• 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!

Does the average citizen harbor envy/jealousy, hatred for the extremely wealthy?

Does the average citizen harbor envy/jealousy, hatred for the extremely wealthy?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 33.3%
  • No

    Votes: 24 66.7%

  • Total voters
    36
No, it simply means that the pact of a good wage for hard work has been broken as working and middle class incomes have stagnated for about 30 years while incomes in the top bracket have risen significantly.

None of this would be happening if people were getting paid fairly - as they were for most of our post-World War II history.

Government wouldn't be needed if the top classes were still offering decent jobs and wages. Instead, they've moved jobs overseas and left Americans with the jobs that pay $7.50 to $10.00 an hour. And our government has given them tax breaks, corporate welfare, and other incentives to do this.

Government should be setting policies that do the most good for the most people. It should not be setting policies that celebrate and encourage the wealthiest few sending jobs overseas and stifling wage growth.

For instance: The Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee CEO recently got a raise from $1.7 million to $6.2 million. Her employees all got a 2% raise and my partner's division shed 26 jobs. Premiums paid by BCBST insured went up approximately 8%. Additionally, the Board of Directors of BCBST, which is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit according to its tax filings, make between $75,000 and $100,000 a year. This is a NOT-FOR-PROFIT not paying government taxes on their "profits" of over $59 million and their reserve (which an insurance company does have to have, I know) of $1.4 billion.

People pay more for their insurance, people lose jobs, others get insignificant increases in pay all so she can see her salary triple - when she works for a so-called not-for-profit.

We incentivise this type of behavior and reward it with our lack of regulation and tax policy. We've been doing so to a degree that it's shrinking our middle class, and that's incredibly dangerous with a consumer-driven economy. No matter how hard they try, the top 1% of earners will never be able to spend as much as the remaining 99%. Without that spending, we have no economy. If the other 99% don't have money to spend, our economy is dead.

I've said from the get go, I don't care if you let corporate tax rates drop to ZERO - as long as the breaks are given for hiring Americans - not for giving their board and executives million-dollar pats on the back for sending jobs overseas.

John Boehner calls them "job creators". Create some ****ing jobs then.

you are confused. if you are willing to work for 7 dollars an hour that is a fair valuation of your labor.
 
most of your erroneous conclusions are based on the foundational error that the government is giving the rich money. Only can someone who believes all money and wealth initially belongs to the government could make such a fundamentally wrong statement

The "temporary" tax cuts temporarily allowed the rich to pay much less in taxes than their fair share. This helped create our debt. If we decide to get serious about reducing debt, we will have to let these temporary tax cuts expire.

Until then, we are just pissing in the wind, and we call that Trickle Down Economics! :sun
 
No, it simply means that the pact of a good wage for hard work has been broken as working and middle class incomes have stagnated for about 30 years while incomes in the top bracket have risen significantly.

None of this would be happening if people were getting paid fairly - as they were for most of our post-World War II history.

Government wouldn't be needed if the top classes were still offering decent jobs and wages. Instead, they've moved jobs overseas and left Americans with the jobs that pay $7.50 to $10.00 an hour. And our government has given them tax breaks, corporate welfare, and other incentives to do this.

Government should be setting policies that do the most good for the most people. It should not be setting policies that celebrate and encourage the wealthiest few sending jobs overseas and stifling wage growth.

For instance: The Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee CEO recently got a raise from $1.7 million to $6.2 million. Her employees all got a 2% raise and my partner's division shed 26 jobs. Premiums paid by BCBST insured went up approximately 8%. Additionally, the Board of Directors of BCBST, which is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit according to its tax filings, make between $75,000 and $100,000 a year. This is a NOT-FOR-PROFIT not paying government taxes on their "profits" of over $59 million and their reserve (which an insurance company does have to have, I know) of $1.4 billion.

People pay more for their insurance, people lose jobs, others get insignificant increases in pay all so she can see her salary triple - when she works for a so-called not-for-profit.

We incentivise this type of behavior and reward it with our lack of regulation and tax policy. We've been doing so to a degree that it's shrinking our middle class, and that's incredibly dangerous with a consumer-driven economy. No matter how hard they try, the top 1% of earners will never be able to spend as much as the remaining 99%. Without that spending, we have no economy. If the other 99% don't have money to spend, our economy is dead.

I've said from the get go, I don't care if you let corporate tax rates drop to ZERO - as long as the breaks are given for hiring Americans - not for giving their board and executives million-dollar pats on the back for sending jobs overseas.

John Boehner calls them "job creators". Create some ****ing jobs then.

I could not agree with you more. This has got to be one of the most well put arguments for saving our economy, re-establishing a middle class and reducing overall suffering. 5/5 Stars :)
 
The "temporary" tax cuts temporarily allowed the rich to pay much less in taxes than their fair share. This helped create our debt. If we decide to get serious about reducing debt, we will have to let these temporary tax cuts expire.

Until then, we are just pissing in the wind, and we call that Trickle Down Economics! :sun

you can call anything you want fair share but your claim that the rich don't pay their fair share is a sickening combination of dishonesty and marxist nonsense

the top 1 percent make 22% of the income and pay almost 40% of the income tax.

a fair baseline is 22% of the income tax burden. they also pay that massive surcharge called the death tax which almost no other group pays (though many in the next 2% spend a lot of money avoiding death taxes through insurance, trusts, etc)

what helped create our debt is massive spending demanded by the lower classes who feel they have no duty to pay for it

I have a rational and objective definition of fairness-if you make X amount of the income you pay X amount of the income tax. that is still progressive and the rich still pay far more than they use

you cannot even come up with a rational formula
 
I could not agree with you more. This has got to be one of the most well put arguments for saving our economy, re-establishing a middle class and reducing overall suffering. 5/5 Stars :)


its silly, the rich once had to offer artificially high salaries because we did not have a global economy
 
And what was wrong with that?

any company who has to pay a higher price for the same quality commodity than its competition is going out of business.
 
Please, do explain why you think that would be the case ... do you deflect the question for lack of an answer?


LOL you continue to err. If two companies are in competition and one has to pay higher labor costs than its competitor for the same quality labor what does that mean?
 
LOL you continue to err. If two companies are in competition and one has to pay higher labor costs than its competitor for the same quality labor what does that mean?


It means that one company has a better paid labor force that the other companies laborers probably would want to work for.
 
It means that one company has a better paid labor force that the other companies laborers probably would want to work for.

that might be true if the competition was limited to the same state or city and the same work force. that once was the case.. its no longer true
 
that might be true if the competition was limited to the same state or city and the same work force. that once was the case.. its no longer true


labor in any locality is limited be China or Michigan.
 
labor in any locality is limited be China or Michigan.

that is a fairly worthless statement since american labor is now competing against much cheaper but equally capable labor.
 
that is a fairly worthless statement since american labor is now competing against much cheaper but equally capable labor.


Yeah that is why BMW plant workers in Germany are so scared for their jobs, NOT.
 
Yeah that is why BMW plant workers in Germany are so scared for their jobs, NOT.

I thought we were talking about America and jobs here moving to high quality lower priced labor areas.

The guys who make 7000 dollar Perazzi competition shotguns have more orders than they can handle. Top of the line craftsmen are not at issue. Its people making American made general manufactured goods like forgings, (valves and heavy pipes) basic machinery etc who are getting thrashed.
 
I thought we were talking about America and jobs here moving to high quality lower priced labor areas.
.


Oh I thought you talking about the global economy. Oh wait you were.
 
Oh I thought you talking about the global economy. Oh wait you were.

yeah the effect the global economy has on inflated american labor costs

btw that's a neat website-what sort of format is the photography?
 
No, it simply means that the pact of a good wage for hard work has been broken as working and middle class incomes have stagnated for about 30 years while incomes in the top bracket have risen significantly.

None of this would be happening if people were getting paid fairly - as they were for most of our post-World War II history.

Government wouldn't be needed if the top classes were still offering decent jobs and wages. Instead, they've moved jobs overseas and left Americans with the jobs that pay $7.50 to $10.00 an hour. And our government has given them tax breaks, corporate welfare, and other incentives to do this.

Government should be setting policies that do the most good for the most people. It should not be setting policies that celebrate and encourage the wealthiest few sending jobs overseas and stifling wage growth.

For instance: The Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee CEO recently got a raise from $1.7 million to $6.2 million. Her employees all got a 2% raise and my partner's division shed 26 jobs. Premiums paid by BCBST insured went up approximately 8%. Additionally, the Board of Directors of BCBST, which is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit according to its tax filings, make between $75,000 and $100,000 a year. This is a NOT-FOR-PROFIT not paying government taxes on their "profits" of over $59 million and their reserve (which an insurance company does have to have, I know) of $1.4 billion.

People pay more for their insurance, people lose jobs, others get insignificant increases in pay all so she can see her salary triple - when she works for a so-called not-for-profit.

We incentivise this type of behavior and reward it with our lack of regulation and tax policy. We've been doing so to a degree that it's shrinking our middle class, and that's incredibly dangerous with a consumer-driven economy. No matter how hard they try, the top 1% of earners will never be able to spend as much as the remaining 99%. Without that spending, we have no economy. If the other 99% don't have money to spend, our economy is dead.

I've said from the get go, I don't care if you let corporate tax rates drop to ZERO - as long as the breaks are given for hiring Americans - not for giving their board and executives million-dollar pats on the back for sending jobs overseas.

John Boehner calls them "job creators". Create some ****ing jobs then.

Reposting the best post by far of the thread!

:sun
 
its silly, the rich once had to offer artificially high salaries because we did not have a global economy

And what was wrong with that?

any company who has to pay a higher price for the same quality commodity than its competition is going out of business.

Why would that be?

seriously? you don't understand that concept?

Please, do explain why you think that would be the case ... do you deflect the question for lack of an answer?

LOL you continue to err. If two companies are in competition and one has to pay higher labor costs than its competitor for the same quality labor what does that mean?

As you mentioned before ... there was a time when there was no global economy .. so the wealthy were forced to pay fair wages .. this is why I asked why it was a bad thing .. your argument holds no water when we are talking about times when there was no global economy, as the competition was held to the same standards .. so I ask you again, what was wrong with the wealthy being forced to pay fair wages?

Of course now we outsource to other countries for lower wages and through welfare and unemployment, redistribute the profit that is gained from things as outsourcing, to those who would have worked had the companies not been allowed to hire outside of the country for lower wages. Its a silly cycle that essentially takes advantage of the poor in other countries.
 
As you mentioned before ... there was a time when there was no global economy .. so the wealthy were forced to pay fair wages .. this is why I asked why it was a bad thing .. your argument holds no water when we are talking about times when there was no global economy, as the competition was held to the same standards .. so I ask you again, what was wrong with the wealthy being forced to pay fair wages?

Of course now we outsource to other countries for lower wages and through welfare and unemployment, redistribute the profit that is gained from things as outsourcing, to those who would have worked had the companies not been allowed to hire outside of the country for lower wages. Its a silly cycle that essentially takes advantage of the poor in other countries.

fair wages is a stupid term lefties use to introduce elements into the cost of labor that have no realistic use.

fair wages is paying a wage that obtains the quality and quantity of labor at a given time that the employer needs. its like saying what is a FAIR price for gold? I remember as kid gold being less than 50 bucks an ounce IIRC. what is it now-over 1200?

it all comes down to relativity. 50 years ago american manufacturers were paying the highest wages in the world and they had to. now they don't. fairness is a moronic concept when you limit it to your self serving needs. Is it fair to tell a guy in Brazil or India that its unfair that he is willing to work for 6 dollars an hour when an American worker of similar talents won't accept less than 25 even if 6 dollars an hour would make that Indian far better off than anything he is currently getting>
 
Illustration:

robber_barons_2.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom