Distributions of wealth in this country

[jbander]

Employers hire 'individuals' to perform a function for a predetermined wage based on the value of that function being performed to the employer.
An employees family size has nothing to do with the wage offered by the employer.
A 40 hour work week suffices as full time employment for jobs which can/do pay higher wages. Persons lacking any valued work skills might find an 80 or more hour work week necessary.
With inflation driving the costs of land, building materials and labour higher along with the application of building codes and property taxes many people may never be able to own a home in the future,

Like you care if people can buy and own a house in their future. Love it when some real cool guy comes in here and lecture on everyone working 80 hours a week to feed their family. It's amazing whats necessary of everyone else , while my guess is you got yours from your daddy. If you didn't you would be the exception to reality. Ask the president if he was a self made man , what will his answer be and how stupid would people be to except his disrespect of the poor and needy and old and handing everything to himself instead. His daddy gave him more money they he has right now. I can say anything about this retard because he is a scum bag. Hell everyone can tell stories just like he does , and the hate party thinks it's a skill to be able to lie at his level. I will be glad when this hate group are toast, they are this countries biggest threat and enemy and from the outside looking in , I'm having a gas watching this scummy party fall apart.

 

[jbander]

The point is that middle class used to be able to purchase enough for a family...a family being something of critical importance to phattonez's view of national economic stability, happiness, prosperity (etc., correct if wrong obv. phattonez).
It has steadily declining, while higher income has been taking those gains.

But globally we also look out of sync:

What your argument doesn't seem to include, is how that value is determined, and what negotiation position an employee is in, vs employer.
Unions are one way power used to be added to balance out labor.
Laws do in some ways (min wage, overtime, health insurance, etc.).
Also, government policy, leadership, educational support, education quality, rural outreach, etc., etc. There are countless factors that contribute, and a near infinite number of ways this can be slowed or even reversed.

all bull****, get the right wing in power and they cut taxes for everyone but the few people at the top get it all. The last tax cut , the last I looked 84% went to the top. All you have to do is buy a few ugly greedy people that will, do the work for ugly greedy people. Your list is a joke the reality is Reagan's trickle down lie and Your last tax cut for the wealthy. That's what distributes the money, tax law and tax level.

 

[jbander]

What are you talking about? "Me first attitude"? Do you have any sensible comments?

Funny

 

[Individual]

Like you care if people can buy and own a house in their future. Love it when some real cool guy comes in here and lecture on everyone working 80 hours a week to feed their family. It's amazing whats necessary of everyone else , while my guess is you got yours from your daddy. If you didn't you would be the exception to reality. Ask the president if he was a self made man , what will his answer be and how stupid would people be to except his disrespect of the poor and needy and old and handing everything to himself instead. His daddy gave him more money they he has right now. I can say anything about this retard because he is a scum bag. Hell everyone can tell stories just like he does , and the hate party thinks it's a skill to be able to lie at his level. I will be glad when this hate group are toast, they are this countries biggest threat and enemy and from the outside looking in , I'm having a gas watching this scummy party fall apart.

Then I am indeed the exception to what you seem to think is reality.

Go ahead and vent your hate, you seem to have accumulated an awful lot of it.

 

[jbander]

No one has it all so that logic is flawed. Those that do have a lot have it because they did earn it or inherit it for the most part.

A tax structure that makes it normal to hand someone a bucket of money from daddy and then have them walk around saying they are self made and putting down the poor, needy and old and call it stealing or conning from those that have is in need of a major adjustment. Like your self made man,President Scum bag who has less now then he had when his daddy gave him the bucket and that was enough for you to elect this puss head.

 

[jbander]

Everything is wrong with this. First you are taking money from people for no reason. You are giving money to people for no reason. Then you are assuming that people will spend the money on "good corporations". Good business fail every day because they cannot compete with the bad ones. People will shop where it is cheap. All your plan does is give people free stuff from large corporations.

What a hoot, taxes are stealing and unfair. People just have to laugh at this goofiness. This is how it works, the people decide how the money is spent by the people they elect , when that is done your type of remark about it is just comedy. You want the wealthy to have it all and have laws written to do that , and I want the poor, old and needy taken care of at the top of my list in the use of our tax dollars. You little children that are holding your breath and jumping up and down about it , is funny and entertaining but pitiful in all ways. The me first ,second and last attitude makes for a very bad citizen in any civilized society where the level of civilization is in direct relationship with the tax structure and economic laws in a country

 

[jbander]

No.....just no. You cannot just take money because you want it.

NO but as a country, if it wants it, it can be decided how, how much and who pays taxes

 

[jbander]

No one takes your money. You pay taxes as a citizen. They are not the same thing. There are millions of people in the lower classes who pay nothing in taxes, and in fact pay a negative amount in taxes. There is no logical way to redistribute wealth. It is not acceptable to take money from someone just because they have more than you at all. I've already said it once before on this thread. Consumers determine where the money is going. If you want to see mom and pop stores making a larger share of the consumer spending then consumers need to shop there. It is stupid to expect that mom and pop stores get the money you spend at wal-mart and on amazon. If you feel like they have too much money - stop giving them money. And if you already don't, encourage others. This is a free market. Consumers rule it. If even 1/3rd of the 325 million people did the majority of their shopping in smaller locally owned businesses you'd see a large shift in the wealth disparity. But those consumers dont. Consumers want Walmart, Amazon, Pepsi ect to have all the money and it is their choice to make. Right or wrong - for better or worse - it is up to the consumers in America.

This is what happened for the last 55 years through tax law and structure, my tax rate will turn this chart around 180 deg for the next 55 years

 

[jbander]

Wrong, wrong, wrong.


I don't think you have the foggiest idea about capitalism. And please explain what the heck happened in 1981 that you think was so earth-shattering.

Right right right

 

[jbander]

Then I am indeed the exception to what you seem to think is reality.

Go ahead and vent your hate, you seem to have accumulated an awful lot of it.

looks like my hatred is on par for your concern about no one but yourself.

 

[phattonez]

Individual say it's their own fault and he isn't responsible for anyone and that the real problem in this country is everyone cheating with these programs, so his solution is to get rid of all of them and give it to the wealthy .

I understand getting angry about people who choose not to work yet who collect benefits. I totally sympathize and society ought not put up with it. On the other hand, there's no reason why we ought to accept it from the idle rich, who can live a much more luxurious life without working and collecting the gains of their investments.

 

[phattonez]

Employers hire 'individuals' to perform a function for a predetermined wage based on the value of that function being performed to the employer.
An employees family size has nothing to do with the wage offered by the employer.
A 40 hour work week suffices as full time employment for jobs which can/do pay higher wages. Persons lacking any valued work skills might find an 80 or more hour work week necessary.

I totally disagree. This is exactly what happened in the past. A man working a full time job could support a wife and family. Today we are far wealthier, yet now this is practically impossible?

With inflation driving the costs of land, building materials and labour higher along with the application of building codes and property taxes many people may never be able to own a home in the future,

So do you want to break up the banks? This is where nearly all of the gains have gone in the past decades, at the expense of wages.

 

[phattonez]

Wealth isn't "given", it's created and earned as a result of capitalism. Invent something people need or want, sell it for a fair price, leather, rinse, repeat. That's how you acquire wealth.

So when banks create money out of thin air and lend it out and collect interest, did they create wealth?

When a landlord raises rent, is he creating more wealth?

 

[eohrnberger]

I totally disagree. This is exactly what happened in the past. A man working a full time job could support a wife and family. Today we are far wealthier, yet now this is practically impossible?

Are the market conditions the same now as they were then? Nope.

The market sets the value of each job and each person's contribution when performing that job. This value of doing this job is influenced by the market demand for doing that job as well as the availability of people willing to perform that job. Simple supply and demand.

The value that the market is willing to bear for performing that job has nothing to do with how large the family of the person willing to do that job.

 

[phattonez]

Are the market conditions the same now as they were then? Nope.

The market sets the value of each job and each person's contribution when performing that job. This value of doing this job is influenced by the market demand for doing that job as well as the availability of people willing to perform that job. Simple supply and demand.

The value that the market is willing to bear for performing that job has nothing to do with how large the family of the person willing to do that job.

Explain to me how a wealthier society pays lower wages. Explain to me why I should be content with that.

 

[phattonez]

The point is that middle class used to be able to purchase enough for a family...a family being something of critical importance to phattonez's view of national economic stability, happiness, prosperity (etc., correct if wrong obv. phattonez).
It has steadily declining, while higher income has been taking those gains.

But globally we also look out of sync:

What your argument doesn't seem to include, is how that value is determined, and what negotiation position an employee is in, vs employer.
Unions are one way power used to be added to balance out labor.
Laws do in some ways (min wage, overtime, health insurance, etc.).
Also, government policy, leadership, educational support, education quality, rural outreach, etc., etc. There are countless factors that contribute, and a near infinite number of ways this can be slowed or even reversed.

Much of this current rise in inequality has to do with the rise of finance and concurrent decreased government spending on things that benefit us all, like infrastructure. That inequality was self correcting in 2008 until the banks were bailed out. That was the moment we knew that we were actually owned by the banks. That was our chance to fix the system. Instead we got Obama, and he was excoriated by economic leftists for selling out to the banks.

https://michael-hudson.com/2013/07/obamas-master-class-in-demagogy-101/

 

[phattonez]

I recognize that, but I fail to see any suggestions being made of rational ways of making changes other than government redistribution of wealth which in my opinion simply increases governments control over the society as a whole which IMO only divides us greater from the middle, increasing the Public debt keeping is to appear sustainable as a result of inflation (devaluation of our currency).
Show me a plan which would result in the perpetual reduction of wealth of the wealthiest with the income of the lower 90% rising and you may get my support.

Simple. Raise taxes on capital gains, dividends, interest, rents, etc. while cutting taxes on wages.

 

[eohrnberger]

Explain to me how a wealthier society pays lower wages. Explain to me why I should be content with that.

As I posted, the compensation for a job is set by the market forces at play.

If you aren't satisfied with the compensation you are receiving for doing a particular job, find another job that commands higher compensation.
You may have to gain skills and knowledge to get that higher compensating job.

Just demanding that a particular job be compensated for more than what the market will bear won't work, as the market will compensate, possibly putting automation in place to reduce the need for that particular job, such as we've already seen in the fast food job market.

 

[phattonez]

As I posted, the compensation for a job is set by the market forces at play.

If you aren't satisfied with the compensation you are receiving for doing a particular job, find another job that commands higher compensation.
You may have to gain skills and knowledge to get that higher compensating job.

Just demanding that a particular job be compensated for more than what the market will bear won't work, as the market will compensate, possibly putting automation in place to reduce the need for that particular job, such as we've already seen in the fast food job market.

So a wealthier society pays lower wages, and the problem is with the poor?

Do you think that this is convincing to anyone?

 

[ttwtt78640]

As I posted, the compensation for a job is set by the market forces at play.

If you aren't satisfied with the compensation you are receiving for doing a particular job, find another job that commands higher compensation.
You may have to gain skills and knowledge to get that higher compensating job.

Just demanding that a particular job be compensated for more than what the market will bear won't work, as the market will compensate, possibly putting automation in place to reduce the need for that particular job, such as we've already seen in the fast food job market.

Those "market forces" include many government mandates and pay supplements. The various "safety net" programs can (and often do) create a situation where the meager paychecks of two workers, working side by side at the same position for the same employer, can result in far different outcomes. While the employer may pay them the same wage, if one receives "safety net" benefits and the other does not (or they pay different amounts of income tax), then they are not receiving equal net compensation for equal work.

 

[eohrnberger]

So a wealthier society pays lower wages, and the problem is with the poor?

Do you think that this is convincing to anyone?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Simple. Raise taxes on capital gains, dividends, interest, rents, etc. while cutting taxes on wages.

That or tax income from all sources at the same rate (20%?) while offering a more generous and truly standard deduction ($30K?).

 

[phattonez]

This isn't an argument. You're asking me to be content while younger generations have a lower standard of living than their parents.

Think about what you're actually defending.

 

[phattonez]

That or tax income from all sources at the same rate (20%?) while offering a more generous and truly standard deduction ($30K?).

That's definitely a step in the right direction.

Then we could next work on our monetary system which benefits banks, the first receivers of new money, at the expense of everyone else. I'd rather have a national dividend than bank dividends from the Fed.

 

[eohrnberger]

Those "market forces" include many government mandates and pay supplements. The various "safety net" programs can (and often do) create a situation where the meager paychecks of two workers, working side by side at the same position for the same employer, can result in far different outcomes. While the employer may pay them the same wage, if one receives "safety net" benefits and the other does not (or they pay different amounts of income tax), then they are not receiving equal net compensation for equal work.

True. So lets take a real life example.

There's a movement demanding $15/hr for no skill, no knowledge fast food workers, essentially teenager starter jobs that some mistaken believe are jobs on which to base an entire work career on, and contribute enough value to command higher wages than what the market have set.
The market's response to this movement was to implement automation, touch screen ordering systems, which reduced the demand for these jobs.
The end result is that many fast food workers were fired, as the demand for that job has been reduced, having been partially replaced with this automation.

If the government were to regulate a $15/hr minim wage, this same thing would happen only in greater numbers with many other minimum wage jobs, resulting with more people unemployed.

That's pretty much the reality, as we've seen come to pass in recent history. Markets cannot be, and shouldn't be, distorted by the government, at least not any more than absolutely necessary (thinking of cases of fraud, other criminality, and possibly some reasonable environmental regulation).