US income inequality at record high

[avvie]

In practical terms "the same dollar amount" collected from everybody isn't enough money to run a government. .

Dunno bout that but I do know that it could be run just fine on less than 10% of it's current size. However, that would involve everyone becoming responsible- rich and poor alike.
Blowing money on tattoos and party favors is irresponsible. So is expanding business operations into hostile nations and demanding military intervention and protection.

 

[NWB]

We have a distinct difference in viewpoint if you consider the civli rights struggle to be "relatively peaceful".

I used the word "relatively". I know full well that there were quite a few violent episodes at that time. However, it wasn't a full-scale bloody revolution with bodies stacking up by the thousands.

 

[Unrepresented]

Good point

I will respectfully check to ensure my irony indicator is functioning fully, you were perhaps not accurately alerted.

Why? There are more check cashing stores than Walgreen's.

My parents live in an area where there is basically no middle class whatsoever. What makes it a trip is that you go from very wealthy areas to very poor neighborhoods every couple of blocks. High end shops and plastic surgery clinics turn to tattoo parlors, liquor stores with bars on the windows, and check cashing businesses.

Whilest BawanaRik often argues with people who agree with him, (I keed, I keed) he's not wrong in the assessment that perhaps people don't know how to wisely utilize their money. I even know some fellow pharmacists that seem to be broke simply because they spend it as fast as it comes in. Hell, plenty of professional athletes spend more than we'd ever make in a lifetime in the span of a year or two.

A decent chunk of the auto industry was based on families getting a new car as soon as they paid the last one off. I don't think I know anyone who doesn't have a ~50" TV regardless of income.

The housing market illustrates how DUMB we are. Many banks made stupid loans to people who should have known that they couldn't afford something. When I bought my house, the bank pointed out that they could easily get me into a much bigger house. Guess what? I said, "no thanks!" Clearly if I can figure something out, it can't possibly be that difficult.

It's one thing to start out with disadvantaged, continuing to make poor choices and simply blaming others will keep it an annoying, vicious cycle.

While living within one's means is great, at some point asking the poor to live a purely cash lifestyle is akin to (for at least the second time this thread) asking why they just don't eat cake if they're hungry.

The poor are poor for many reasons. Some self-inflicted and many not. Realistically, very few of us could survive off the cash lifestyle that we'd ask the poor to do.

 

[kanonfodr]

Well since I agree that there will never be a "fair" let the wealthy get screwed over a little more than me.

^I would re-word it to: "Ensure that the wealthy get screwed over as much as I do". Because that's what it really is: the amount of available loopholes for decreasing your tax load increases as your income does. And if I'm making a million dollars a year, I can spare the change to pay an accountant to find me enough loopholes to not only pay for his services, but probably pay most of his salary back to me.

And this isn't a political forum, so I'm not going to mention all the things in our current system that make Corporate Welfare not only possible, but CW now has a stranglehold on our economy in such a way that corporations can damn near dictate their own terms to a municipal or sometimes even state government. Read that as the following: In some place, Corporations are not above the law - they are writing it.

I'm just uncomfortable with the power these people and entities seem to have - governments have checks and balances, and are (supposed to be) responsible to the citizens thereof. Corporations are (by recent historical examples) responsible to no one, and have no one responsible for anything, so they have no accountability for their actions. Power without accountability leads to a totalitarian state where the many suffer for the whims of the few, it has never changed in the history books.

Peace,
Greg

 

[fdeck]

I don't recall using the word work. Thanks for your insight

Aha, you got me. So it's the definition of "earn" and not of "work" that is up in the air.

 

[fdeck]

Dunno bout that but I do know that it could be run just fine on less than 10% of it's current size. However, that would involve everyone becoming responsible- rich and poor alike.
Blowing money on tattoos and party favors is irresponsible. So is expanding business operations into hostile nations and demanding military intervention and protection.

I doubt that even 1/10 of its current size would be feasible on an equal-dollar tax system.

 

[UncleFluffy]

I doubt that even 1/10 of its current size would be feasible on an equal-dollar tax system.

I suspect that everyone believes that 30% or so of the budget is waste, it's just that we all disagree which 30% it is.

 

[BawanaRik]

Dunno bout that but I do know that it could be run just fine on less than 10% of it's current size. However, that would involve everyone becoming responsible- rich and poor alike.
Blowing money on tattoos and party favors is irresponsible. So is expanding business operations into hostile nations and demanding military intervention and protection.

Absolutely true.

It's my understanding that the entire US used to run on 350 billion dollars. I think we need to reevaluate our spending

 

[BawanaRik]

^I would re-word it to: "Ensure that the wealthy get screwed over as much as I do". Because that's what it really is: the amount of available loopholes for decreasing your tax load increases as your income does. And if I'm making a million dollars a year, I can spare the change to pay an accountant to find me enough loopholes to not only pay for his services, but probably pay most of his salary back to me.

And this isn't a political forum, so I'm not going to mention all the things in our current system that make Corporate Welfare not only possible, but CW now has a stranglehold on our economy in such a way that corporations can damn near dictate their own terms to a municipal or sometimes even state government. Read that as the following: In some place, Corporations are not above the law - they are writing it.

I'm just uncomfortable with the power these people and entities seem to have - governments have checks and balances, and are (supposed to be) responsible to the citizens thereof. Corporations are (by recent historical examples) responsible to no one, and have no one responsible for anything, so they have no accountability for their actions. Power without accountability leads to a totalitarian state where the many suffer for the whims of the few, it has never changed in the history books.

Peace,
Greg

At the very least corporations are responsible to share holders. The owners.

 

[fdeck]

Well since I agree that there will never be a "fair" let the wealthy get screwed over a little more than me.

Here's my thought on the subject. Paying taxes is not the same as getting screwed over. The idea of taxation-as-punishment is just an empty debate tactic, whether it comes from the tea party or the radical left.

Likewise, it's worth keeping an eye on fairness, but don't try to get too precise about it, or you'll just end up going around in circles or creating ever more ridiculous definitions of fairness.

Instead, let taxation be for raising money to run the government -- whatever that amounts to. My preference would be for the gov't to provide a fairly extensive list of services, not radically different than what we've got right now, but strengthened in areas such as education and health care, plus a more robust safety net. If some activities dump a large cost on society or on the government, then tax those activities. Given that a complex society will discover and exploit loopholes, the tax system has to evolve in order to chase those loopholes. That's unavoidable.

Your preferences might be different.

 

[Unrepresented]

Here's my thought on the subject. Paying taxes is not the same as getting screwed over. The idea of taxation-as-punishment is just an empty debate tactic, whether it comes from the tea party or the radical left.

Likewise, it's worth keeping an eye on fairness, but don't try to get too precise about it, or you'll just end up going around in circles or creating ever more ridiculous definitions of fairness.

Instead, let taxation be for raising money to run the government -- whatever that amounts to. My preference would be for the gov't to provide a fairly extensive list of services, not radically different than what we've got right now, but strengthened in areas such as education and health care, plus a more robust safety net. If some activities dump a large cost on society or on the government, then tax those activities. Given that a complex society will discover and exploit loopholes, the tax system has to evolve in order to chase those loopholes. That's unavoidable.

Your preferences might be different.

I would vote for that platform.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

You could serious trim the military in the US to save a lot of tax money, though that's a damned big employer with close to 1.5 million folks working in the forces (going by wiki), not to mention the big companies who simply wouldn't want the military reduced, those big companies which live on military spending money.

 

[UncleFluffy]

Absolutely true.

It's my understanding that the entire US used to run on 350 billion dollars. I think we need to reevaluate our spending

In 1901 it was about 0.5 billion. We could just ban inflation

 

[BawanaRik]

In 1901 it was about 0.5 billion. We could just ban inflation

I'm not sure we could do that without issues but people have addressed that.

 

[Unrepresented]

You could serious trim the military in the US to save a lot of tax money, though that's a damned big employer with close to 1.5 million folks working in the forces (going by wiki), not to mention the big companies who simply wouldn't want the military reduced, those big companies which live on military spending money.

There were actually just military cuts as a result if "the sequester." We'll see how long those hold up with our bloodthirsty desires in a vampire-bait world.

 

[nashvillebill]

There were actually just military cuts as a result if "the sequester." We'll see how long those hold up with our bloodthirsty desires in a vampire-bait world.

The B2 bomber cost around 2 billion dollars per aircraft (when all the program costs are added in). The latest Ford-class aircraft carrier is expected to cost 9 billion dollars per aircraft carrier. A single cruise missile is a bargain, at only $600,000 or thereabouts.

I'm all for a strong military--my dad served in WW2-- but isn't there a point where we're spending waaay too much on the military? Do we really need enough nuclear weapons to destroy all life on earth 20 times over? Can't we at least trim our nuke arsenal down to a more appropriate level, say enough to destroy all life on earth five times over?

 

[Unrepresented]

The B2 bomber cost around 2 billion dollars per aircraft (when all the program costs are added in). The latest Ford-class aircraft carrier is expected to cost 9 billion dollars per aircraft carrier. A single cruise missile is a bargain, at only $600,000 or thereabouts.

I'm all for a strong military--my dad served in WW2-- but isn't there a point where we're spending waaay too much on the military? Do we really need enough nuclear weapons to destroy all life on earth 20 times over? Can't we at least trim our nuke arsenal down to a more appropriate level, say enough to destroy all life on earth five times over?

You're preaching to the choir.

 

[UncleFluffy]

I suspect we're getting a little specific here ...

 

[BawanaRik]

I suspect we're getting a little specific here ...

Good night

 

[bolophonic]

^I would re-word it to: "Ensure that the wealthy get screwed over as much as I do". Because that's what it really is: the amount of available loopholes for decreasing your tax load increases as your income does. And if I'm making a million dollars a year, I can spare the change to pay an accountant to find me enough loopholes to not only pay for his services, but probably pay most of his salary back to me.

And this isn't a political forum, so I'm not going to mention all the things in our current system that make Corporate Welfare not only possible, but CW now has a stranglehold on our economy in such a way that corporations can damn near dictate their own terms to a municipal or sometimes even state government. Read that as the following: In some place, Corporations are not above the law - they are writing it.

I'm just uncomfortable with the power these people and entities seem to have - governments have checks and balances, and are (supposed to be) responsible to the citizens thereof. Corporations are (by recent historical examples) responsible to no one, and have no one responsible for anything, so they have no accountability for their actions. Power without accountability leads to a totalitarian state where the many suffer for the whims of the few, it has never changed in the history books.

Peace,
Greg

Isn't it frustrating to know all of this and still have to explain it to people who believe that America would be "fair" if everyone just paid $100 each in taxes because Warren Buffett drives a cheap car?