Uh, it's called democracy. Heard of it? What would you have. A bunch of lemmings, in a row, nice a tidy, conservative, unchanging, soild, holding on to old ways of thought? Hmmmm, sounds like a dictatorship to me. I remember a day when slavery was considered "right." Women not being able to vote was considered "right." Conservative views was, "Why change things? They're ok as they are?" Listen bamaslammer! Everything and anything in America will be challenged! That's the ony way to keep the balance of powers. Get it? As far as what Gene Peterson said. He's talking about how things will ALWAYS BE in terms of populace, masses, and class struggles. You can't change that no matter what economic system you have. People will be people. Of couse, your solution is soooo simple! "Get off your lazy butt and get a job!" Wow, sooo brilliant! You just solved everyones problems! Heh....by the way. Do you live in a cave? It's a big world out there, ya know?
Another constant is how the elite tend to divide and conquer. Promote another class(es) with more privileges than the many, or higher social standing and let them be in the forefront. Prey on the historic stereotypes of another. Invoke nationalism and identity to exploit outsiders. The glass is half full... instead of encouraging people to think of what they don't have try to scare them into losing what they do have. I don't think Warren Buffet has any fear for his hide. His money is good everywhere. He's an anomoly who's either genuinely interested in helping people empower themselves or engaged in a richman's game of seeing how many people he could influence after amassing a fortune that has made money insignificant to him.
How would that not solve almost everybody's problems? I know that 0% unemployment is not realistic, but this is the land of entrepreneurship. There are lots of ways to make money without being on someone's payroll. We are losing the "Democratic" War on Poverty much more clearly and at much more cost and for a far longer period of time than we are the "Republican" War on Terror. In fact, we are winning the War on Terror... it's just that you can hardly discern that from the media reports we get. Yeah, I wish it were all of bed or roses but it's not.
Just some stats to chew on... see the website for tables. I wish I could remember the numbers I heard on NPR about the number of workers over 35 who are professionals that have been seeking work for over 6 months. THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: FEBRUARY 2004 Nonfarm employment was little changed (+21,000) in February, and the unemployment rate remained at 5.6 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Employment levels in most of the major industries were little changed over the month. Unemployment (Household Survey Data) The number of unemployed persons was 8.2 million in February, and the unemployment rate held at 5.6 percent, seasonally adjusted. Both measures are below their recent highs of June 2003. Unemployment rates for the major worker groups--adult men (5.1 percent), adult women (4.9 percent), teenagers (16.6 percent), whites (4.9 percent), blacks (9.8 percent), and Hispanics or Latinos (7.4 percent)--showed little or no change over the month. The unemployment rate for Asians was 4.7 percent in February, not seasonally adjusted. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.) Total Employment and the Labor Force (Household Survey Data) Total employment was down in February to 138.3 million, and the employment- population ratio--the proportion of the population age 16 and older with jobs-- declined to 62.2 percent. The ratio was at or near that level for most of 2003. Over the month, the civilian labor force decreased by 392,000 to 146.5 million, and the labor force participation rate fell to 65.9 percent. (See table A-1.) The number of persons who work part time for economic reasons edged down in February to 4.4 million, seasonally adjusted. This category includes persons who indicated that they would like to work full time but were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find full- time jobs. (See table A-5.) About 7.2 million persons (not seasonally adjusted) held more than one job in February. These multiple jobholders represented 5.3 percent of the total employed, down from 5.6 percent a year earlier. (See table A-13.) Persons Not in the Labor Force (Household Survey Data) In February, about 1.7 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, about the same as a year earlier. (Data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals wanted and were available to work and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed, however, because they did not actively search for work in the 4 weeks preceding the sur- vey. There were 484,000 discouraged workers in February, also about the same as a year earlier. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, were not currently looking for work specifically because they believed no jobs were available for them. The other 1.2 million marginally attached had not searched for work for reasons such as school or family responsibilities. (See table A-13.)link to bls
Throw insults from your little dark dungeon of negativity. Glass half, empty, eh? That post was proof that you are not of sound mind. You are just action-packed with issues. Sirshirchang, I don't like the estate tax. I find it illogical that someone is taxed on their wealth when they are alive and then the blasted govt. comes along and double-taxes it when they are dead. Makes about as much as sense as Thadeus's rambling, incoherent bunch of balderdash above. Folks, when will you realize.....in a capitalist society, there will be always producers who rise to the top and realize wealth because they found a way to market their goods and/or services to the masses to fill a universal demand and those who work in the businesses created by those producers. Why fight something that is NOT inherently unfair when nothing in reality can be entirely fair? Why is it any of your concern that rich people make too much? Why do you people hold our economic system in such a dim view. When all you see is the "downtrodden" and the "less fortunate" (I really hate that term. It implies that most wealthy people are just more "fortunate." As a coach of mine once told me, you can create your own luck good or bad.), I guess I can understand why you are so damned negative. Your collective ignorance on all things economic (like most of the electorate) is just flat-out amazing.
Unrestrained capitalism has a snowballing effect. Once one has accumulated enough wealth one can affect the rule of law . Controling public opinion through the ownership of information outlets, controling legislation by buying influence thorugh lobbying and campaign contributions, controling regulation by buying legal defense, corner markets by buying the competition, are all standard practices by the robber barons. Once the rule of law becomes unfairly stacked against them, the only recourse for the people is revolution. I don't mean bloody , violence in the streets necessarlily, heck, Teddy Roosevelt was one of the US's most radical revolutionaries and he was a Republican. It's nieve to think that all the wealthiest of this country got their money through noble hard work. A lot has been accumulated by luck, market manipulation, the good ole boy network and nefariuos greed, just like every other society throughout history. On the otherhand it is nieve to think that if their wealth were redistributed it would provide for the needs of all the people. The law of supply and demand would still be in effect. I am just observing history and I think we are approaching a point where the current Capitalism/conservatism will swing back towards Socialism/liberalism.
Because it's not that simple! You are only talking about YOUR money; what you get to keep. You are concerned that you must protect it because you earned it. "Hands off! It's mine! Get your own! Work hard, and then everything will be aok." That's what you think, right? What I was talking about is how class struggles occur because of power shifts of influence that have swung from one class to another. And that's what must be balanced. It's all about give and take. And that will never change. All you are suggesting is: Don't complain about the rich. But again, just too simplistic a way to look at it and completely overlooking how democracy works within an ever changing, dynamic economy. DEMOCRACY REQUIRES ACTION! You know, it has been known to happen that establishments will take advantage of the working class because the powers in charge know that their subordinates can do nothing about it! And that's when you have internal conflict and CHANGE! Do you understand!?
That's fine and dandy! But everyone's situation is different. And you can't stifle ones right to "complain" if they see fit to do so...not in a democracy. There will also be a burden of poverty in every society. It's what to do about them that matters. P.S. giddyup, and it's your decision if you "care for them" or not. Or will you just lump them into one big ball of "laziness?"
I guess this doesn't matter to anyone. Corporations get tax breaks, and it's class warfare. Individuals get tax breaks, and it's not. We talk a lot about everyone paying his or her fair share of taxes. But wouldn't a fair system be one where everyone pays the rate their bracket requires? No standard deduction, no home interest deduction, etc. It seems a little disingenuous to complain about how corporations don't pay 35% of their income, while we also see that individuals almost never pay the exact percentage of their income. I'm all for tax simplification. The tax code is a mess and has too often been used to affect behavior rather than as a revenue source. But if it's important to you that corporations pay 35% of their income in taxes, then it should be important to you that individuals pay their rate, too.
mrpaige, in theory that's true but what with loopholes, Bermuda incorporation, etc, a lot of large corporations end up getting significant rebates rather than paying taxes. Most ordinary people don't have the armies of accountants to do that, so the disparity is a little greater than you imply. For example, from 1996-2000, Enron not only paid no taxes, but received over $381,000,000 in net rebates. http://www.ctj.org/pdf/enron.pdf There's a bit of a disconnect there, even if I'm only paying 25% (which I'm not, I get almost no deductions or credits at all) thadeus: that was pretty funny!
I didn't answer your question initially because I don't know the answer. But, in response to what I've quoted above, I would just like to point out (possibly unecessarily) the obvious fact that corporations are not individuals. And, in my opinion and the opinion of many others, should not be treated like individuals nor accorded the same rights and privileges as individuals - primarily because a corporation has far more power and influence on society in general than any individual does. It may be simpler to blanket corporations and individuals under the same set of laws, but it is neither practical nor responsible to do so. A tax break for Roche Pharmaceuticals is a very different thing from a tax break for Joe Eskimo, both in what it says about our culture and in what it does to our society and in how it influences the bottom line of total tax revenue. I'm all for simplification of the tax code, but simplifying it by nullifying the distinctions between corporations and individuals would be like simplifying lunchtime by saying all fruit should be peeled - which would work very well with a giant grapefruit, but would be impossible with a carton of raspberries.
I see. So, it really comes down to the idea that corporations and the rich should pay their fair share and everyone else should not. I would support closing loopholes, but I want them all closed, not just those that affect a portion of the taxpaying population. But, in response to what I've quoted above, I would just like to point out (possibly unecessarily) the obvious fact that corporations are not individuals. They already aren't treated like individuals, but the point is the same. If you want others to play by the rules, you should volunteer to play by the rules, as well. The fact that there is a degree of difference between what one side does vs. the others is irrelevant. It's either a standard worth fighting for, or it's not. You either want taxes to be paid at the rate they're supposed to be paid, or you don't. The fact that one side may take greater advantage doesn't make it right. But most people want the rules to apply to others and not to themselves. I recall having a discussion with someone who railed about rich people getting tax breaks. He went on and on about how there shouldn't be any deductions. He wanted to multiply the rate by the total income and that's what you pay. And then when we got to things like the home interest deduction, he suddenly changed his tune. He wanted that to stay, and he had a big long line of reasoning why the home interest deduction was vital to America, though it mostly boiled down to the fact that it was a deduction that he could take and he liked that. So, in the end, his position was that other people should pay their fair share, but not him. Think about this. Total corporate taxes in the United States was $132 billion. The home interest deduction alone costs the Federal Government nearly $50 billion. It would take increasing corporate taxes nearly 40% just to make up just for the home interest deduction. I'd venture to guess that homeowners not paying their fair share is potentially as big of a problem as corporations not paying theirs.
bamaslammer; I asked you about the estate tax because that tax isn't charged to you, you're dead, but charged to your heirs. For the most part those who get inherited wealth aren't the ones who sweated and risked it all for that money. So if you are really upholding hard work and effort wouldn't the estate be the best tax because it taxes those who didn't have to risk anything to get the money and encourages them to work to gain the same benefits their ancestors did?
There's no difference between winning the lottery and winning the gene pool. You should be taxed on both unless you want a country increasingly full of the idle wealthy, like Paris Hilton... there's a vision for America I want my daughter to grow up emulating.
