 16% TOTAL: 61%

Portugal
Income Tax: 42% VAT: 20% TOTAL: 62%

Sweden
Income Tax: 55% VAT: 25% TOTAL: 80%

Norway
Income Tax: 54.3% VAT: 25% TOTAL: 79.3%

Netherlands
Income Tax: 52% VAT: 19% TOTAL: 71%

Denmark
Income Tax: 58% VAT: 25% TOTAL: 83%

Finland
Income Tax: 53% VAT: 22% TOTAL: 75%

phattonez · Oct 25, 2010

Boo Radley said:
That do what? Not following you.

Is welfare a socialist program? What about minimum wage? How about municipal ownership of water companies?

Wall Street ran riot, enthusing that the boom would never end and that share prices would never fall. Levels of debt, leverage and of so-called margin trading (buying shares with borrowed money) rose to astonishing levels - fuelling yet more demand and more confidence. But, partly because recession-hit Europe could not pay its international bills with the gold that was the anchor of the financial system and partly because the banks were overstretched, suddenly optimism turned to wariness - and then panic. Stocks were sold; depositors hoarded their cash; and banks toppled in the United States and Europe like ninepins.

Because interest rates were manipulated by the government.

This was the father and mother of credit crunches. The US fell into depression - and Europe was not immune. Britain left the gold standard and launched the imperial preference system of tariffs for countries in the British empire.

Britain was not on the gold standard during the 1920s.

What Has Government Done to Our Money? The Gold Exchange Standard (Britain and the U.S.) 1926-1931 - - Mises Institute

A short history of capitalism's rise and fall | Business | The Observer

And so — here is the part libertarians will hate — markets, entirely of their own accord, will sometimes capsize and be unable to right themselves completely for years at a stretch. (See: Japan, “lost decade” of.) Nor can monetary policy be counted on to counteract markets’ tippy tendencies, as so many economists had come to believe.

The Lost Decade occurred because of government interventions!

Alas, economists and policy makers got cocksure. They thought they had consigned depressions to history. As a result, they missed warning signs and failed to prepare for the worst. “We are learning,” Posner writes, “that we need a more active and intelligent government to keep our model of a capitalist economy from running off the rails.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/books/review/Rauch-t.html

We've had the best and the brightest since FDR. The big news: it hasn't done any good. Fiscal and monetary policies have done nothing.

Christina Romer said:
These comparisons show essentially no decline in the severity of cycles between the prewar and postwar eras. They also show little change in the duration and frequency of cycles over time. Thus, much of our apparent success at eliminating the business cycle seems to be a figment of the data.

Business Cycles, by Christina D. Romer: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

I still recommend you get a good history book.

And I recommend you get off your high horse.

In partisan fanasty land.

Democrats believe it, and Republicans believe it. Capitalism, they say, has flaws, and would do better with a top-heavy system that treats people more fairly. It's why you won't hear any Republicans say anything bad about free roads or social security and other things.

ender1 · Oct 25, 2010

FederalRepublic said:
Are you saying that private individuals and businesses behave more selfishly than politicians?

No, but Macro Economics is very different than talking about a Tax policy. While a Tax policy can effect the economy of a country Macro Economics is more broad and deals with things like GDP and growth.

ender1 · Oct 25, 2010

TurtleDude said:
well most consumption tax proposals exempt necessities

See thats the rub. You let peole start making exemptions and you end up where we are today.

Who decides what the exemptions are? Please dont say Washington.

Donc · Oct 25, 2010

FederalRepublic said:
While we're making suggestions, I would suggest you go back and read...

...and then do a little research on sales taxes. Groceries are non-taxable items, and I'm pretty sure that includes a $2 loaf of bread.

If you say so but I cant find that at this site, which I think is the biggest far/flat tax going.Perhaps you can find it for me?

Like I told TurtleDude, I think that this is worth looking into but it will take some tinkering and fine tuning.:2wave:

Americans For Fair Taxation:

FederalRepublic · Oct 25, 2010

donc said:
If you say so but I cant find that at this site, which I think is the biggest far/flat tax going.Perhaps you can find it for me?

Like I told TurtleDude, I think that this is worth looking into but it will take some tinkering and fine tuning.:2wave:

Americans For Fair Taxation:

After looking at your link, this particular proposal does not exempt groceries. Rather, they have a monthly tax rebate:

"The FairTax actually eliminates and reimburses all federal taxes for those below the poverty line. This is accomplished through the universal prebate and by eliminating the highly regressive FICA payroll tax. Today, low and moderate income Americans pay far more in FICA taxes than income taxes."

Personally, I think it would be better to have non-taxable items than have a "prebate", but it's the same principle and either way, you're incorrect to say that this would increase taxes on lower income people.

FederalRepublic · Oct 25, 2010

ender1 said:
No, but Macro Economics is very different than talking about a Tax policy. While a Tax policy can effect the economy of a country Macro Economics is more broad and deals with things like GDP and growth.

....and now to the meat of the discussion. Macro economics, GDP and growth. You are the one who described it: "...in a free trade system, then things will try to balance out. Jobs and income will flow from the wealthy...to the less wealthy..." That describes, exactly, trickle down economics. You call it macro economics, which I think is more accurate. It's the way things work in a free market. Sure, we have to temper it with some sort of rules, but more does not necessarily equal better when it comes to rules. You also point that out for me:

"See thats the rub. You let peole start making exemptions and you end up where we are today."

I can pretty much make my entire argument against you in your words. It's like you have a devil (someone like Boo) and an angel (someone like me) sitting on either shoulder and you take turns with them posting their thoughts. It's very strange, but comes in handy for me in a forum like this.

Donc · Oct 25, 2010

FederalRepublic said:
After looking at your link, this particular proposal does not exempt groceries. Rather, they have a monthly tax rebate:

"The FairTax actually eliminates and reimburses all federal taxes for those below the poverty line. This is accomplished through the universal prebate and by eliminating the highly regressive FICA payroll tax. Today, low and moderate income Americans pay far more in FICA taxes than income taxes."

Personally, I think it would be better to have non-taxable items than have a "prebate", but it's the same principle and either way, you're incorrect to say that this would increase taxes on lower income people.

I did not say <that would increase taxes on lower income people.>

i did say that <fair tax” that is being touted, is anything but fair>though.:2wave:

mertex · Oct 25, 2010

Harshaw said:
No. I said they never forced any money from you. Speaking of making things up . . .

Word challenged? Forcing money from me or taking money from me means the same thing.

Indeed you did:

This is what I said:
Shows how little you know. When they are able to pay taxes at a lower rate, that sure isn't giving me money! They are benefitting from our government, and I am paying a higher rate to support their benefits.

Paying a higher rate does not equate to paying higher taxes. They pay higher taxes, but they are being taxed at a lower rate.

Probably, if this is the quality of your bringin' it.

On second thought, that might still be too challenging for you.

TurtleDude · Oct 25, 2010

mertex said:
Word challenged? Forcing money from me or taking money from me means the same thing.

This is what I said:
Shows how little you know. When they are able to pay taxes at a lower rate, that sure isn't giving me money! They are benefitting from our government, and I am paying a higher rate to support their benefits.

Paying a higher rate does not equate to paying higher taxes. They pay higher taxes, but they are being taxed at a lower rate.

On second thought, that might still be too challenging for you.

the people you whine about pay for far more than they use. if they get tax cuts they still pay for far more than they use

Guy Incognito · Oct 25, 2010

TurtleDude said:
the people you whine about pay for far more than they use. if they get tax cuts they still pay for far more than they use

:rofl

That is the quote of the day, easily. Every time the government protects those same people from having all their stuff stolen, they are "using" it. Every time they collect a royalty or earn income from a patent they are "using" government-enforced protections. Every time they hide behind corporate personhood to avoid personal liability for their negligent actions in their businesses (thus preserving their assets from a civil judgement), they are "using" the government. The rich use the government to shield billions from legitimate civil judgments. Shall I go on?

TD, the rich get far more use out of the government than the poor do. It takes a pathetically shallow understanding of economics to think otherwise.

FederalRepublic · Oct 25, 2010

donc said:
I did not say <that would increase taxes on lower income people.>

i did say that <fair tax” that is being touted, is anything but fair>though.:2wave:

You didn't say that would increase taxes on lower income people? :2wave:

donc said:
A forty-cent Federal tax, in addition to state and local taxes, on a two-dollar loaf of bread would sure get the underachievers humping wouldn’t it?:2wave:

Just for good measure...:2wave::2wave:

TurtleDude · Oct 25, 2010

Guy Incognito said:
:rofl

That is the quote of the day, easily. Every time the government protects those same people from having all their stuff stolen, they are "using" it. Every time they collect a royalty or earn income from a patent they are "using" government-enforced protections. Every time they hide behind corporate personhood to avoid personal liability for their negligent actions in their businesses (thus preserving their assets from a a civil judgement), they are "using" the government. Shall I go on?

TD, the rich get far more use out of the government than the poor do. It takes a pathetically shallow understanding of economics to think otherwise.

I guess you haven't done much research-police calls in almost every major city are far more likely in poor areas

most of those who are the victim of crime are not the rich. rich people live in safe areas, with good police departments paid for by property taxes. they tend to have alarms and in some cases private guards. many of them are well armed

your claims are pathetically shallow and given 47% pay no FEDERAL INCOME TAX its going to take some Obama math on your part to explain how 47% pay for less than they use and the rich pay for less than they use etc

the rich have to pay for far more than they use because just about everyone else does not

you just make stuff up and assume its true

I want you to prove your claims that the rich use more

you cannot

but its easy to prove that direct government expenditures on the poor and the middle class far outweigh what those groups pay in the taxes that fund such expenditures. you are merely speculating about indirect benefits

mertex · Oct 25, 2010

Gray_Fox_86 said:
My point is that you need to quit whining and grow up. When you do that you can then see the light and realize that the government is raping everyone in the ass.

Sounds to me like you have a problem with logic. You tell me to quit whining and grow up and then you go and whine that the government is raping everyone in the ass. Sounds like whining to me. Why don't you take your own advice?

And there will be no stop to that until the government is put into check and limited to what it can take from its citizens.

Maybe you will open your eyes and realize that a lot of the money is going to corporations, and the Republican party is so damn willing to do so. Why don't you whine about that?

Yes that is life. Misery, inequality, all a part of life. The same can be said about happiness, love, etc. The point is that we as complex MAMMALS can CHOOSE to be happy.

Why don't you choose to be happy, then, instead of whining about the government taking your money?

Regardless of what our material wealth is most people in this nation have food, a roof over their head. And if they do not it is because they are morons with money or because they just are stupid.

That is the mentality of the greedy Republicans. Don't you realize there are a lot of Republicans that are poor and needy? Not only are they morons with money or stupid (as you claim), they don't care that their party is the one that would take away the programs that help them.

Ok, because most of the crap you post is better? I didn't think so.

Learn the English language, so your posts are understandable.

Quit posting crap from some extremist organization that if they had power the leaders would be just as corrupt as the ones we currently have now.

What the hell are you babbling about. I don't belong to any extremist organization.

And frankly taxing the hell out of everyone so that you can provide food, housing, healthcare for everyone is a dumb idea.

What you fail to realize is that assuring that everyone in the nation is healthy is a plus for everyone. You would be the first one to scream at the government if some virus or disease were to strike and they didn't provide serum for everyone. Most Republicans are too dumb to realize that not giving a damn about others only ends up hurting the rest of us. When we didn't healthcare, the people that didn't have insurance were still going to the Emergency room and getting some kind of too-late treatment, and guess who was paying for it. You apparently do not know what you are talking about, just repeating the conservative mantra.

That just makes everyone dependent on the government and that makes them weak.

Programs that give incentives to work doesn't make people weak, it makes them strong and be able to stand on their own too feet. Taking everything away from them ends up costing us more, but your simple mind can't take that in.

READ the sources you have posted. All are complaining about rich people and how they have so much money and how much money they make compare to everyone else. What is their equality that everyone earns six figures? That is stupid and frankly it is complaining about not having enough money, ie not rich.

Like I thought, you haven't understood the gist of the comments. It isn't that they are rich and we envy their wealth, it is that they are getting a free pass from the government to pay lower rates, not their fair share. Anyone that is okay with that is just plain dumb.

No instead of playing you want to steal that is always better than playing by the rules and doing it with your head. You instead like the government want to do it with force.

Maybe you want to repost that last comment after you've had time for it to wear off. I didn't understand a word you said, "instead of playing I want to steal" and "playing by the rules and doing it with my head"?? What the hell are you saying?

mertex · Oct 25, 2010

TurtleDude said:
the people you whine about pay for far more than they use. if they get tax cuts they still pay for far more than they use

That is what you keep saying, but you haven't offered any concrete proof. I keep providing you with information that says the opposite, but like a good sheeple, you keep ignoring it and holding on to what they taught you.:shock:

FederalRepublic · Oct 25, 2010

mertex said:
Maybe you want to repost that last comment after you've had time for it to wear off. I didn't understand a word you said, "instead of playing I want to steal" and "playing by the rules and doing it with my head"?? What the hell are you saying?

I've gotta side mertex on this one.

Donc · Oct 26, 2010

FederalRepublic said:
You didn't say that would increase taxes on lower income people? :2wave:

Just for good measure...:2wave::2wave:

Sorry that you misunderstood that post….I was referring to attorneys. :mrgreen: :2wave:

Gray_Fox_86 · Oct 26, 2010

mertex said:
Sounds to me like you have a problem with logic. You tell me to quit whining and grow up and then you go and whine that the government is raping everyone in the ass. Sounds like whining to me. Why don't you take your own advice?

lol sounds to me like you have reading comprehension. I am not posting anything related to political extremists. If anything I am more of a moderate with little need for government assistance. But when they are needed they are needed that is all.

Maybe you will open your eyes and realize that a lot of the money is going to corporations, and the Republican party is so damn willing to do so. Why don't you whine about that?

Um, again with republicans/corporations I am beginning to understand your narrow mindness better. I do not like to see any corruption but to say that is the government takes more money that will make them........what? More approachable, more transparent? Jeez if that were the case then the 3Trillion dollars they took should make them the most transparent government in the world because they take in more money than most nations GDP.

Why don't you choose to be happy, then, instead of whining about the government taking your money?

I am happy until a moron like yourself tries to STEAL more money from a household of mine. You have no idea how to be happy so when you mention happiness I laugh.

That is the mentality of the greedy Republicans. Don't you realize there are a lot of Republicans that are poor and needy? Not only are they morons with money or stupid (as you claim), they don't care that their party is the one that would take away the programs that help them.

I never mentioned about not helping people. They already have the money to help out people but they do it recklessly. Which is the problem that you and no one else likes to admit.

Learn the English language, so your posts are understandable.

What I am speaking is American. Learn some culture so you do not come off as a hidious mundane human.

What the hell are you babbling about. I don't belong to any extremist organization.

Ok, congrats on reading what sources you post.

What you fail to realize is that assuring that everyone in the nation is healthy is a plus for everyone. You would be the first one to scream at the government if some virus or disease were to strike and they didn't provide serum for everyone. Most Republicans are too dumb to realize that not giving a damn about others only ends up hurting the rest of us. When we didn't healthcare, the people that didn't have insurance were still going to the Emergency room and getting some kind of too-late treatment, and guess who was paying for it. You apparently do not know what you are talking about, just repeating the conservative mantra.

What you fail to realize is that most democrats want guns out of peoples hands. So if a zombie plague ever came. We would all be defenseless. Honestly you have no idea what you are talking about.

Programs that give incentives to work doesn't make people weak, it makes them strong and be able to stand on their own too feet. Taking everything away from them ends up costing us more, but your simple mind can't take that in.

Your stupid mind does not understand how greedy people are. Regardless if they are poor or not. I have real world experiences with section 8 unlike yourself. That has none. Most section 8 tenants are fraudsters. And the government protects them because they are the "unfortunate poor".

Like I thought, you haven't understood the gist of the comments. It isn't that they are rich and we envy their wealth, it is that they are getting a free pass from the government to pay lower rates, not their fair share. Anyone that is okay with that is just plain dumb.

Maybe you do not understand what is rich. The really rich will not see any significant increase. The people who will are those households that do not rich but almost there.

Maybe you want to repost that last comment after you've had time for it to wear off. I didn't understand a word you said, "instead of playing I want to steal" and "playing by the rules and doing it with my head"?? What the hell are you saying?

I guess you would not understand. There are things primates don't.

ender1 · Oct 26, 2010

FederalRepublic said:
....and now to the meat of the discussion. Macro economics, GDP and growth. You are the one who described it: "...in a free trade system, then things will try to balance out. Jobs and income will flow from the wealthy...to the less wealthy..." That describes, exactly, trickle down economics. You call it macro economics, which I think is more accurate. It's the way things work in a free market. Sure, we have to temper it with some sort of rules, but more does not necessarily equal better when it comes to rules. You also point that out for me:

"See thats the rub. You let peole start making exemptions and you end up where we are today."

I can pretty much make my entire argument against you in your words. It's like you have a devil (someone like Boo) and an angel (someone like me) sitting on either shoulder and you take turns with them posting their thoughts. It's very strange, but comes in handy for me in a forum like this.

Then please explain why one in seven is now cunsidered to be Poor?

phattonez · Oct 26, 2010

ender1 said:
Then please explain why one in seven is now cunsidered to be Poor?

Because the poverty line changes all the time. It is based on the distribution of income rather than being something rigidly defined independent of income distribution.

ender1 · Oct 26, 2010

phattonez said:
Because the poverty line changes all the time. It is based on the distribution of income rather than being something rigidly defined independent of income distribution.

The limit is 20k or less and one in seven is now considered in poverty.

ender1 · Oct 26, 2010

phattonez said:
Because the poverty line changes all the time. It is based on the distribution of income rather than being something rigidly defined independent of income distribution.

If it changes all the time based upon income then wouldnt the % stay the same.

FederalRepublic · Oct 26, 2010

ender1 said:
Then please explain why one in seven is now cunsidered to be Poor?

I can't be sure, but it might have something to do with the fact that we take money from working people and give it to non-working people. We subsidize inefficiency at every level of government. We attempt to make being poor as comfortable as possible (at everyone else's expense) and then wonder WTF when their numbers increase. Is it that big of a mystery? Really?

Census finds record gap between rich and poor

Conservative

FederalRepublic

Conservative

phattonez

Catholic

ender1

Well-known member

ender1

Well-known member

Donc

FederalRepublic

FederalRepublic

Donc

mertex

Don't Mess With Texas

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

Guy Incognito

FederalRepublic

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

mertex

Don't Mess With Texas

mertex

Don't Mess With Texas

FederalRepublic

Donc

Gray_Fox_86

ender1

Well-known member

phattonez

Catholic

ender1

Well-known member

ender1

Well-known member

FederalRepublic