This Doesn't Piss Me Off - The Poor Not Paying Income Tax Does.

[Havakasha]

Would you agree that one of the economic goals of third world countries
(with wide disparities in income between the rich and poor) is to develop a more equitable society? Why do YOU think that is so? What benefits are there to society when most people can achieve their dreams and live a decent life and provide for their children. What would a lack of upward mobility and inability to reach the middle class and beyond do to the psyche of a a nation?

A. Its leading to a sense and an understanding among many people that the deck is stacked against them. That no longer is the American dream as reachable as it once was, and that the wealthy control our govt and politics, and therefore the policies and legislation which impact our daily lives.
Its enabling more and more corruption to take hold in my opinion. I dont believe that a society made up of increasingly disillusioned people is one headed for stability.

We have existed as a country for many years without the wide disparities of wealth we now have and were quite successful economically. When the wealthy (Buffett, Gates, Soros, Volcker etc. are practically begging to be taxed more, i think you should understand that something is amiss.

[SiriuslyLong]

America is not a third world country. Let's start there. We are an industrialized country that was founded on opportunity, liberty..... And the opportunity is still there. I "dropped out" of an MBA program 70% done. What would have happened had I finished??? I had the opportunity to take a path..... We ALL have an opportunity to take a path.

In my 25 years of working, the only place I saw this, "leading to a sense and an understanding among many people that the deck is stacked against them" was when my companies labor was trying to unionize. The pro union guys felt they were getting ripped off, the others thought they were getting a fair days pay for a fair days work. The majority voted "no" (twice). I wanted to share that with you. Most unions are like that. Trust me, I relocated to Michigan from Pennsylvania and noticed it immediately. I wonder why?

The American Dream is indeed harder to come by, but not because of inequality. We are an industrialized nation. We've built our cities, we've built our roads, and we've CERTAINLY built enough houses / strip malls.... You fly. You've flown over LA or NYC. It's amazing. There's not a lot left to build. Add that to mfg jobs being exported... That's what makes it harder to experience the American Dream, and sadly, it is a drain on opportunity.

I did some limited research on economic inequality, and the consequences appeared somewhat "soft" for lack of a better word. I tend to think it simply boils down to the desire of "spreading the wealth" - plain and simple, and that's something that is gentically wrong to me. It's just...... un American.

[Havakasha]

Never said U.S. was a third world country. Only asked what do third world countries strive TOWARDS (we are retreating in this regard). Come to think of it -- what is that new book by Arianna Huffington called?
"THIRD WORLD AMERICA:HOW OUR POLITICIANS ARE ABANDONING THE MIDDLE CLASS AND BETRAYING THE AMERICAN DREAM." Hmmmm!

Tell me why its a good sign that we find ourselves with the level of inequalities we had during the great Depression. What do these eras both have in common?

I think you are completely wrong when you think this is just about "spreading the wealth". Its about much more than simply philosophy. its about basic economic fairness and its about future economic growth. Are you telling me middle class families have not been squeezed for the past 10 years?
And please dont tell me its because we have built everything we can possibly build and because of unions. Shipping jobs overseas is part of it and certain corporations have responsiblity for that. A lot of us are arguing that there is a HUGE growth industry in the aternative energy field. Who is doing the best to fight it. Yep you got it. The Republcians. I know, i know you just see conspiracy theory logic when i make such comments. Bullshit. Capital investement has been flowing to this area for quite some time despite attempts to protect the oil, gas and coal industries. It could have moved much more quickly if not for political and legislative obstacles set up to hinder it. Too bad Republicans dont understand its importance to future economic growth.

I would argue that its Un-American to have this much inequality in this country. You have to go back to the 1920's to find it. Though we are NOWHERE like these countries, this inequality does cause me to think of places like Egypt, Pakistan, India(Of the past, because its changing rapidly in a good way i believe) etc. These are all places i have travelled to.

[SiriuslyLong]

I know you didn't say America is a third world country. You were making a comparison, and it wasn't apples to apples. That is what I was trying to point out. Third world countries lack opportunity.

I don't think it's a good sign or bad sign. I accept inequality. It's natural. Do I want to be as handsome as John Stamos and get laid by supermodels; sure do, but it ain't happening.

Economic fairness? Has America ever guarenteed economic fairness? I think it is fair to say that America has promised equality of opportunity. Isn't that why people immegrated here from all over the world?

You missed my point on unions completely. You talked about "people thinking the deck is stacked against them", and I agree noting that most of those people are unionized. They have a chip on their shoulder dude. I've seen it first hand. One guy was so polluted with BS that he thought "paid in capital" was cash and that our president was hiding it instead of giving him some of it. I'm serious.

My point about infrastructure is that US is "mature". That presents some unique challanges.

Yes, renewables appear to be an opportunity, but there are still many questions. The sad part is the jobs are going to low cost manufacturing nations.

You and I are talking here. I know your political allegence. No need to insert any anti republican rhetoric. I know where you stand lol. Give me some credit. Actually, venture capital has pretty much dried up for solar. They have a lot in it already.

I think what our government needs to do to reignite the US as the land of opporunity is to enable business to flourish such that they hire people, pay them and give them medical benefits. They then reap the reward of income taxes and payroll taxes (paid by both the employer and employee) as well as any taxes used from the expenditure of the earnings. If the government where truly compassionate, they'd get out of the way and allow free enterprise to flourish lol.

[Havakasha]

Third world countries lack opportunity? i dont think you could say that
about India, Brazil, China etc.

So the fact that inequality has reached proportions that have not
occurred since the 1920/30's Great Depression is "neither a good
or bad sign", but simply "natural" according to you.

I cant disagree more.

I know where your political allegiances stand as well. Lol. I have been telling you for a long time that you dont have to try to pretend anymore.

Infrastructure is "mature". i understand what you mean, but we are in
HUGE need to repair and replenish our infrastructure. China and other countries are
going to pass us by

I just find the need to blame the unions all the time as beyond simplistic.
Unions have benefited many people over the decades (and i am not saying
there isnt corruption and bullshit in some unions), including my grandfather.
Unions worked together with the company heads, and the govt to help turn GM
around. Its simply a lame talking point to point toward the unions as the source
of all problems. You have to acknowledge the problems with corrupt Boards of
Directors, and Corporate heads as well.

Venture capital has "dried up for solar" (depends what you mean by "dried up")
for all kinds of economic reasons. Money is still flowing there.
It will rise further i am sure. I am talking about the last 10 years when our
govt and polticians could have done more to encourage it when opportunities were ripe.
There are always questions about all new industries. Big deal.

"Get out of the way". You mean like from 2000 to 2008? LMFAO.

[Havakasha]

Scroll down S&L and read some important information about how inequality suppresses growth. It makes logical sense to me.

OP-ED COLUMNIST
Our Banana Republic
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: November 6, 2010


In my reporting, I regularly travel to banana republics notorious for their inequality. In some of these plutocracies, the richest 1 percent of the population gobbles up 20 percent of the national pie.

But guess what? You no longer need to travel to distant and dangerous countries to observe such rapacious inequality. We now have it right here at home — and in the aftermath of Tuesday’s election, it may get worse.

The richest 1 percent of Americans now take home almost 24 percent of income, up from almost 9 percent in 1976. As Timothy Noah of Slate noted in an excellent series on inequality, the United States now arguably has a more unequal distribution of wealth than traditional banana republics like Nicaragua, Venezuela and Guyana.

C.E.O.’s of the largest American companies earned an average of 42 times as much as the average worker in 1980, but 531 times as much in 2001. Perhaps the most astounding statistic is this: From 1980 to 2005, more than four-fifths of the total increase in American incomes went to the richest 1 percent.

That’s the backdrop for one of the first big postelection fights in Washington — how far to extend the Bush tax cuts to the most affluent 2 percent of Americans. Both parties agree on extending tax cuts on the first $250,000 of incomes, even for billionaires. Republicans would also cut taxes above that.

The richest 0.1 percent of taxpayers would get a tax cut of $61,000 from President Obama. They would get $370,000 from Republicans, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. And that provides only a modest economic stimulus, because the rich are less likely to spend their tax savings.

At a time of 9.6 percent unemployment, wouldn’t it make more sense to finance a jobs program? For example, the money could be used to avoid laying off teachers and undermining American schools.

Likewise, an obvious priority in the worst economic downturn in 70 years should be to extend unemployment insurance benefits, some of which will be curtailed soon unless Congress renews them. Or there’s the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, which helps train and support workers who have lost their jobs because of foreign trade. It will no longer apply to service workers after Jan. 1, unless Congress intervenes.

So we face a choice. Is our economic priority the jobless, or is it zillionaires?

And if Republicans are worried about long-term budget deficits, a reasonable concern, why are they insistent on two steps that nonpartisan economists say would worsen the deficits by more than $800 billion over a decade — cutting taxes for the most opulent, and repealing health care reform? What other programs would they cut to make up the lost $800 billion in revenue?

In weighing these issues, let’s remember that backdrop of America’s rising inequality.

In the past, many of us acquiesced in discomfiting levels of inequality because we perceived a tradeoff between equity and economic growth. But there’s evidence that the levels of inequality we’ve now reached may actually suppress growth. A drop of inequality lubricates economic growth, but too much may gum it up.

Robert H. Frank of Cornell University, Adam Seth Levine of Vanderbilt University, and Oege Dijk of the European University Institute recently wrote a fascinating paper suggesting that inequality leads to more financial distress. They looked at census data for the 50 states and the 100 most populous counties in America, and found that places where inequality increased the most also endured the greatest surges in bankruptcies.

Here’s their explanation: When inequality rises, the richest rake in their winnings and buy even bigger mansions and fancier cars. Those a notch below then try to catch up, and end up depleting their savings or taking on more debt, making a financial crisis more likely.

Another consequence the scholars found: Rising inequality also led to more divorces, presumably a byproduct of the strains of financial distress. Maybe I’m overly sentimental or romantic, but that pierces me. It’s a reminder that inequality isn’t just an economic issue but also a question of human dignity and happiness.

Mounting evidence suggests that losing a job or a home can rock our identity and savage our self-esteem. Forced moves wrench families from their schools and support networks.

In short, inequality leaves people on the lower rungs feeling like hamsters on a wheel spinning ever faster, without hope or escape.

Economic polarization also shatters our sense of national union and common purpose, fostering political polarization as well.

So in this postelection landscape, let’s not aggravate income gaps that already would make a Latin American caudillo proud. To me, we’ve reached a banana republic point where our inequality has become both economically unhealthy and morally repugnant.

I invite you to comment on this column on my blog, On the Ground. Please also join me on Facebook, watch my YouTube videos and follow me on Twitter.

[SiriuslyLong]

Interesting article. I did see "may" and "suggest". I wouldn't call it definitive by any means.

I suppose the only solution is to screw the rich and give it to the poor. That's exactly what they want, right? Handouts based on redistribution of wealth. You can sugar coat it all you want. Man up and say it just like Obama did lol.

I'll tell you what EVERYONE wants and what this nation was built on - success. The governments role is not give success, but create an environment were opportunity can turn into success. If you want compassion, allow "the poor" to get a job and produce something that they can be proud of. No one on welfare is happy to be on welfare. Do you think the person checking out in the grocery line with food stamps feels good about it? I'll bet you my life that they'd rather work and succeed, but in your convoluted world, somehow the rich are the biggest problem - because they have money you can't TAKE to GIVE to others. I'm just glad you and those that think like you are in the minority. America would be lost if that ever changes.

All jarring aside, I appreciate your point of view, and the conversation. I have indeed learned a lot from our discussions and the articles you have posted even though we see things differently.

[Havakasha]

Im glad you appreciate the conversations. I do too. But in this area you really
piss me off.There is a reason the imbalance has reached Great Depression
proportions. The middle class are the ones getting screwed
yet you cry for the wealthy who have made out incredibly well. I know because i
come from a well to do family. I know how the game is played. Good accountants
make a difference.

My grandfather used to be in the 90% bracket. And people now paying in the mid to low 30's are complaining.
Man up" as Sharon Angle says and just try to be a true patriot for once. My god are you guys whiners.

No screwing of the rich necessary. Simple balance like Buffett, Gates, Soros,
Volcker etc suggest.

[SiriuslyLong]

"you guys...." "....cry for the rich...."

Please remember that you have me on record as saying 1.) I'm fine if the extension ends for those who make > $250,000, and 2.) I'm fine with continually extending tax brackets upward (e.g. the guy making $1 MM is paying the same base rate as the guy making $100 MM - 35% I believe).

So what guys are you talking about, and are you sure I'M crying for the rich?

[Havakasha]

"i suppose the only solution is to screw the rich and give it to the poor"
"somehow in your world the rich are the biggest problem"
NO, once again. You just dont get it.

So yes, im definitey sure you "cry for the rich". You cant seem to get
you're thoughts straight on this subject. You are for the end of the tax cuts for the wealthy but keep crying for the rich. ITS ALL ABOUT SIMPLE FAIRNESS AND WHAT'S GOOD FOR OUR ECONOMY AND SOCIETY (read Kristoff article over and over until you start to truly consider it ) as (for the hundreth time) Buffett, Gates, Soros, Volcker all know so well.

Who the hell said anything about compassion for people not wanting a job. Almost everyone wants one. Another old talking point which you seem to have dusted off after the Right dropped it last decade. So utterly boring.