Republicans have done a masterful job over the last 40 years... coming out of the New Deal and Great Society... of convincing Americans that you can have the things rich people have... big foyers, garden tubs, granite countertops, exotic vacations, expensive cars that confer a "classy" image... all you have to do is vote Republican and go into debt. It's amazing how much crap we've (societal "we") bought over the last few decades just to feel like we're classy or a little better off than others. They've even convinced a lot of folks that there is a chance they themselves might become rich, so you have to vote for the party that takes care of the rich (including ridiculous government contracts to favorite companies) in case you get there at some point. Savings have gone down and now the pyramid scheme of literally mortgaging your future is exposed. The party of the rich during the New Deal effectively morphed into the party of the pretend rich... but really debtors... sadly aided at times by the opposition party that also bought into some of the myth. Every year I do my taxes on Turbotax and every year I see where I rank on income. I then look around and say "WTF?" as the number of people living larger than I do... bigger houses, newer and bigger cars, fancier stuff... is obviously greater than the number that make the same or more. And the number can't be explained by inheritance and tax cheats. People are living lifestyles way beyond their means. Our top rate minds are drawn to jobs where the innovations are aimed at squeezing nickels from millions of people in the form of fees and penalties or consolidating everything in site so the wealth accumulates at the top... even funeral homes and barber shops are run by huge companies these days. Anything to squeeze a little from a lot. Mom and Pop go bye-bye. All the while, the really rich are laughing their way to the bank as their President encourages the citizenry to go shopping for America and real money is made off of the shiny stuff sold to the rubes... and the first and greatest middle-class majority country in the history of man slowly sinks back to the historical norm. [/end rant]
That's the point, that's the point of this whole thread, that's what I've been saying all along. Actually no not really - from that self help crap that somebody quoted earlier, the Millionaire next door is a collection of platitudes admonishing us to save and spend conservatively - and hope for a real estate bubble. None of those principles will make you Steve Schwarzman - and that does not describe how Steve Schwarzman currently lives. Once you agglomerate enough money, be it through hard work or whatever, you can effectively hold onto it forever, in part by exploiting money and power to your own benefit, at the expense of the gullible paper millionaire in the suburb who thinks that he is going to getwhere you are by reducing his netflix queue or buying regular gas instead of premium. Income mobility has been decreasing as income inequality is increasing. I I don't find this suprising. Why? because money and power tend to concentrate and tend to calcify when obtained. This is exactly what Gates, Buffet, etc are saying, and have been saying for years.
And I'm just saying that the rich try to influence income redistribution in their favor as much as the lower 99% do. One side is not any less guilty than the other.
I will completely agree this is why there is an increasing widening gap and the dollar losing its value. Please tell my what ANY political party has to do with this? This is nothing but raw economics at work. The canadian dollar and Euro are strong because a huge chunks of it is not spent from debt. They are not buying the largest SUV's, flat screen TVs, dropping hundreds each month into excessive tv programming/internet/cellphone, ect ... If anything, I fault the democrats with the socilists views of everyone needing to be equal.
With all due respect, this is the wackiest post I've read in the thread. You fault "Democrats with socialist views" for the current dilemma (everyone agrees we're in a dilemma, right?), while giving a big part of the reason behind our current problems in your own post. You claim the Canadian dollar and the Euro are strong because huge chunks "of it" are not spent on debt, blame that on Democrats, and completely ignore the greatest debt producer in decades, the Bush Administration. Producer of a huge growth in the size of the Federal budget, a huge growth in the number of Federal employees, record budget deficits adding up to the trillions of dollars, and record trade deficits, while fighting two wars (one which should never have been entered into, but George wanted it)... fighting two wars and cutting freakin' taxes the whole time! Something I don't know if any Adminstration has done in the history of this country. Really, if it wasn't so tragic, I'd be rolling on the floor, laughing. Some of you remind me of the working classes in the South leading up to the Civil War. Willing to fight to the last drop of their blood for a system they couldn't hope to afford to join, slavery. But in this case, you are busy defending the very engine destroying the Middle Class in this country. Wow. Impeach Bush.
Deckard, I am not sure why you are surprised. This marks the 3000th time in the history of the BBS a thread about the super-rich and macroeconomic, social and political issues that accompany it gets drowned out in a chorus of Pavlovian responses about poor people being lazy. Anything that remotely has to do with taxes comes down to it at some point. Even the super-rich themsleves try to explain this to us but they get the same kneejerk response.
The supremely ironic part about all this is that the pro-plutocracy lobby is not reallly even made up of plutocrats. As stated before, a lot of the super rich (with exceptions of course) argue against their own economic interest in this debate. The most strident voices on the other side are not plutocrats at all. At most, a lot of them are right wing political hangers-on basically toadying for $$$ (e.g., grover norquist types). But all their toadying isn't going to put them in the plutocrat class no matter how hard they try. I mean it might buy them a summer home but that's not the same deal.
I'm gonna be rich one day, therefore I am for the abolishment of the estate tax and capital gains tax. this goes hand and hand with the last couple of pages of the republican nomination thread btw
Sam you are arguing about the top 0001% income earners, which are quite different than the top 1% the original article was talking about. You can have a lot of control on whether you will get into the top 1%, but 0001% is pretty much a lottery. i.e. lucky enough to start google or become a star trader in a top hedge fund.
Let me start out with a "with all due respect". Deckard, you have been hanging out in the D&D too long. There was at one time when you respected a persons post, but I have seen you transform into the TJ's and SamFishers. I would actually read your posts as they used to have some substance, but now Im taking them for a grain of salt. Its out of TJ's/Samfishers play book to take a post, pick one line, ridicule it and ignore the remainder of the post. Lets take this for example: I clearly state that a political party has little bearing on the spending style of any working class. . I then follow up with a response that says if any party has to take responsibility, I would place it on the democrats. Here you choose to go on a tirade and taking my loosely based comment to the bank as my main directive of my thought. Then you choose to twist the whole post around into an anti-war/republican/bush post, (which none of my views on these topics have been stated,only assumed) which has nothing to do with the topic on hand. All very TJ/SamFisher style. I have no respect for either party and less respect for the democrats ... well, case in hand. Republicans keep getting rich thus accomplishing their goals while the Democrats keep b****ing and .... accomplishing nothing. Deckard, I'm just trying to point out that you used to post intelligent thoughts and responses. More and more I am seeing you stoop to the emotional side like the majority of the posters in this subforum.
A quick google gives this, I don't know if their number is correct or not. link You'd have to earn $364,657 in 2005 to get into top 1%. The Top 1% accounted for 39.38% of the total income tax revenue. In fact the top 1%'s share of income tax has increased since 2002. Using Sam's logic, the top 1% really should be the ones that b**** and moan about paying too much tax, obviously they are screwed over by the top 0.001% earners like Gates.
I am not sure about 1%. Census bureau says 250,000 per household will get you to top 2% (about 2.2 million households out of 116 million total households).
Unfortunately, plutocrat or not, any new legislation trying to further reapportion wealth in this country affects me. Most moderately successful single people have the exact same problem. Last year, according to TurboTax, I ended up in the top 2% of taxpayers, despite not even being in the top 5% of income earners. This year, I've made my most money ever with bonuses and overtime. I bought a house and gave the most money away that I ever have, but I'm going to be hit by the AMT, and it's going to tell me that I'm too wealthy to claim all of my charity against my taxes. I can afford it, but it affects me. I live in a decidedly middle-class neighborhood, I work for a big company, I try to save all that I can and yet my net worth is still measured with five figures, but that puts me squarely in the category that the Federal Government considers wealthy. I do hope to open my own business someday, and my job choices have been to give me the experience and contacts that I need for that. While I'm certainly not plutocracy, whatever affects them affects me more.
Well the 1% paying 40% sounds bad but it doesn't take into account the total value of what that 1% represents. Also, think about what you just posted, bush cut taxes for this group, yet they still ended up increasing their tax load. shows you how much that income has gone up.
The number is in the same link, total value of that 1% is 1,591,711 million, which represents 21.20% of the total income. In other words, top 1% made 21% of the total income, yet they paid 40% of the total tax. How is this not a win-win situation? when you have people make more money and pay more taxes. Increased income is a good thing and should be encouraged
Right - and don't you find it somewhat problematic that even more and more capital is flowing up to that group of lottery winners on an increasing scale?
Great post. But I'm confused about this line: Can you explain why you feel it is (or has to be) that way?
It's always moving, either going up or down. Its like asking me do I have a problem with lottery winnings getting bigger and bigger. This isn't the class warfare between rich and poor some people here is making it to be. Not when its 99.999% vs 0.001%. Sure, hit people like Gates and Steve Cohen with a 70% tax rate, but that's not what this thread is about.
