• 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

We have corporate capitalism, not free market. Corporate capitalism innately bolsters the corporate identy while making rule sand regulations which make it harder for smaller business to compete. The result is the end of competition, which is a hallmark of actual free market. Oligarchy rules the Corporate Capitalist world and economic mobility, meaning the ease at which one can rise or fall from one financial class to another, becomes restricted. So more and more the poor will have a hard time making out of being poor, and the rich will find it harder and harder to become poor.

Free market, on the other hand, rewards input, ingenuity, enterprise, and innovation. To the best go the spoils. A poor man can become rich through effort and intelligence and invention. Likewise a rich man can become poor through apathy and bad decision. It allows for a flow.

Currently, competition is choked off and we're stagnating in a pool of corporate oligarchy. The Corporate State reigns supreme now.



I don't believe a word you say, it is garbage.

You have never read an economics text in your life and make up neat sounding ****...

You been called out friend.
 
Some of that is for when the 1% lays your ass off and the FedGov takes care of you. LOL!

The majority of that money goes back to Obama's friends.....the 1%ers, not to the middle class

Me I am in the top 10% income levels for Canada.
 
. . . . the decay of proper economic mobility. . . .

Proper? What's proper? No such thing.

21st century people are in large part lazy bums compared to the "greatest generation" in the 40's and 50's. A dope smoking moron will never have upward mobility. But those who are driven and success-oriented still move up just fine. There just aren't that many of them these days.
 
Divide it all up and give everybody an equal share.....
In 2 or 3 generations, the situation will be as tho it never happened.

It should be policy. Because it would be 2 or 3 GREAT generations to live in.
 
It should be policy. Because it would be 2 or 3 GREAT generations to live in.

the worst thing you can do for your children is to make life easy for them......

educate them, then show them the door.
 
Bush and Obama are like night and day, polar opposites. You can't compare them on any level

Really? Think so, huh? How badly do you want to be proven wrong? Or do you wish to retract that statement.



Sure, the words that come out of their mouths might be different...but their ACTIONS sure do bare a striking resemblance to each other.
 
Proper? What's proper? No such thing.

21st century people are in large part lazy bums compared to the "greatest generation" in the 40's and 50's. A dope smoking moron will never have upward mobility. But those who are driven and success-oriented still move up just fine. There just aren't that many of them these days.

Proper is a bad word, I think even Ikari will grant you that.

I think a better word would be possibility probability.


The odds of remaining poor if born poor are higher now than they have EVER been in this country.
 
see my link. You haven't answered my question.


I don't see middle class towns being raized for projects, or low income homes.

I see houses being built- Must be a booming economy.
I see no Police- Must be no crime.
 
No, right now, when I drive from Chelsea, NYC to my upscale home in Somerset county, I pass by tens of thousands of middle class homes.

Who lives there? if the middle class is shrinking, where are they going? who's buying these houses?

Suggestion- Stop on your drive to Upscaleville and ask.
Where is the middle class going is what I asked.
Why Upscaleville because you drive by it. Yep that is sound. You make decisions based upon that?



uhm I cant decipher this post.



my question stands, who lives in all these middle class homes all over this country if the middle class is shrinking?


Simple question.
 
People in debt. But the point is that the middle class is shrinking, and after that the 1% is going to shrink as well in terms of collective wealth as the 0.1% begin to aggregate everything. Most in that 1% will end in no different a place than the rest of us.


I've shown it's actually growing. Are the "middle class" becoming the "Working poor"?


Then who moves into thier middle class homes?
 
uhm I cant decipher this post.



my question stands, who lives in all these middle class homes all over this country if the middle class is shrinking?


Simple question.

Don't know about where YOU live, but where I live, they are rented out to people who can't afford to buy a house.
 
uhm I cant decipher this post.



my question stands, who lives in all these middle class homes all over this country if the middle class is shrinking?


Simple question.
Answered- Stop and ask as you drive back to Upscaleville- Why, hell, hire some poor guy to drive your car and ask them who lives there. How the hell would I know.
Cannot decipher. It was colored in pink, so you may have trouble seeing it.
 
I see houses being built- Must be a booming economy.
I see no Police- Must be no crime.



Wasn't my question nor my point.


If the middle class is "shrinking" what is happening to all those middle class homes and neighborhoods throuought america?




I actually can explain it to you so that you can understand, they are going nowhere, but they are keeping less and less of thier paychecks as the tax burdends, fees, insurance mandates grow. Only a small portion of it has to do with income and inflation.


Fact is, the US middle class has a rather comfy lifestyle that affords them to be able to take on more debt to live the way they "CHOOSE" to live.


There is shrinkage, (except texas actually where it is growing), but the rich man is only a small piece of your puzzle.
 
Don't know about where YOU live, but where I live, they are rented out to people who can't afford to buy a house.

NJ home ownership rate is at 65%

that's the majority.

Where do you live, I bet you are wrong.

oh CT?

even higher 68.5%


you were saying?
 
Answered- Stop and ask as you drive back to Upscaleville- Why, hell, hire some poor guy to drive your car and ask them who lives there. How the hell would I know.
Cannot decipher. It was colored in pink, so you may have trouble seeing it.



quote was ****ed up, and your pink font was annoying so I didn't read it. I've answered this.
 
Wasn't my question nor my point.


If the middle class is "shrinking" what is happening to all those middle class homes and neighborhoods throuought america?




I actually can explain it to you so that you can understand, they are going nowhere, but they are keeping less and less of thier paychecks as the tax burdends, fees, insurance mandates grow. Only a small portion of it has to do with income and inflation.


Fact is, the US middle class has a rather comfy lifestyle that affords them to be able to take on more debt to live the way they "CHOOSE" to live.


There is shrinkage, (except texas actually where it is growing), but the rich man is only a small piece of your puzzle.
1 thing at a time as I am old and kinda slow on the uptake.
So tax burdens. Local, State, or Federal??
How did the Bush tax cuts affect the middle class?
Who say what in tax reduction?
Under 200 K - tax reduction was
2 to 500 K - tax reduction was
500 K to 1 M -tax reduction was
Family of 4.
 
yet people still work still get paid still own, buy sell, cars, homes and everything else.
go figure. how could they do that with all those rich people taking all the money for themselves.

ol yea our economy isn't a zero sum game.

because the rich never invest, loan, or give money to other people they just hold it under their beds.
:roll:

Sorry, didn't mean to wake you. Go back to sleep.
 
1 thing at a time as I am old and kinda slow on the uptake.
So tax burdens. Local, State, or Federal??

Total, including, sales, fees, dues, and all the other confiscatory polices one must pay.

How did the Bush tax cuts affect the middle class?

Nada, as it was a meaningless amount to anyone.

pquote]Who say what in tax reduction?[/quote]


Say what in who reduction tax? o_O


Under 200 K - tax reduction was
2 to 500 K - tax reduction was
500 K to 1 M -tax reduction was
Family of 4.

que?
 
I have no idea how to judge that against the top 10% here.

Where are you on the income ladder? | University Affairs
As well, I found it somewhat curious that StatsCan decided to focus on high-income earners in their release. To be in the top 10% of earners in Canada, you needed to have a total income of around $80,400; for the top 5%, it was $102,300; and for the top 1%, it was $191,100. Perhaps not surprisingly, high-income Canadians tended to be highly educated – 67.1% of the top 1% had attained a university degree compared with 20.9% of all Canadians aged 15 and over.
 
Total, including, sales, fees, dues, and all the other confiscatory polices one must pay.



Nada, as it was a meaningless amount to anyone.

pquote]Who say what in tax reduction?


Say what in who reduction tax? o_O




que?[/QUOTE]
Nada-

The legacy of the Bush tax cuts, in four charts - The Washington Post


The Bush tax cuts- some say the rich benefited - some say middle class did- who received what?
I used a family of 4 - differing incomes.
I thought that would make it easier.
 
Where are you on the income ladder? | University Affairs
As well, I found it somewhat curious that StatsCan decided to focus on high-income earners in their release. To be in the top 10% of earners in Canada, you needed to have a total income of around $80,400; for the top 5%, it was $102,300; and for the top 1%, it was $191,100. Perhaps not surprisingly, high-income Canadians tended to be highly educated – 67.1% of the top 1% had attained a university degree compared with 20.9% of all Canadians aged 15 and over.

Oh well Hell we are in Canada's top 10% also. 8)
 
:roll:

this is only true if the the economy is a zero sum came. since it sin't a zero sum game then this line of logic is invalid.

Does it not depend on a robust economy? How can the 99% spend when most of the money is collecting dust in some foreign account?
 
Back
Top Bottom