Without doing any research, how do you think wealth is distributed in the U.S.? Divide the population into quintiles and assign a percentage of total wealth to each. How much total wealth is held by the bottom 20%, second 20%, third 20%, fourth 20%, and top 20%)?
Then watch the video. How close were you? What do you think about this issue?
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(07-26-2017, 03:56 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Without doing any research, how do you think wealth is distributed in the U.S.? Divide the population into quintiles and assign a percentage of total wealth to each. How much total wealth is held by the bottom 20%, second 20%, third 20%, fourth 20%, and top 20%)?
Then watch the video. How close were you? What do you think about this issue?
I guess I'm not surprised. I was going to ask what it looked like before the Reagan Revolution start the long hard screwing of the middle class but the reference to 1976 kind of answers that question.
The next question is: So what can be done? Probably nothing now.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(07-26-2017, 04:05 PM)GMDino Wrote: I guess I'm not surprised. I was going to ask what it looked like before the Reagan Revolution start the long hard screwing of the middle class but the reference to 1976 kind of answers that question.
The next question is: So what can be done? Probably nothing now.
There's a difference between what should/could be done and what will be done. Since our federal and most of our state governments are bought and paid for by the people/corporations that are causing the inequality problem, the "will be done" is more tax cuts for corporations and capital gains incomers.
What should be done is a return to the older tax code of extremely high percentages (75%+) on income/capital gains over ~$1 million.
Use that tax revenue to provide education and job training, those that receive better training and education tend to have higher earning jobs and then pay more in taxes.
Then you use that to provide more education and training and infrastructure projects. This creates a POSITIVE feedback loop.
Cutting taxes which leads to less spending on education/training, hourly workers being paid less because they are less skilled, lower wages leads to lower tax revenue, which leads to less money for education and infrastructure creates a NEGATIVE feedback loop.
I was working for a company that brought in just over a billion dollars a year in the oil industry. Had around 350 employees from drivers, office workers, satellite offices, etc.
Anyways the average worker in the main office made under $15 an hour which is the bulk of the office, while new employees start out at $10-12 an hour. Dispatchers start out around $25k a year on salary for example too.
Point is, the wealth distribution within this company was crap. Sure there was quite a bit of overhead cost and insurance. But bringing in over a billion a year with less than 400 employees. Yeah, I ended up leaving them for greener pastures, as I saw how underpaid most folks were while a few at the top were making millions. Heck one lady was them for almost 20 years, and she wasnt even making $15 an hour! That is just plain wrong and unjustified. Eff that and eff them.
(07-26-2017, 05:13 PM)Millhouse Wrote: I was working for a company that brought in just over a billion dollars a year in the oil industry. Had around 350 employees from drivers, office workers, satellite offices, etc.
Anyways the average worker in the main office made under $15 an hour which is the bulk of the office, while new employees start out at $10-12 an hour. Dispatchers start out around $25k a year on salary for example too.
Point is, the wealth distribution within this company was crap. Sure there was quite a bit of overhead cost and insurance. But bringing in over a billion a year with less than 400 employees. Yeah, I ended up leaving them for greener pastures, as I saw how underpaid most folks were while a few at the top were making millions. Eff that and eff them.
That's income inequality, which is a different thing. Both utilize the Gini coefficient in their measurement, but they measure different things. Wealth inequality in the Us is worse than income inequality. But, both are getting worse as years go on.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(07-26-2017, 04:34 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: There's a difference between what should/could be done and what will be done. Since our federal and most of our state governments are bought and paid for by the people/corporations that are causing the inequality problem, the "will be done" is more tax cuts for corporations and capital gains incomers.
What should be done is a return to the older tax code of extremely high percentages (75%+) on income/capital gains over ~$1 million.
Use that tax revenue to provide education and job training, those that receive better training and education tend to have higher earning jobs and then pay more in taxes.
Then you use that to provide more education and training and infrastructure projects. This creates a POSITIVE feedback loop.
Cutting taxes which leads to less spending on education/training, hourly workers being paid less because they are less skilled, lower wages leads to lower tax revenue, which leads to less money for education and infrastructure creates a NEGATIVE feedback loop.
(07-26-2017, 04:34 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: There's a difference between what should/could be done and what will be done. Since our federal and most of our state governments are bought and paid for by the people/corporations that are causing the inequality problem, the "will be done" is more tax cuts for corporations and capital gains incomers.
What should be done is a return to the older tax code of extremely high percentages (75%+) on income/capital gains over ~$1 million.
Use that tax revenue to provide education and job training, those that receive better training and education tend to have higher earning jobs and then pay more in taxes.
Then you use that to provide more education and training and infrastructure projects. This creates a POSITIVE feedback loop.
Cutting taxes which leads to less spending on education/training, hourly workers being paid less because they are less skilled, lower wages leads to lower tax revenue, which leads to less money for education and infrastructure creates a NEGATIVE feedback loop.
What'd be the point of working hard or innovating, and making over $1m then? You'd be working for free 3/4ths of the time. More once you figure in state taxes, and the costs of actually going to work (car, insurance, gas, etc.)
"Work 10 hours, get paid for 1" sounds like a terrible idea.
All the country's rich people would just move away to other countries, taking their companies with them. Then we'd be stuck with only poor people, and even less money for education and job training for them, and less jobs on top of that.
(07-26-2017, 06:36 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: What'd be the point of working hard or innovating, and making over $1m then? You'd be working for free 3/4ths of the time. More once you figure in state taxes, and the costs of actually going to work (car, insurance, gas, etc.)
"Work 10 hours, get paid for 1" sounds like a terrible idea.
All the country's rich people would just move away to other countries, taking their companies with them. Then we'd be stuck with only poor people, and even less money for education and job training for them, and less jobs on top of that.
If wal mart disappeared and Mcdonalds and amazon etc you dont think anything would pop up and fill the void? Like the mom and pops shops they put out of business?
(07-26-2017, 06:47 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: If wal mart disappeared and Mcdonalds and amazon etc you dont think anything would pop up and fill the void? Like the mom and pops shops they put out of business?
That's what gets me. The idea of less income and wealth inequality is one that is helped by reducing globalization, relying more on small business, etc., etc. Those are conservative ideals so you would think conservatives would be on board. However, because correcting the problem involves social policies that conservatives are typically against, they instead champion the large corporations and globalization.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(07-26-2017, 06:36 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: What'd be the point of working hard or innovating, and making over $1m then? You'd be working for free 3/4ths of the time. More once you figure in state taxes, and the costs of actually going to work (car, insurance, gas, etc.)
"Work 10 hours, get paid for 1" sounds like a terrible idea.
All the country's rich people would just move away to other countries, taking their companies with them. Then we'd be stuck with only poor people, and even less money for education and job training for them, and less jobs on top of that.
It worked for 40 years when our financial system was regulated by the New Deal. Maybe we should be reimplementing some of that and renegotiating our "free" trade deals that allow our corporate overlords to hang the "we'll just move over seas" threat over our heads.
We could also revoke their citizenship and they'd have to pay for a private army to protect their business from being nationalized by whatever 3rd world dictator's country they moved to. No more US military standing behind these corporations protecting them from foreign threats. So there goes all their tax savings.
(07-26-2017, 07:09 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: That's the system we used to have when America was "great".
(07-26-2017, 07:12 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: It worked for 40 years when our financial system was regulated by the New Deal. Maybe we should be reimplementing some of that and renegotiating our "free" trade deals that allow our corporate overlords to hang the "we'll just move over seas" threat over our heads.
Yeah, people forget this.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(07-26-2017, 07:12 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: It worked for 40 years when our financial system was regulated by the New Deal. Maybe we should be reimplementing some of that and renegotiating our "free" trade deals that allow our corporate overlords to hang the "we'll just move over seas" threat over our heads.
We could also revoke their citizenship and they'd have to pay for a private army to protect their business from being nationalized by whatever 3rd world dictator's country they moved to. No more US military standing behind these corporations protecting them from foreign threats.
Ireland and Switzerland are 3rd world countries with a dictator? News to me. They both have very low corporate tax rates compared to other advanced nations.
(07-26-2017, 07:22 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Ireland and Switzerland are 3rd world countries with a dictator? News to me. They both have very low corporate tax rates compared to other advanced nations.
But both have higher personal income taxes than the US, which is the income tax he was referring to.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(07-26-2017, 07:34 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Yes, but then the US would have both high corporate AND income tax rates.
You can get away with one or the other, but both will probably hurt you. Nobody likes working for free.
I don't know, there are quite a few economically powerful countries with high rates in both.
Note that the image is old and Switzerland has decreased their rate since then. What has happened since then? European austerity measures that, arguably, did not help the recovery from the Great Recession as much as stimulus could have. The problem is that we keep cutting rates, all of these countries do, but in the good economic times we need to increase revenues and cut spending.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(07-26-2017, 07:22 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Ireland and Switzerland are 3rd world countries with a dictator? News to me. They both have very low corporate tax rates compared to other advanced nations.
Remind me what just happened with Ireland and Apple cutting a lower tax deal.
Lower tax rates don't always keep a company in place. I just left a job working at HP a few months ago and they were in the process of shutting down their Ireland plant and moving all R&D and manufacturing they did there back to the U.S. (Oregon).
There are lots of reasons besides the tax rate to do business somewhere. Is a company going to move to a country that offers them low or no taxes, but there's no infrastructure or skilled workforce?
(07-26-2017, 07:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't know, there are quite a few economically powerful countries with high rates in both.
Note that the image is old and Switzerland has decreased their rate since then. What has happened since then? European austerity measures that, arguably, did not help the recovery from the Great Recession as much as stimulus could have. The problem is that we keep cutting rates, all of these countries do, but in the good economic times we need to increase revenues and cut spending.
Old enough that it's irrelevant.
2000-2005? You started before 9/11, so no war in the Middle East, and it cuts out Obama's entire two-term Presidency and the huge recession we had.
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: jamarr-chase.gif]](https://media.tenor.com/Ycw6u-nmw3AAAAAM/jamarr-chase.gif)
![[Image: Effective_Corporate_Tax_Rate_OECD_Countr...verage.jpg]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Effective_Corporate_Tax_Rate_OECD_Countries%2C_2000-2005_Average.jpg)
