This is gonna jangle your sensibilities, but hear me out and pretend we're talking purely hypothetically.
I think a better way would be extremely progressive taxes.
Not to take from those who have to give to the have nots, but to create an environment where over certain levels, acquiring more leads to steeply diminishing returns.
The goal being to foster an environment that by nature leaves fruit on the trees for the next guy.
You've heard me talk about rent. I think residential real estate as primarily a commodity is an unhealthy situation. I think in residential properties anything over one income property should be so steeply taxed that three or four just wouldn't be worth the effort. I believe that things that human beings NEED should be minimally commoditized(sic?). Homes should be domiciles first and assets second, if that. (And the one income residential property can be a hundred unit apartment complex. Rental properties DO serve a function, but should serve a more transitory or temporary function than the permanent treadmill they are for far too many today)
Economics is complex and far too much like a cross between meteorology and religion to me. I'm an auto-didact, with a way above average head for concepts, but every effort to acquire details and the language encounters a system more akin to astrology than engineering. WAY too many "will"s where "could"s or "may"s would be much more correct terms.
All that said, while I think something along these lines would be a better way, I don't really see a way to get there from here that wouldn't suck.
But things are already starting to suck for more and more people.
Its not going to get better if we just ignore it and hope it goes away.
For example, say that you have an industry where two companies totally dominate. They are big enough to easily prevent any new competitors from entering. Since they have a comfortable control over the market, there is no reason for them to try to undercut each other's prices or compete for the best resources on salary. They both know that 50% of a market where they make $10 per transaction is much better than 100% of a market where they make $0.01 per transaction. So, they both just let prices stay high and salaries low. That isn't some god given right they have to take everybody's money like that, that's just a flaw in the market. Every economist ever will tell you that a situation like that is one where government is supposed to step in and break up the companies dominating the market into smaller companies to restore competition. Adam Smith himself wrote chapters on how important that is. Everybody knows that, but the politicians opt not to correct it because those companies put major resources into lobbying and they make a big stink if the politicians try to fix it, and the public is so oblivious and disorganized that they don't seem to care about the issue one way or another, so there is no pressure to fix it. So, they just go on sucking billions of dollars out of your pocketbook. It's the opposite of a free market. It's more like feudalism. To me, what OWS is is people starting organize to put their interests forwards so that the politicians see that they need to look after not just the interests of the corporations, but the interests of the people too.
$14,133 adjusted for inflation. The US's GDP per capita today is $47,184. So, that's a 333% increase. It was higher before the crash I guess, that's when I got the 400% figure.
First off, I completly overestimated your willingness to learn. Since your post is pretty much garbage, I will just refute your fussy maths.
Your numbers are the same as median personal income, so they certainly do not include benefits.No, it's $44k total compensation. The differential between $44k and $97k does include capital expenditures. So, for example, rent and electricity bills. The substantial majority of corporations actually pay no income taxes at all. So that pretty much just leaves profit.
If corporation do not pay income tax, it means that are not taking any of the money out for personal use. I don't see the problem.
The government gets it's revenue from hidden taxes. Is that really hard to understand?Not sure I'm following. Can you explain more? Income from hidden taxes?
You're not going to stop it, because you do not understand the economy at all, and you are denying reality. People like you are extremly dangerous, because the policies that people like you implement have a tendency to backfire and cause poverty. Since you are so convinced the game is rigged, you will become paranoid and create even worse policies to take down the evil corporations.We will stop it. That's the bottom line. We aren't going to let them keep radically enriching themselves while giving us sob stories about how they need to lower our compensation. We're done permitting that. The rigged game is over. By all means, if things go badly for the economy and everybody loses money, that's something you just suck up and deal with. But when they're telling you that you need to work twice as hard for half as much money and meanwhile they're off to the Bahamas with billions of dollars, that's a no go.
Are you kidding me?
1. That number is in 2003 dollars. You need to adjust for that.
2. When you calculate increase. You need to subtract by 1 or 100%.
I would expect most kids above the age of 12 to know this. You certainly do not know how to calculate growth, and you are constantly talking about how much the rich is growing compared to the rest.
If the system is rigged, and this caused the average income to reduce its increase by 100%. Then that means rich people took the 100% and hide it.Not sure what your argument is. 65% in average income is still really terrible. But median income is the one that matters. Average just gets distorted by outliers with absurd amounts of income, it doesn't reflect how well actual people are doing.
Are you telling me that there are massive amount of income, equal to 30% of the GDP or 5 trillion dollars that is not accounted in the income, or capital gains, and is earned by a few rich people. In that case you need to document it, because if we confiscated all their wealth right now it wouldn't last very long. Where is all that hidden income?
Except that their income dropped in the financial crisis as well. Hardly any 400% increase as you are talking about. Not even close.That graph ends at 2005... Still recovering from the dot com crash.
You don't even know how to calculate increase, and you tell me I got the numbers mixed up. You seriously need to educate yourself about these issues, before you talk about them.As you can see above, it turns out that you're the ones that has the numbers a bit mixed up. No offense, you're definitely way more informed than most. But you've got some things mixed up in there.
Or don't get educated, but stop talking about topics you have no understanding of.
Last edited by Camlon; 10-21-11 at 03:51 PM.
The most universally agreed upon measure is probably the human development index the UN keeps. It's an objective statistical index, not something pulled out of anybody's ass... Obviously.
But the median income just went up 40%. It's because, as your graph nicely demonstrates, all the income growth is occurring at the tippy top.
If susie opens a lemonade stand and spends $5 on supplies, and pulls in $20 that afternoon. what bloddy ****ing business is it of yours to go demand her $15 profit, or to tell her she has to "hand more of it out", or any other such bull****?
You wanna know why you're mad? Because susie DOES hand that money back out, she goes and buys some watercolor books and stickers, she doesn't give it to you beacuse you demand it...how sad right? And the people who were kind enough to build a business to offer those products to her, likewise, EARNS The right to that income and decides where it will go.
But low and behold, the people that are mad? Are the people not doing what other people want in the market. Their goods and services just aren't in demand. Guess what, if you keep doing **** we don't want, no one will give you anything, and you have no one but yourself to blame.
Stephen Lerner - here he wants to encourage people to stop paying their mortgages so another financial crisis will be created. He also wants to completely stop Wall Street from operating. What would that do to our country and it's economy?
Also another major character in this is Frances Fox Piven (famous anti-capitalist) - if you can get through this video, go for it. The crowd just parrots everything she says which is uber annoying and stupid:
And if you don't know what the Cloward and Piven Strategy is: Cloward
The point is to overwhelm the system and create a crisis so that it will collapse and the progressives in charge can then put in a new system - a "guaranteed annual income". This Wall Street stuff is the beginning of them attempting to collapse the system.
Also involved is a group called Anonymous. Now I do agree that our government has sold us down the river and we shouldn't be bailing all these corporations out, but I don't agree that Wall Street needs to be destroyed. Plus "we are legion" is just a little disturbing:
The co-editor of the Occupy Wall Street Journal newspaper is a communist. But, but, but....this is just about having fair capitalism, right? Uh huh...
"We have to help bring this government down. We have to destroy this system. The solution is communism and socialism."
We need to bring this government down? But I thought this was just about fair capitalism....
And the co-creator of the newspaper (Aran Gupta) was a speaker at the Socialism 2011 conference in Chicago called Fomenting for Marxist Revolution.
Fomenting for Marxist Revolution on July 4
Cornel West (a professor) is a supporter of the movement and a member of the Democratic Socialists. The Nazi and Communists Parties support the protests too (no big surprise there if you knew who was behind it anyway). These people aren't pro-capitalism. The regular ole Joe on the street might be, but these people are leaders and they want a total transformation of the system.
More to come as more research is done....
I want NO government.
NO protection of property or contract enforcement. No cops or jails. No military.
If wealth wants protection they should by god pay for it themselves.
That's all the govt the "right" wants.
And if that's the only role its going to play then **** it.
Give me ACTUAL liberty instead. I can take care of me and mine.
I represent the 100%.. I am the 100% of me.
put that in your populist pipe and take a nice long toke...
15% claiming to be 1%... not surprising