• 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!

Inequality Troubles Americans Across Party Lines, Times/CBS Poll Finds

ttwtt78640 said:
Is it your desire to have most (any?) personal income, in excess of that used for personal consumption, placed under the control of the federal government? I find that the poor rarely hire me (or anyone else) while they still consume at least much as they produce - there are few businesses (or governments) that can sustain themselves serving mainly poor folks. Representation without taxation is just as bad as the reverse when it comes to creating a bigger, more powerful and more expensive government. Having a relationship between your personal cost of government and your desire for more of it is important in a democracy (democratic republic?).
Click to expand...

If you are defining poor as people who make less than the $400k which I suggested by the standard exemption/deduction per income earner, then most employers are indeed poor. I would be one of those poor employers.

But I am not suggesting what you are asking me. I did say that it would be my desire for the tax rate to be as low as possible. Taxation isn't about penalizing anyone, or government control of resources. In a country where the government issues it's own currency, taxation only exists to keep inflation in-check.
 
imagep said:
You forget that for the majority of the existence of this country, we had no federal income taxes. Now use some logic here, now that we have income taxes, is our government smaller than it was when we had no income taxes?

History has proven your theory to be incorrect. But nice try, your argument would fool a lot of weaker minded folks who don't know anything about history, or logic.
Click to expand...

Our federal spending, inflaatiopn adjusted, per capita is growing as is our national debt. Your silly idea that federal spending is not increasing with a very progressive income tax is what history shows to be false.

The Rise in Per Capita Federal Spending | Mercatus

The Most Depressing Graph: Per Capita Federal Spending Rises Alarmingly: Update | William M. Briggs
 
imagep said:
If you are defining poor as people who make less than the $400k which I suggested by the standard exemption/deduction per income earner, then most employers are indeed poor. I would be one of those poor employers.

But I am not suggesting what you are asking me. I did say that it would be my desire for the tax rate to be as low as possible. Taxation isn't about penalizing anyone, or government control of resources. In a country where the government issues it's own currency, taxation only exists to keep inflation in-check.
Click to expand...

I am not suggesting that well over 90% (those making under $400K/year) are poor. That nonsense is your idea. Simply because one is not rich does not make them poor. Federal spending is now rising without any need to increase tax revenue yet somehow that does not cause your predicted inflation.
 
distraff said:
What can people do to make their situation better?
Click to expand...

A study was done on how to stay out of poverty. Basically: Stay in school, get married, don't have kids before getting married, and a job. Doesn't have to be a high paying job.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Our federal spending, inflaatiopn adjusted, per capita is growing as is our national debt. Your silly idea that federal spending is not increasing with a very progressive income tax is what history shows to be false.
Click to expand...


That wasn't what I said.

You said that if most people didn't have to pay income tax, that the people would demand more benefits and spending from government. I pointed to the fact that when we didn't have an income tax at all, we also didn't have as much government spending or benefits as we do today. Your assumption is therefore proven invalid by history.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I am not suggesting that well over 90% (those making under $400K/year) are poor. That nonsense is your idea. Simply because one is not rich does not make them poor. Federal spending is now rising without any need to increase tax revenue yet somehow that does not cause your predicted inflation.
Click to expand...

You were arguing that only the rich create jobs, or at least that's the way I take it. The reality is that those who make less than $400k/yr actually own the majority of our employers. That $400k amount roughly represents the bottom 99%, not the bottom 90%.
 
avery45 said:
A study was done on how to stay out of poverty. Basically: Stay in school, get married, don't have kids before getting married, and a job. Doesn't have to be a high paying job.
Click to expand...

Yes that will keep you out of poverty. However even middle class wages have stagnated. Historic wage increases for the middle class are over. Most economic growth goes to the rich.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Our federal spending, inflaatiopn adjusted, per capita is growing as is our national debt. Your silly idea that federal spending is not increasing with a very progressive income tax is what history shows to be false.

The Rise in Per Capita Federal Spending | Mercatus

The Most Depressing Graph: Per Capita Federal Spending Rises Alarmingly: Update | William M. Briggs
Click to expand...

You are right that the government is getting bigger and bigger but you are wrong about the type of government that is growing and your statistics are flawed.

Per Capita government spending is rising because per capita income is rising in the US. The best way to look at things is to look at government spending as a percent of the GDP. So lets look at that.

Federal Spending has been hovering around 20% of the GDP since the middle 1970s.
usgs_chartSp03f.png

However when we account for State and Local spending too we find that total government spending has been hovering around 35% since 1990. But up until 1990 there was a rapid rise in government and that rise may start picking up again.
usgs_chartSp03t.png

Source:
US National Spending by Year - Charts Tables History
 
distraff said:
You are right that the government is getting bigger and bigger but you are wrong about the type of government that is growing and your statistics are flawed.

Per Capita government spending is rising because per capita income is rising in the US. The best way to look at things is to look at government spending as a percent of the GDP. So lets look at that.

Federal Spending has been hovering around 20% of the GDP since the middle 1970s.
View attachment 67185868

However when we account for State and Local spending too we find that total government spending has been hovering around 35% since 1990. But up until 1990 there was a rapid rise in government and that rise may start picking up again.
View attachment 67185869

Source:
US National Spending by Year - Charts Tables History
Click to expand...

Yet median personal income has only doubled since 1950 while government spending has grown far more than that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yet median personal income has only doubled since 1950 while government spending has grown far more than that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States
Click to expand...

My figures that income into account. That is why taking government spending as a percent of the GDP is the most useful was of looking at government spending. It looks at how much the government has grown compared to how much the economy has grown. The federal government grew until 1975. After that it has not really grown overall.
 
distraff said:
Yes that will keep you out of poverty. However even middle class wages have stagnated. Historic wage increases for the middle class are over. Most economic growth goes to the rich.
Click to expand...
The Democracies have increased taxes enormously but instead of calling them taxes they are calling it debt, and that debt (or tax) will be carried on to the next generation. Good for the politicians, bad for the future of the country. Now the economy is stagnating and this easy to read article explains why. National Debt Tops $18 Trillion: Guess How Much You Owe? - Forbes
 
Grant said:
The Democracies have increased taxes enormously but instead of calling them taxes they are calling it debt, and that debt (or tax) will be carried on to the next generation. Good for the politicians, bad for the future of the country. Now the economy is stagnating and this easy to read article explains why. National Debt Tops $18 Trillion: Guess How Much You Owe? - Forbes
Click to expand...

We have been passing on federal debt from generation to generation for over two hundred years. We will continue to do so for another two hundred years or more. The debt never has to actually be paid back, it can just keep rolling over.
 
imagep said:
We have been passing on federal debt from generation to generation for over two hundred years. We will continue to do so for another two hundred years or more. The debt never has to actually be paid back, it can just keep rolling over.
Click to expand...
That's a very optimistic point of view. The US government can spend $1 trillion more than it takes in in revenue and just continue to 'roll it over'? What could possibly go wrong?
 
distraff said:
Yes that will keep you out of poverty. However even middle class wages have stagnated. Historic wage increases for the middle class are over. Most economic growth goes to the rich.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right. But how is the rich making less money going to help?
 
Hatuey said:
Oy vey... If everyone is rich, who works for corporations?
Click to expand...
Robots.

Well, to be clear, programmable automated machines, although we might see forms of AI in the next few decades (sooner?)
 
The only places where income equality exists are the same places that millions die of starvation.


Competition and winners/losers actually makes things better for everyone....even the losers. Look at how many ****ing losers we have in the US sucking on the taxpayer tit. Our poverty welfare turds live better lives than most people in the rest of the world.
 
WSUwarrior said:
The only places where income equality exists are the same places that millions die of starvation.


Competition and winners/losers actually makes things better for everyone....even the losers. Look at how many ****ing losers we have in the US sucking on the taxpayer tit. Our poverty welfare turds live better lives than most people in the rest of the world.
Click to expand...
From some things I have read, the world is moving towards less work for everyone to do, not more....robotic/mechanized/automated ways to do lots of stuff people do now is being worked on as we speak.

Hell, we already have self-checkout systems at some large stores, that's the cashier job gone (or reduced in number at least).

It might be that in time we simply won't have enough jobs for everyone (is this already the case?) to be working, even if they are capable/willing.
 
avery45 said:
You are absolutely right. But how is the rich making less money going to help?
Click to expand...
And the rich can easily move their money. Thinking long term about their finances is often what made them rich to begin with.

It seems there are many who should read the financial news rather then the political tracts.
 
The Mark said:
From some things I have read, the world is moving towards less work for everyone to do, not more....robotic/mechanized/automated ways to do lots of stuff people do now is being worked on as we speak.

Hell, we already have self-checkout systems at some large stores, that's the cashier job gone (or reduced in number at least).

It might be that in time we simply won't have enough jobs for everyone (is this already the case?) to be working, even if they are capable/willing.
Click to expand...
Expecting $15 an hour for flipping burgers just screams out for automation.
 
avery45 said:
You are absolutely right. But how is the rich making less money going to help?
Click to expand...

In the 1950s and 1960s when companies earned new profits these profits were distributed more evenly between the workers and the top executives. Today most new profits go to the rich executives. The solution is to make companies that do the latter pay a higher corporate tax to encourage paying the middle class more when the economy growths.
 
distraff said:
In the 1950s and 1960s when companies earned new profits these profits were distributed more evenly between the workers and the top executives. Today most new profits go to the rich executives. The solution is to make companies that do the latter pay a higher corporate tax to encourage paying the middle class more when the economy growths.
Click to expand...
And then you wonder why companies want to leave or invest their money elsewhere.
 
Then why are the dumbest people on television at MSNBC? and Charles Krauthammer, the smartest man on television at Fox?
 
Our Constitution guarantees equal OPPORTUNITY - not equal results.
 
MTAtech said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/b...issue-for-americans-times-cbs-poll-finds.html
Click to expand...

While there is some legitimate concern, I think we have to be really really careful on what kind of policies we enact. We could easily find ourselves becoming a socialist country and destroy our own economy if we decide being rich is unfair. There certainly are inequalities that require attention. Such as the low wages service workers are paid (minimum wage). I don't think a person in this country who wakes up in the morning and goes to work should earn less then a living wage. To be able to at least afford a place to sleep, food, a cheap car, and the minimum lifestyle that all americans should have by having a few luxury items such as a tv, computer and a cell phone. Which to me means no one should be paid less then $12 an hour.
 
Capster78 said:
While there is some legitimate concern, I think we have to be really really careful on what kind of policies we enact. We could easily find ourselves becoming a socialist country and destroy our own economy if we decide being rich is unfair. There certainly are inequalities that require attention. Such as the low wages service workers are paid (minimum wage). I don't think a person in this country who wakes up in the morning and goes to work should earn less then a living wage. To be able to at least afford a place to sleep, food, a cheap car, and the minimum lifestyle that all americans should have by having a few luxury items such as a tv, computer and a cell phone. Which to me means no one should be paid less then $12 an hour.
Click to expand...

While it is hard to disagree with the concept, I wonder how you can derive a single "living wage". Do you and the folks pushing this really think that this rate is the same in NYC, for SF as it is in most of the country? If not, shouldn't this be a local versus federal issue?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom