Hating the rich over liking the poor

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Edumakated

When has there ever been a time that we didn't have income inequality? Further, what does income equality look like? Be specific.

There's always been a difference between skilled and unskilled labor.

Kinda the entire point of college degrees and unions.

WORK has never been an equal thing by extension neither should taxation.

If anything, there is far less income equality nowadays than before. First, we are no longer trapped into social classes by birth. Pretty much everyone has the ability to move up in social / economic class. Second, the standard of living is so high, especially in the western world, that even our poor are largely rich by global standards.

a reply to: Edumakated

Also, another point.

Yes, there has always been income inequality and that is not bad in and of itself.

It is the degree of the inequality, combined with the stagnation of wages and mobility in the "everyone else" category that is a cause for alarm.

No one is saying there shouldn't be wealthy people in America, or that there must be equal distribution of wealth in some sort of massive socialist movement (except true socialists), the problem is that the rich are further enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else, and at the expense of upward mobility.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Edumakated

When has there ever been a time that we didn't have income inequality? Further, what does income equality look like? Be specific.

There's always been a difference between skilled and unskilled labor.

Kinda the entire point of college degrees and unions.

WORK has never been an equal thing by extension neither should taxation.

If anything, there is far less income equality nowadays than before. First, we are no longer trapped into social classes by birth. Pretty much everyone has the ability to move up in social / economic class. Second, the standard of living is so high, especially in the western world, that even our poor are largely rich by global standards.

Care to source that? Be specific. Everything I've posted has demonstrated clearly the exact opposite.

a reply to: TheRedneck
Well shucks... I feel the same way about your post. Go figure. You said:

The reasonable person does not want anyone to suffer needlessly, but recognizes that if we try to provide everyone with everything simply because they exist, no one will have anything. Life just doesn't work that way. We need to give people opportunity by letting the rich offer the opportunity to Americans and still profit.

Rich people don't have a monopoly on starting businesses (luckily). Where I live there are huge corporations (like walmart) where we used to be nothing but small businesses. Giving them tax breaks just helps them crush the small guys even harder. Luckily we've got a better system for the small guys, plus the whole fad of "homemade" obsession has helped us out.

Anyway, your point about opportunity is moot when there isn't equal opportunity for all. Poor guy is smart, can't afford university, works his ass off to save up, has to eat and pay bills and puts off school. Ends up either poor or in serious debt. Rich guy may not have the same ability but can easily get in to school, and if he fails he can always bribe them. It's the old Roman system, which was designed to keep the wealthy in high positions, requiring degrees.

In Norway school is free for everyone because we see education as a RIGHT rather than a privilege. If people are still floundering with the same opportunity I have no compassion. But in the US you have a serious disparity with opportunity.

I mostly agree with what you said however you need a better speech to type program. Or at least spend the time proofreading to see if it resembles English.

a reply to: Ridhya

I'm middle class and don't really have the money for it but I still donate to charity. I believe in helping the poor. I like my tax dollars helping them. But here's more screaming about how it must just be envy and jealousy. I'd rather live in a cabin than a mansion, I don't want your damn money, I just don't want anyone living on the goddamn street. I don't want people with filthy drinking water. I don't want parents working three jobs to the neglect of their children. Is that so hard to grasp?

Your taxes might be going towards paying the bonuses of corrupt public servants for all you know. Unless you're actually helping the poor, unless you're providing livable wages to your employees, unless you're providing clean water, unless you're providing housing to those living on the street, you're doing nothing but fomenting hatred against those who are actually doing something.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope
In Norway, everyone has access to clean water, healthcare, and education. I know taxes go to helping people there. Canada is a little less certain, like our last Premier was corrupt, our last PM destroyed our surplus he inherited, and our present PM is spending us into oblivion again. Yet still there is plenty of social program prosperity. Either way is still way better than the US being taxed to death yet getting nothing for it. Taxed either way, but at least we benefit.

As to your last notion... living wages ARE what we push for. Typical Norwegian employee (lowest positions) earn the highest in the world. Why? We don't have minimum wages - but we essentially do, due to unions. And with these high wages, we spend more, economy flourishes, happiest population in the world, all thanks to trickle UP economics. Pay people better, they are more loyal, work harder, company flourishes.

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Edumakated

When has there ever been a time that we didn't have income inequality? Further, what does income equality look like? Be specific.

There's always been a difference between skilled and unskilled labor.

Kinda the entire point of college degrees and unions.

WORK has never been an equal thing by extension neither should taxation.

If anything, there is far less income equality nowadays than before. First, we are no longer trapped into social classes by birth. Pretty much everyone has the ability to move up in social / economic class. Second, the standard of living is so high, especially in the western world, that even our poor are largely rich by global standards.

Care to source that? Be specific. Everything I've posted has demonstrated clearly the exact opposite.

Look around you. Do we really need to start listing all the rags to riches stories? I mean, it isn't even someone going from broke to rich famous celeb, but I know tons of people who were born poor and are now successful by most measures - doctors, lawyers, teachers, and other professionals. Solid 1 - 3%er's income wise.

I know a guy who grew up with a father was in jail. He is now one of the most prominent blacks on Wall Street. Another classmate of mine came from a lower middle class background. Super smart. Went to Harvard Business School and a top Private Equity investor now. I come from a lower middle class family.

First in my family to graduate college. My dad was a cop. Mother a secretary. Kept my nose clean, stayed in school. I've made over $100k/yr since I was 26 years old by working hard. I'm in my mid 40s now. I didn't do anything special other than got good grades, stayed in school and made the right career choices. My grandfather only had a 3rd grade education. In two generations, my family went from uneducated sharecropper to 1%er income. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

A friend of my wife's just sold his company for $600 million. He started it in his garage with $10k like five years ago.

It used to be if you weren't born to a blue blood family, you had zero chance of getting any opportunities. If you are willing to hustle, there is no reason to be broke in America other than your own personal failings. There is a reason people are willing to float on inner tubes and run across deserts to get here.

Here is Thomas Sowell basically deconstructing the whole income inequality meme (jump to 2:30 seconds). the money quote is that 50% of all US households will at some point be in the top 1% at some point in their life. In other words, people move in and out of the income stratas. There is no evil 1% because the 1% is not always the same group of people.

a reply to: Edumakated

Ok, so "be specific" = "look around you?"

Hm. Maybe because I'm demonstrating the fact that income inequality and stagnant wages/loss of upward mobility is a documented, studied fact, and the actual reality for 99% of the population?

Anecdotal evidence is the occasional "lottery win" or "I worked my way up from the mailroom to be the CEO" are neither common experiences nor rational ones to bet the entire future of the US Exonomy on. There are always exceptions to the rule. The problem is you want the exception toBE the rule, when clearly, to all evidence, it is not.

Ask the young person with education debt working three jobs to barely survive how great the opportunities are, if we are dealing in anecdotes.

Money is that sword we each caress as it slays all of us.
Please have a look

In 1947, the Court rejected an argument that the Fifth Amendment's right against Self-Incrimination applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment (Adamson v. People of the State of California, 332 U.S. 46, 67 S. Ct. 1672, 91 L. Ed. 2d 1903 [1947]). However, in one of the most famous dissents in history, Justice hugo l. black argued that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated all aspects of the Bill of Rights and applied them to the states. Justice Felix Frankfurter, who wrote a concurrence in Adamson, disagreed forcefully with Black, arguing that some rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment may overlap with the guarantees of the Bill of Rights, but are not based directly upon such rights. The Court was hesitant to apply the incorporation doctrine until 1962, when Frankfurter retired from the Court. Following his retirement, most provisions of the Bill of Rights were eventually incorporated to apply to the states.

1871

Support the "Monetary Reform Act" that will Abolish the Federal Reserve
and the "Sovereignty Movement" by the States

(The Sovereignty Movement is gaining rapid momentum in about 24 states - whose legislatures
are introducing and enacting new laws to restrict the un-constitutional actions of the Federal government)

The Monetary Reform Act, will ABOLISH the Federal Reserve, and is absolutely required if we truly want peace, prosperity and liberty. The Monetary Reform Act will pay off our nation's debt massive $16 Trillion debt in LESS than 24 months and simultaneously:

* Repeals and Abolishes the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and National Banking Act of 1864 which restores America's banking system to that which we had under Pres Abraham Lincoln.

* Returns America's banking system, to AMERICA!

* America's own banking system then begins issuing our own "debt-free U.S. Notes" (which is what our Constitution REQUIRES)

* Abolishes "Fractional Reserve Banking"

* Immediately prevents the U.S. Government from any membership or involvement with the: IMF, BIS and World Bank

Did you know that Fractional Reserve Banking - which we now have under the ILLEGAL/UNCONSTITUTIONAL Federal Reserve is responsible for 90% of all inflation?

Did you know that the 5 islands of Guernsey, just off of Normandy, France's coast, has been operating WITHOUT an illegal/fraudulent banking system, by issuing their own debt-free paper currency since 1815?

Guernsey

Economy[edit]
Financial services, such as banking, fund management, and insurance, account for about 37% of GDP.[51] Tourism, manufacturing, and horticulture, mainly tomatoes and cut flowers, especially freesias, have been declining.[30] Light tax and death duties make Guernsey a popular offshore finance centre for private equity funds.
Guernsey does not have a Central Bank and it issues its own sterling coinage and banknotes. UK coinage and (English, Scottish and Northern Irish-faced) banknotes also circulate freely and interchangeably.[52] Total island investment funds, used to fund pensions and future island costs, amount to £2.7billion as at June 2016.[53] The island issued a 30-year bond in December 2015 for £330m, its first bond in 80 years.[54] The island has been given a credit rating of AA-/A-1+ with a stable outlook from Standard & Poor's.[55]
Guernsey has the official ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code GG and the official ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 code GGY; market data vendors, such as Reuters, will report products related to Guernsey using the alpha-3 code.
In March 2016 there were over 32,291 people employed in Guernsey with 4,864 being self-employed. 2,453 employing businesses. 19.6% work in the finance industry and median earnings were £31,215.[56]

Link

Mr. President,
You have the unique opportunity to make America Great Again by ordering the U.S. Treasury to issue 21st Century “Blockchain Digital Greenbacks“ that will prevent an economic disaster. There are those who will argue that doing so is too bold, and will not serve the interests of those who supported your candidacy. They will argue that if you were to implement a system of debt-free and interest-free currency, thousands of bond holders could lose their stream of perpetual profits. Perhaps. But in the larger sense such courageous action will equate to a Trump legacy on par with that of Lincoln, and you will be remembered to history as the Economic Emancipator of more than 315 million Americans, now condemned to debt slavery.

one more link


So whaddaya' think about all of this?

a reply to: Ridhya

In Norway, everyone has access to clean water, healthcare, and education. I know taxes go to helping people there. Canada is a little less certain, like our last Premier was corrupt, our last PM destroyed our surplus he inherited, and our present PM is spending us into oblivion again. Yet still there is plenty of social program prosperity. Either way is still way better than the US being taxed to death yet getting nothing for it. Taxed either way, but at least we benefit.

As to your last notion... living wages ARE what we push for. Typical Norwegian employee (lowest positions) earn the highest in the world. Why? We don't have minimum wages - but we essentially do, due to unions. And with these high wages, we spend more, economy flourishes, happiest population in the world, all thanks to trickle UP economics. Pay people better, they are more loyal, work harder, company flourishes.

In Norway, they exploit the North Sea for its oil to fund their high standard of living. Not only that, it's full of Norwegians, who have a strong sense of community and civic participation.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Edumakated

Ok, so "be specific" = "look around you?"

Hm. Maybe because I'm demonstrating the fact that income inequality and stagnant wages/loss of upward mobility is a documented, studied fact, and the actual reality for 99% of the population?

Anecdotal evidence is the occasional "lottery win" or "I worked my way up from the mailroom to be the CEO" are neither common experiences nor rational ones to bet the entire future of the US Exonomy on. There are always exceptions to the rule. The problem is you want the exception toBE the rule, when clearly, to all evidence, it is not.

Ask the young person with education debt working three jobs to barely survive how great the opportunities are, if we are dealing in anecdotes.

No, you are demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of basic statistics. Income distribution is not fixed. Meaning people move in and out of different income groups all the time based on where they are in their lives. You sell your house, you are all of a sudden a 1%er. You retire, you are all of a sudden poor income wise, even though you may actually be wealthy in terms of assets.

America does not have a very large class of permanently poor people. The vast majority of people do not remain at the bottom of the income distribution curve. Also, the majority of the people in the top 1% do not remain in the top 1%.

Here is Dr. Sowell explaining and breaking down the data (Census, Treasury data, IRS cited). Take 12 minutes and educate yourself.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Why the obsession with what people earn and what they pay?

Mind your own business and try to do better yourself.

Relying on government for your success is like relying on a distillery for your sobriety.

i can only speak for myself, but i don't want the government to stop giving obscene tax breaks to wealthy people and corporations because i want them to give the money to me... i want to see it put into social programs for the aid and betterment of the most indigent among us, to provide health care, housing, education and support to people who have little to nothing.

we're giving a lot of our taxes away to those who already have teams of accounts and lawyers shuffling their money around to avoid getting taxed on it. how much better could our country be if we took that money from those who could truly afford to lose it, and bettered life for those on whose backs it was made?

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Grimpachi

Business will naturally move towards lower expenses and when one of your major expenses is taxes the obvious next step is to somewhere with lower taxes like Ireland or Singapore

Taxes will not fix anything less government will

jeez....how can you have "less government" when the population of the U.S. has grown by over 50 million people since 2000?......
this is like a family of 3 announcing that they are having a new baby to make a family of 4, and at the same time the parents decide to "CUT" their income

originally posted by: fiverx313

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Why the obsession with what people earn and what they pay?

Mind your own business and try to do better yourself.

Relying on government for your success is like relying on a distillery for your sobriety.

i can only speak for myself, but i don't want the government to stop giving obscene tax breaks to wealthy people and corporations because i want them to give the money to me... i want to see it put into social programs for the aid and betterment of the most indigent among us, to provide health care, housing, education and support to people who have little to nothing.

we're giving a lot of our taxes away to those who already have teams of accounts and lawyers shuffling their money around to avoid getting taxed on it. how much better could our country be if we took that money from those who could truly afford to lose it, and bettered life for those on whose backs it was made?

First off, it isn't YOUR MONEY. It is the tax payers. A tax cut isn't "giving away our taxes". It was never your money to begin with.

If government kept it's hands out of the pockets of the productive, you'd see way more charitable giving. In fact, if you actually look closely, you'd see the rich give a ton of money already for social causes IN SPITE of getting robbed by the government. Go to any hospital, museum, university, and you will find a ton of rich benefactors behind the scenes making it possible.

originally posted by: Edumakated
First off, it isn't YOUR MONEY. It is the tax payers. A tax cut isn't "giving away our taxes". It was never your money to begin with.

If government kept it's hands out of the pockets of the productive, you'd see way more charitable giving. In fact, if you actually look closely, you'd see the rich give a ton of money already for social causes IN SPITE of getting robbed by the government. Go to any hospital, museum, university, and you will find a ton of rich benefactors behind the scenes making it possible.

it's our money as a society. it should be distributed better. we don't need so much corporate welfare, and our military budget is out of control.

as for 'just give the rich more money and they will distribute it to those in need'... permit me some skepticism. there has never been a point in history where people gave enough out of the sheer goodness in their heart to end the kind of misery we see today.

Trickle down vs Trick up... It works down but not up.

This makes no sense at all!

The idea is, if you give more money to the rich people, they'll spend more money and it'll go back into the economy and trickle down.

Two things I know about people who I've seen all my life that had money - lots of money (we all know them).

1 - They enjoy vacations in Mexico (once) and now days enjoy cruises and other countries.
2 - They don't get rich by spending all of their money.

Two things I know about poor people (who barely make it).

1- They enjoy vacations wherever they can afford one. Usually, they don't have such a thing. Vacation is a weekend camping or swimming by the river a few miles down the road.
2 - When they have money, they will spend it on what they need and it's almost ALWAYS spent locally. Sometimes they buy crap that they don't need (How dare the poor not buy food with their government given money!). Hey, poor people want to feel and enjoy the freedoms that we take for granted!

Poor people also say often "got to spend money to make money", a luxury they don't have. At the same time, people who have money can't stand to be around those poor, dirty, hillbilly, trailer trash, uneducated bastards! Or... even worse. Here is charity so I can feel good about myself.


So trickle down is supposed to work by giving more money to the rich, so they can spend money in a restaurant more often and that money goes to local people in the form of tips, wadges and MORE TAXES... so that trickle seems to trickle in to more and more taxes because it eventually gets sucked into zero. At the end you're still taxing transfer after transfer after... Every time that money changes hands, more and more of it end up as tax until there is nothing left that isn't taxed. (Is something that cost 8 cents taxed 8 cents or is it 8% of 8 cents?)

ok sure, I will accept that rich people who own corporations MAY trickle some of that profit down to their employees but all those trips out of the country, anything they buy outside of the US is not doing squat for the people in the US, local or otherwise.

However... Poor and middle class people will almost always put that money back into the local economy. We use those tax breaks to buy the stuff at the start of the new year that we desperately needed but couldn't afford the years before.

It's funny... I make twice what my parents made when I was their age and when I started making this kind of money I was a little proud to say "Hey, look... I made it and I did well. Are you proud"? Then I realized, making what I make now and looking back to what they had, it seems like I have much less and can afford so much less.

That's pretty sad.

So when someone like me makes 70+ a year in the big city (couldn't make that anywhere else by breaking my back any less) and it still seems like an uphill struggle, you can bet your ass that I'm a bit pissy when I see someone making less than twice as me is getting back more than double (percentage wise) than I am... So because I'm middle class, I just have to take it, right? Hell no, I don't and I shouldn't have to.

...but someone has to bare the burden.

Why me? Why the middle class? I just want the American dream like anyone else but I don't get my fair shake of tax breaks. That's like telling me you're going to have something big for me and I'm thinking 'NEW TIRE!!!' and we get there and you say.. naw.. we just decided to add a little air and a temporary patch to the busted one you have there.

I, myself and the poor, should have just as easy an opportunity to get out of a burden as any person with 4X the amount of money I make. I include the poor because I grew up that way. I still include the poor because some of my family is still that way. I "trickle down" when I can but it's not always possible. Especially right now when Christmas is more of a burden for poor families than anyone else because they can't stand to even imagine their children feeling less than anyone else on such a big important day for children.

There is so much wrong with this trickle down BS. I'm not saying it doesn't work but it's not the only way it can work. Trickle up will work just the same and I imagine with a pretty big impact based on percentage. It might not be more than drops of water in a bucket in comparison and I'm no commie bastard to divide and give even across the board but don't spit in our face... don't patronize and don't give hopes and dreams if you're just going to hand us mud cakes.

I'm not blaming Trump or the House. I'm blaming the Senate, yet I expected more from Trump and the House than simply settleling on the crumbs that we're givin instead of the original plan that we were teased with, all for the sake of "Hey, at least we passed a tax bill... we did it!".

No... we didn't. We settled. Just because that put money in our pockets doesn't make it right.

people and their social level (rich or poor) are like water.... they will always seek their natural level

and in each person's psyche makeup... they are in the precise level or strata suited for themselves and the world-around-them...
and in-the-end their plights/shortcomings/'Sins' will be discovered, which then will serve the common good

in 2019, the American tax cuts will give FOREIGNERS 48 billion more dollars put in their pockets.....
www.cbsnews.com...

there are plenty of across the board news resources, all easily googled, that say they will get an even larger share.....too bad poor and lower middle class Americans are told to go take a hike

a reply to: Grambler

That's a very interesting post.

I've noticed something similar of late but couldn't quite put it into words. Hate on the "rich" while all the while reviling the homeless in LA and San Francisco.

"SPCA Hypocrites Now Using Robots to Scare Away Homeless People"

www.youtube.com...
From Truth Stream Media.