US household income disparity

Finally a post I can agree with. But until the right is willing to make cuts, why should the left?

That is the problem I have with the Tea Party, they target left wing spending and leave the bulk of the right wing waste alone. So I of course in my infinite wisdom come on here and make fun of them. Their intentions seem good but they are no where near fair in what that propose to cut. Originally Posted by WTF

ok so i agree that any "wasteful" spending is wasteful..military or otherwise....

but isnt the first duty of goverment to provide for the common defense...and promote the GENERAL welfare...

to give groups of people things...well ok thats galling and counter productive and destructive in so many ways....granted issues are complex..but to treat taxing more as equally valid as a spending cut (defined by liberals as not increasing the spending as much as they wanted) is ruinous...QUIT THE SPENDING

What is shows is that like any large corporation the top of the heap will extract the bulk of all the profit and promise to give the actual working man who is doing the work (and fighting the wars) a living wage and a stipend in the future Originally Posted by WTF

It is "life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness...." not

"life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness & a million dollars"

Sure some people were born with a silver spoon in their mouth. That's the way the ball bounces. I'm excluding the disabled, etc. from this, but for the rest of us: get off your ass and make something of yourself. Improve your lot in life. For the most part access to education is pretty open. No one forces you to work for a given employer. Do something about it if you aren't satisfied with where you're at....but don't sit on your ass and wait for Uncle Sam to stop by with a check...

but isnt the first duty of goverment to provide for the common defense... Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Amen. The role of gov't is to do the things that we as individuals or even small groups cannot practically do ourselves....like defense and building infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.)

Sure some people were born with a silver spoon in their mouth. That's the way the ball bounces. I'm excluding the disabled, etc. from this, but for the rest of us: get off your ass and make something of yourself. Improve your lot in life. For the most part access to education is pretty open. No one forces you to work for a given employer. Do something about it if you aren't satisfied with where you're at....but don't sit on your ass and wait for Uncle Sam to stop by with a check... Originally Posted by atlcomedy

i sometimes think the best thing for us as a whole is to have the spectre of starvation staring lazy asses in the face...hmm do asses have faces?

Amen. The role of gov't is to do the things that we as individuals or even small groups cannot practically do ourselves....like defense and building infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.) Originally Posted by atlcomedy

You mean its not to "spread the wealth"?

but isnt the first duty of goverment to provide for the common defense...and promote the GENERAL welfare...
Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

but isnt the first duty of goverment to provide for the common defense...and promote the GENERAL welfare...of it's own citizens! Not some freaking Afganie. I would prefer my tax dollar go to neither a welfare loafer or defense contractor but given a choice of one or the other it is obvious which I'd choose. Isn't at the end of the day what the fight over spending is all about? Nobody on the right wants to cut Defense spending, despite the fact that we as a nation spend more than the rest of the world combined!

You mean its not to "spread the wealth"? Originally Posted by pjorourke

The Reagan tax cuts along with other tax cuts over the last thirty years spread the wealth to the upper 1/2 0f 1%. Nobody on the right bitched about that redistribution of wealth. That is why we are having this widening of the income gap. The very wealthy have been knocking the ball outta the park while the middle class and poor have been lucky to leg out an infield single.


Every time you change the tax code you benefit one segment over another. How come ''spread the wealth'' is so bad after years of ''horde the wealth'' being the mantra

TFF thread...

Hell, guys, let's just think about Obama's debt like Bush's was thought of. Then there'll be no worries.

Regardless of the political or philosophical origin, the debt doesn't care - it is what it is. This thread mirrors exactly the gridlock current in the government.

The key, to me anyway, is to have jobs onshore that actually make something in order to restore the lower white collar and upper blue collar jobs that have been lost. In the mean time, we need to raise however much money we can (no it won't be all by any stretch) by adjusting the tax rates of the upper 3%-5% - temporarily (we hope) as are the Bush cuts which, btw, didn't actually work all that well, either - unless one is a receipient.

I doubt it's going to be possible to return any jobs lost overseas, so any gains in jobs will come from new goods (going green anyone?), services and support industries that grow up around them. Massive public works programs could help because we need the upgrade of our infrastructure, but, as is the 30's, those will just tread water as far as growing the economy.

Just like any addict, this country first has to admit it has a problem and that ALL of us have the problem in some way or another. Only then can any progress be made.

Sorry that my thoughts are short of graphs and quotes from serious thinkers but I have found that those sort of things are really good to show what is happening or has happened (present or past tense) not what COULD happen. They are good, though, at illustrating the results - IF they are looked at by people who really want to find a solution.

The Reagan tax cuts along with other tax cuts over the last thirty years spread the wealth to the upper 1/2 0f 1%. Originally Posted by WTF

Now just an f...ing minute. Not stealing someones money is not redistributing. The money belongs to them, not the government. If you leave the money where it is, by definition it is not redistribution.

Now just an f...ing minute. Not stealing someones money is not redistributing. The money belongs to them, not the government. If you leave the money where it is, by definition it is not redistribution. Originally Posted by pjorourke

If you lower the taxes on one segment of society and raise it on another to make up the difference by definition you have redistributed the wealth. Reagan did that for higher earners and to lower and middle class earners.

Since you're talking about what Reagan did, you're talking about Fed. So tell me, how does Reagan lower the tax on the lower class past zero?

Since you're talking about what Reagan did, you're talking about Fed. So tell me, how does Reagan lower the tax on the lower class past zero? Originally Posted by Rudyard K

I'll tell you how he raised it on the poor and middle class!

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/opinion/the-great-taxer.html
Mr. Reagan's second tax increase was also motivated by a sense of responsibility -- or at least that's the way it seemed at the time. I'm referring to the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which followed the recommendations of a commission led by Alan Greenspan. Its key provision was an increase in the payroll tax that pays for Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance.
For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan's income tax cuts. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent -- but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up, not down.

If you lower the taxes on one segment of society and raise it on another to make up the difference by definition you have redistributed the wealth. Reagan did that for higher earners and to lower and middle class earners. Originally Posted by WTF

Your statement assumes that the current state (i.e., the relative share of taxes) is correct and that any changes from that is redistribution. Since the current tax system (at that time was itself redistributionist), that makes no sense at all. (Surprise, surprise, WTF made an illogical statement.) One could argue that a uniform $ amount or uniform % are non-redistributionist, but those are they only starting points that make your statement correct.

I'll tell you how he raised it on the poor and middle class!

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/opinion/the-great-taxer.html
Mr. Reagan's second tax increase was also motivated by a sense of responsibility -- or at least that's the way it seemed at the time. I'm referring to the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which followed the recommendations of a commission led by Alan Greenspan. Its key provision was an increase in the payroll tax that pays for Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance.
For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan's income tax cuts. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent -- but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up, not down. Originally Posted by WTF

Well since the system was seriously insolvent, the alternative was cutting the benefits -- where the poor and middle class get proportionally much more bang for the buck. So it is more accurately a forced saving system, not a tax.

And talk about fuzzy math 8.2% + 9.5% is a total tax rate of 17.7% (assuming for the sake of argument that SS is actually a tax and not a savings plan). By 1988 the total was 6.6% and 11.8% which is a total of 18.4%. So we are arguing about a 0.7% of income increase to maintain their SS benefit. Puhlease!

Your statement assumes that the current state (i.e., the relative share of taxes) is correct and that any changes from that is redistribution. . Originally Posted by pjorourke

What are you trying to say? That only your starting point is relative and therefore only you can make a statement about redistribution of wealth?




If so I'm going

[quote=WTF;458552]What are you trying to say?[/quote]

I know these concepts are hard for you, but you must start with one of two basic premises. Either 1) all wealth is owned, in total, by Society, or 2) all wealth is owned, in total, by each individual. It is a question of ownership.

If you believe in 1), then there is never a redistribution of wealth, because society still owns all the wealth and just lets various individuals use it for periods of time. If instead, you believe in 2), then any policy that takes wealth out of one individual's hands and places it in another's is redistribution.

It seems all PJ was saying is that there was redistribution before Reagan and there was still redistribution after Reagan. It would seem he believes in basic premise 2). If you can't see that concept, it may be because you believe in basic premise 1).