How so? There are alot of Politicians for sale. What rock have you been under?
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Class War Illustrated
- Thread starter JBeukema
- Start date
How so? There are alot of Politicians for sale. What rock have you been under?
The current economic system is not an equitable system in that it is biased to favor the wealthy few at the expense of at least 90% of everyone else. The result of this bias compensates those at the top far more than their earned share. This wealth comes from and was created by the working class with their hands and minds, and, they are under compensated. The goal of business is to maximize profits by reducing costs and selling at as high a price as can be achieved that results in the greatest profits. A key cost to keep reduced as much as possible is labor, labor compensation. In our system, that is an easy thing to do.
Since even before the mercantilist period, it was a stated tenet that labor aught to, should be kept to subsistence. Subsistence being defined as just enough compensation to keep them from starving to death and enough compensation so that they could still reproduce, not riot, and not anything more. The intention to limit wages to today's standard of subsistence is ever present, alive and well, and, as it turns out, is very easy to do. Employers know the exact lowest going rate for the different types of workers they employ. Among employers in any given field or industry, it is actually common knowledge.
Prices on the other hand are set by the market, loosely in some instances. For many of the wealthy and for the very successful enterprises, the relationship of prices to cost is practically non-existent. In fact, for the more lucrative endeavors, there is a huge chasm between the prices charged and the cost of production. This is where much of the wealth gets funneled to the wealthy, keeping compensation low and charging high prices, as high a they can get while maximizing profits at that production level that arithmetically indicates a maximum profit.
The point being that compensation, especially in this climate of anti unionism, has been successfully and sufficiently depressed (as it always has been, just more so since Reagan) toward today's standard of subsistence compared to the ability for the wealthy and big business to maximize profits, especially in those industries and products and services where there is a big chasm between cost to produce and the price demanded. The tables are so lopsided between the haves and the rest of society, that the wealthy have been able to amass substantial wealth, far beyond any reasonable equitable proportion, and it's getting worse every minute. This wealth was created by the labor and minds of the bottom 90%, yet the vast lion's share of excess wealth has been inequitably accumulated in large amounts by the wealthy few by way of our biased economic system.
Society and Government need money to operate. The government cannot go to the bottom 60%, as they only have 4% of the nation’s wealth, the bottom 40% have less than 1%. 85% of the nation’s wealth is in the hands of the top 15%. The bottom 60% don’t have any wealth to speak of, certainly not any excess wealth like the top 1% who have 37% or the top 10% who have 71% of the nation’s wealth. Obviously, the money should and must come from the top for the most part. Why not, equitably speaking, they were able to game the system which is skewed in their favor thereby successfully acquiring the wealth that was created and earned by the working class, since the wealthy, for the most part, didn’t earn it, they “managed” to position themselves to acquire it by comparatively minimal effort, work, joules of energy compared to the working class efforts, work, and joules of energy that created that wealth with their hands and minds.
I would much prefer that our economic system were equitable in its results and that the working class could retain more of what they create; higher wages, lower prices, and the sufficient cessation of financial maneuvering. That way their wouldn’t be as much lopsidedness in the concentration of wealth and income. That way the working class would be able to consume more of the things they need and want. Then and only then should we have a more proportional progressive tax.
But, right now, in view of the lopsidedness of the concentration of wealth and income at the top that we currently have, the fact that the bottom 60% and bottom 40% don’t have much wealth at all, the only fair and equitable and obviously logical thing to do is to have a very progressive tax, much more so than what we have now. It is moral, fair, equitable, and a straight forward means available to correct, at least in part, the inequity that led to the lopsided concentration of wealth and income at the top.
Since even before the mercantilist period, it was a stated tenet that labor aught to, should be kept to subsistence. Subsistence being defined as just enough compensation to keep them from starving to death and enough compensation so that they could still reproduce, not riot, and not anything more. The intention to limit wages to today's standard of subsistence is ever present, alive and well, and, as it turns out, is very easy to do. Employers know the exact lowest going rate for the different types of workers they employ. Among employers in any given field or industry, it is actually common knowledge.
Prices on the other hand are set by the market, loosely in some instances. For many of the wealthy and for the very successful enterprises, the relationship of prices to cost is practically non-existent. In fact, for the more lucrative endeavors, there is a huge chasm between the prices charged and the cost of production. This is where much of the wealth gets funneled to the wealthy, keeping compensation low and charging high prices, as high a they can get while maximizing profits at that production level that arithmetically indicates a maximum profit.
The point being that compensation, especially in this climate of anti unionism, has been successfully and sufficiently depressed (as it always has been, just more so since Reagan) toward today's standard of subsistence compared to the ability for the wealthy and big business to maximize profits, especially in those industries and products and services where there is a big chasm between cost to produce and the price demanded. The tables are so lopsided between the haves and the rest of society, that the wealthy have been able to amass substantial wealth, far beyond any reasonable equitable proportion, and it's getting worse every minute. This wealth was created by the labor and minds of the bottom 90%, yet the vast lion's share of excess wealth has been inequitably accumulated in large amounts by the wealthy few by way of our biased economic system.
Society and Government need money to operate. The government cannot go to the bottom 60%, as they only have 4% of the nation’s wealth, the bottom 40% have less than 1%. 85% of the nation’s wealth is in the hands of the top 15%. The bottom 60% don’t have any wealth to speak of, certainly not any excess wealth like the top 1% who have 37% or the top 10% who have 71% of the nation’s wealth. Obviously, the money should and must come from the top for the most part. Why not, equitably speaking, they were able to game the system which is skewed in their favor thereby successfully acquiring the wealth that was created and earned by the working class, since the wealthy, for the most part, didn’t earn it, they “managed” to position themselves to acquire it by comparatively minimal effort, work, joules of energy compared to the working class efforts, work, and joules of energy that created that wealth with their hands and minds.
I would much prefer that our economic system were equitable in its results and that the working class could retain more of what they create; higher wages, lower prices, and the sufficient cessation of financial maneuvering. That way their wouldn’t be as much lopsidedness in the concentration of wealth and income. That way the working class would be able to consume more of the things they need and want. Then and only then should we have a more proportional progressive tax.
But, right now, in view of the lopsidedness of the concentration of wealth and income at the top that we currently have, the fact that the bottom 60% and bottom 40% don’t have much wealth at all, the only fair and equitable and obviously logical thing to do is to have a very progressive tax, much more so than what we have now. It is moral, fair, equitable, and a straight forward means available to correct, at least in part, the inequity that led to the lopsided concentration of wealth and income at the top.
And who pays off the Washington cronies to vote a certain way to achieve more of this power? BIG BUSINESS.
In a free country where freedom is valued, you do not hinder people from using their money to buy influence or anything else. It is their right and is a freedom we should not sneer at.
The government however has no money. It cannot give money or benefit to one person or entity or group without taking it from or obligating another. Deny government the power to take from one person, entity, or group in order to give it to another and Big Business could give all their profits to whomever they like but would not be able to benefit from that one whit.
It is wise to keep these things in perspective.
A conservative defense of bribery.
Amazing.
Of course one who is unable to put things in perspective is unable to understand what I said here and will completely misrepresent it.
"In a free country where freedom is valued, you do not hinder people from using their money to buy influence or anything else."
Bribery, a form of corruption, is an act implying money or gift given that alters the behavior of the recipient. Bribery constitutes a crime and is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty.
Bribery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bribery, a form of corruption, is an act implying money or gift given that alters the behavior of the recipient. Bribery constitutes a crime and is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty.
Bribery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Using ones resources to buy influence is not bribery unless what is solicited is unethical or illegal to give.
I propose it be made unethical and illegal for government to use the people's money to dispense favors of any kind to anybody. That would make gifts to campaigns etc. of no use to anybody other than to elect the best people to Congress or the White House. Such people would not be able to benefit the donors without benefitting everybody equally.
Problem solved.
I propose it be made unethical and illegal for government to use the people's money to dispense favors of any kind to anybody. That would make gifts to campaigns etc. of no use to anybody other than to elect the best people to Congress or the White House. Such people would not be able to benefit the donors without benefitting everybody equally.
Problem solved.
Foxfyre, I am beginning to believe that you may be sincerely well intentioned and earnest in your intent. I want to suggest that you step back a bit and take a look at a bigger picture and objectively look at the macro effects and then go to the micro dynamics. Your second paragraph response to Chris is wildly utopian in nature, and therefore, not realistic.
Political influence which benefits the few against the best interest of the many is not a good thing, it is not an equitable thing, and has a long term detrimental effect to the country in so many ways.
Without regard to blatant illegal bribery, there is a very close similarity between purchased illegal bribery-type influence and Legally purchased influence by the few wealthy entities that results in inordinate clout of these few against the many or can result in subverting/suppressing the will of the many. That is anti-democratic. The similarity is that both are obtained with money and both have an inordinate disproportionate effect. Don’t be blinded by the simplistic assessment that if it is currently legal, that, therefore, such disparate legally purchased influence is fair, equitable, therefore moral, desirable, good for the majority, and virtuous. Every liberal knows this, the right wing are in deliberate denial of this.
The right wing would have us believe that considering corporations and unions as a real person and therefore legally able to make giant disparate, disproportionately massive undisclosed political contributions (as nothing more than an exercise of freedom of speech) is fair and equitable and the way things should be. That those entities with considerable means can actively recruit foreign money to be used in our USA political campaigns is an abomination; a threat to our very democracy.
Simplistic thinking is dangerous and damaging to the nation.
Political influence which benefits the few against the best interest of the many is not a good thing, it is not an equitable thing, and has a long term detrimental effect to the country in so many ways.
Without regard to blatant illegal bribery, there is a very close similarity between purchased illegal bribery-type influence and Legally purchased influence by the few wealthy entities that results in inordinate clout of these few against the many or can result in subverting/suppressing the will of the many. That is anti-democratic. The similarity is that both are obtained with money and both have an inordinate disproportionate effect. Don’t be blinded by the simplistic assessment that if it is currently legal, that, therefore, such disparate legally purchased influence is fair, equitable, therefore moral, desirable, good for the majority, and virtuous. Every liberal knows this, the right wing are in deliberate denial of this.
The right wing would have us believe that considering corporations and unions as a real person and therefore legally able to make giant disparate, disproportionately massive undisclosed political contributions (as nothing more than an exercise of freedom of speech) is fair and equitable and the way things should be. That those entities with considerable means can actively recruit foreign money to be used in our USA political campaigns is an abomination; a threat to our very democracy.
Simplistic thinking is dangerous and damaging to the nation.
Last edited:
Foxfyre, I am beginning to believe that you may be sincerely well intentioned and earnest in your intent. I want to suggest that you step back a bit and take a look at a bigger picture and objectively look at the macro effects and then go to the micro dynamics. Your second paragraph response to Chris is wildly utopian in nature, and therefore, not realistic.
Political influence which benefits the few against the best interest of the many is not a good thing, it is not an equitable thing, and has a long term detrimental effect to the country in so many ways.
Without regard to blatant illegal bribery, there is a very close similarity between purchased illegal bribery-type influence and Legally purchased influence by the few wealthy entities that results in inordinate clout of these few against the many or can result in subverting/suppressing the will of the many. That is anti-democratic. The similarity is that both are obtained with money and both have an inordinate disproportionate effect. Don’t be blinded by the simplistic assessment that if it is currently legal, that, therefore, such disparate legally purchased influence is fair, equitable, therefore moral, desirable, good for the majority, and virtuous.
I am absolutely well intention sir, and I don't believe I am the least bit unrealistic.
It started with Teddy Roosevelt actually who took the view that those who had much had the most responsibility to society. That distorted the basic principle of unalienable rights as understood by the Founders and started us on the slippery slope of class warfare which is what this thread is all about.
With him starting the snowball rolling, every subsequent administration, with the possible exception of Coolidge, has not significantly tried to destroy the snowball but rather has accelerated its speed. No longer was everybody in the same boat but at different stages of their socioeconomic success as the Founders intended, but now we had the less successful looking to the more successful to carry the load rather than seeing that as their own responsibility.
And then the entitlement mentality set in. Some people saw that they were no longer required to merit what they had but simply had to declare need and it would magically be provided. And because they would vote for those who would promise to provide it, the character of public service was dramatically changed. We no longer have many public servants in high office, but rather have those who increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes by perpetuating the dependency of the poor, the disadvantaged, the oppressed, and big business who are willing to pay to get the contracts and special regulation and permissions and elimination of competition that they seek.
Take away the federal government's ability to use the people's money to benefit any individual, group, or entity, however, without dispensing equal benefit to all, and all that graft, corruption, and bribery goes away. It has to be at the government level because people will always take whatever they can legally get when it is there to get and will not want to be left out of the goodies when they're being doled out.
Last edited:
Man, I disagree with you so fundamentally, I don’t know where to begin.
First of all, I don’t think that those with the most have more responsibility to society, per se. I think that everyone has an equal responsibility to society, and when one small faction of society has inequitably benefited from inherent inequities in our economic system to the extent that has led to our nation’s current lopsided inequitable concentration of wealth and income at the top to the detriment of our economy and to our nation and to the vast majority of its people, then something needs to be done to correct that inequity, and that is problem, Foxfyre.
There isn’t any class warfare at this time, Foxfyre, don’t expect it to occur any time soon. Saying that there is a class war is simpling being alarmist and histrionic. There are, however, economists and liberals like me that are starting to push back against people like you. Class warfare, no, not even close. I don’t think it is necessary as we have a democracy that is potentially capable of fixing itself. The right people have to get elected and the electorate has to be apprised of the real truths, and that is the way we liberals are going do it.
It amazes me that while the wealthy and very fortunate in our society acquired the lions share of wealth, while the lopsidedness of wealth at the top is ever increasing and while the vast majority in this country (you know, the average citizen) are really struggling, that your focus for the problem in this country is on the “less successful” (which is the vast majority in our society). You characterize the problem as “… the less successful looking to the more successful to carry the load rather than seeing that as their own responsibility”. Do you really think that is the preponderance of the problem? You have bought the right wing coolaid big time. I will bet that the Koch brothers are smiling at you. Come on! The top 10% own 71% of the wealth, the bottom 85% only have 15%, the bottom 60% only have 4% of the wealth, the bottom 40% have next to nothing! Can’t you see the big picture folly of your view of the problem? It’s staring you in the face.
You go on to blame an “entitlement mentality” wherein people simply declare need and sit there and expect that need to be fulfilled. And you believe that is where the real problems lies? You know, our financial decline is the reason people can not afford adequate health care, that is the reason our nation is falling behind educationally, birth mortality rate is bad in comparison to even less wealthy nations, that is the reason our infrastructure is slowly but surely on the demise, that is the reason in 1955 a working man could afford a wife and two kids and a home and a car and now it takes two parents working to get the same or even less, etc., etc., etc. And you say our problem is the initial distortion of our inalienable rights that ultimately led to an entitlement mentality, and finally you go on to blame all that graft, corruption, and bribery in government. Is that the reason that the bottom 60% only have 4% of the wealth?
Just for the record, my issue is with the inequity of our biased economic, political, legal system in this country that has allowed and supported a resultant economy that has vastly disproportionately and inequitably rewarded the few at the top by successfully and legally siphoning off the wealth created by the working class. I cite the stats above as the strongest argument and single best proof there is. Unlike you, I do not blame the working class, I don’t think that they have stripped me of my inalienable rights.
But, like you, I do blame an entitlement mentality. But I blame different people than you do. I blame those who suffer from a sense of entitlement that are some of the wealthy (though certainly not the vast majority of the wealthy – it simply isn’t all their fault), some of the powerful and politically influential people in our society, and some ostensible left wing politicians, and all the other people who look at things the way you do and deflect by blaming the very people that are suffering and disadvantaged. Offense is the best defense? Appears to be a frequent tactic of the right. Those right wing conservatives and republicans that push for lower taxes for the rich, that push for less regulation of big business where it is obviously sorely needs better regulation, that try to destroy unions and collective bargaining, that give big business unfair advantages, that want to increase income taxes today on the bottom 98% and reduce taxes on the top 2%, that want to privatize everything in sight that aught not be privatized, that want to cut back on investments in infrastructure and public education, that undermine the working class safeguards to compensation that, like you, blame the less fortunate in our society, are all destroying our country. Blaming the less fortunate is an abomination, it’s immoral, it is void of compassion, it’s insensitive, it’s cruel, it’s heartless, it is a distortion of epic proportions, it’s misguided as you are blaming the wrong faction in our society, and it’s just plain incorrect.
For the record, give some sense of proportion and magnitude and state an approximation of just what percentage or fractional proportion of the bottom 85% in our country that suffer from the problematic sense of entitlement that you describe? Come on, doesn’t have to spot on, + or – 10% accuracy to the best of your estimate. I mean, you couldn’t, wouldn’t have developed your arguments not knowing or not being the least bit certain of such a proportion, could you? Not asking for an exact number here, ball park it if you have to. But, if you have to ball park it, that just reflects the inherent weakness in your argument and erodes your credibility.
If you say it’s only 1% or 5%, then your argument has no merit as far as describing any problem as those percentages are not material. If you say 50% or 60% or even more, you have just slammed the majority of the people in this country. BTW, I have always regarded the right wing conservative republican proponents as being between a rock and a hard place when it comes to calling them out with these kinds of basic facts. If you have no answer, or worse yet, refuse to answer by trying to obfuscate the issue or just plain denial, there goes your credibility, out the window with Peter Pan.
First of all, I don’t think that those with the most have more responsibility to society, per se. I think that everyone has an equal responsibility to society, and when one small faction of society has inequitably benefited from inherent inequities in our economic system to the extent that has led to our nation’s current lopsided inequitable concentration of wealth and income at the top to the detriment of our economy and to our nation and to the vast majority of its people, then something needs to be done to correct that inequity, and that is problem, Foxfyre.
There isn’t any class warfare at this time, Foxfyre, don’t expect it to occur any time soon. Saying that there is a class war is simpling being alarmist and histrionic. There are, however, economists and liberals like me that are starting to push back against people like you. Class warfare, no, not even close. I don’t think it is necessary as we have a democracy that is potentially capable of fixing itself. The right people have to get elected and the electorate has to be apprised of the real truths, and that is the way we liberals are going do it.
It amazes me that while the wealthy and very fortunate in our society acquired the lions share of wealth, while the lopsidedness of wealth at the top is ever increasing and while the vast majority in this country (you know, the average citizen) are really struggling, that your focus for the problem in this country is on the “less successful” (which is the vast majority in our society). You characterize the problem as “… the less successful looking to the more successful to carry the load rather than seeing that as their own responsibility”. Do you really think that is the preponderance of the problem? You have bought the right wing coolaid big time. I will bet that the Koch brothers are smiling at you. Come on! The top 10% own 71% of the wealth, the bottom 85% only have 15%, the bottom 60% only have 4% of the wealth, the bottom 40% have next to nothing! Can’t you see the big picture folly of your view of the problem? It’s staring you in the face.
You go on to blame an “entitlement mentality” wherein people simply declare need and sit there and expect that need to be fulfilled. And you believe that is where the real problems lies? You know, our financial decline is the reason people can not afford adequate health care, that is the reason our nation is falling behind educationally, birth mortality rate is bad in comparison to even less wealthy nations, that is the reason our infrastructure is slowly but surely on the demise, that is the reason in 1955 a working man could afford a wife and two kids and a home and a car and now it takes two parents working to get the same or even less, etc., etc., etc. And you say our problem is the initial distortion of our inalienable rights that ultimately led to an entitlement mentality, and finally you go on to blame all that graft, corruption, and bribery in government. Is that the reason that the bottom 60% only have 4% of the wealth?
Just for the record, my issue is with the inequity of our biased economic, political, legal system in this country that has allowed and supported a resultant economy that has vastly disproportionately and inequitably rewarded the few at the top by successfully and legally siphoning off the wealth created by the working class. I cite the stats above as the strongest argument and single best proof there is. Unlike you, I do not blame the working class, I don’t think that they have stripped me of my inalienable rights.
But, like you, I do blame an entitlement mentality. But I blame different people than you do. I blame those who suffer from a sense of entitlement that are some of the wealthy (though certainly not the vast majority of the wealthy – it simply isn’t all their fault), some of the powerful and politically influential people in our society, and some ostensible left wing politicians, and all the other people who look at things the way you do and deflect by blaming the very people that are suffering and disadvantaged. Offense is the best defense? Appears to be a frequent tactic of the right. Those right wing conservatives and republicans that push for lower taxes for the rich, that push for less regulation of big business where it is obviously sorely needs better regulation, that try to destroy unions and collective bargaining, that give big business unfair advantages, that want to increase income taxes today on the bottom 98% and reduce taxes on the top 2%, that want to privatize everything in sight that aught not be privatized, that want to cut back on investments in infrastructure and public education, that undermine the working class safeguards to compensation that, like you, blame the less fortunate in our society, are all destroying our country. Blaming the less fortunate is an abomination, it’s immoral, it is void of compassion, it’s insensitive, it’s cruel, it’s heartless, it is a distortion of epic proportions, it’s misguided as you are blaming the wrong faction in our society, and it’s just plain incorrect.
For the record, give some sense of proportion and magnitude and state an approximation of just what percentage or fractional proportion of the bottom 85% in our country that suffer from the problematic sense of entitlement that you describe? Come on, doesn’t have to spot on, + or – 10% accuracy to the best of your estimate. I mean, you couldn’t, wouldn’t have developed your arguments not knowing or not being the least bit certain of such a proportion, could you? Not asking for an exact number here, ball park it if you have to. But, if you have to ball park it, that just reflects the inherent weakness in your argument and erodes your credibility.
If you say it’s only 1% or 5%, then your argument has no merit as far as describing any problem as those percentages are not material. If you say 50% or 60% or even more, you have just slammed the majority of the people in this country. BTW, I have always regarded the right wing conservative republican proponents as being between a rock and a hard place when it comes to calling them out with these kinds of basic facts. If you have no answer, or worse yet, refuse to answer by trying to obfuscate the issue or just plain denial, there goes your credibility, out the window with Peter Pan.
Last edited:
I don't have the time or interest really to hunt up current figures as to which industries or corporations or other special interest groups are getting special benefits or consideration courtesy of the Federal government.
I have seen recent statistics that show that almost 50% of working Americans pay no Federal Income Tax, but I don't want to hunt up who is getting food stamps, who is getting ADC, who is on straight welfare, etc. etc. etc. In 2004 I think the number of Americans qualifying for Medicaid was something like 40 million. Then you have the subsidized school lunches, tax credits for certain disadvantaged persons, etc. etc. etc. and I couldn't begin to guess how many are being federally subsidized but I'm pretty sure it's well over 50 percent.
At any rate, there are enough being subsidized by the Federal government to make a formidable voting block to keep in power those who will keep the subsidies coming. And there is plenty of incentive for corporations and other entities who benefit from special federal benefits to contribute to the campaign coffers of those who will keep those special federal benefits coming too.
Make it impossible for the federal government to use the people's money to buy votes, however, and the corrupting influence in both those in government and the recipients of the benefits all goes away.
You can try to dispute that all you want Mitch, but uniless you look at the core of the problem, you'll never find a way to fix it.
I have seen recent statistics that show that almost 50% of working Americans pay no Federal Income Tax, but I don't want to hunt up who is getting food stamps, who is getting ADC, who is on straight welfare, etc. etc. etc. In 2004 I think the number of Americans qualifying for Medicaid was something like 40 million. Then you have the subsidized school lunches, tax credits for certain disadvantaged persons, etc. etc. etc. and I couldn't begin to guess how many are being federally subsidized but I'm pretty sure it's well over 50 percent.
At any rate, there are enough being subsidized by the Federal government to make a formidable voting block to keep in power those who will keep the subsidies coming. And there is plenty of incentive for corporations and other entities who benefit from special federal benefits to contribute to the campaign coffers of those who will keep those special federal benefits coming too.
Make it impossible for the federal government to use the people's money to buy votes, however, and the corrupting influence in both those in government and the recipients of the benefits all goes away.
You can try to dispute that all you want Mitch, but uniless you look at the core of the problem, you'll never find a way to fix it.
Fox, without your having a real quantitative handle on your arguments nor even the most remote handle, how can you in good conscience and even logically go around making those statements about who or even what you think is the problem? By your own admission, you haven't ever looked up the data that would support your theory, but you take your positions anyway.
Flash, I already knew that you couldn't support your contentions. No conservative has ever been able to support those kinds of contentions with hard facts and data. The reason is, the data doesn't exist to support them, which is proof positive that those/your contentions are simply wrong.
The reason that close to 50% may not pay income taxes is that the lion's share of taxable income is at the top, just like the reservoir of all the wealth, it's at the top. They are the ones who disparately benefited from the vast majority of the other Americans, the working class, who do all the work but only manage a subsistence level of income. It’s the working class society that maintains the conditions and consumer market from which the wealthy few prosper. They should arithmetically pay substantially all the taxes. They got their excess wealth from the working class who didn’t get to keep any excess wealth to speak of which they created with their owns hands and minds. You know the stats by now: bottom 85% have only 15% of the wealth, bottom 60% only 4%, top 10% has 71%.
When and if the economy ever gets better for the working class to such an extent that the top 10% have only 20% of the wealth and the working class gets to keep that other 51% that was siphoned away from them through our current inequitable economic system, then and only then will ever have any hope of your current tenets even being remotely realistic. Right now, your contentions are empty, unsupported and completely without accuracy or any reality. Even Milton Friedman believed in empirical evidence, something you apparently have an aversion to.
BTW, inspite of the fact that 50% may not pay income taxes, implying this untoward burden that the top income earners are paying an unfair lopsided proportion of the taxes, how is it that they are able to have retained so much wealth, even after paying 'all those income taxes'? Explain Fox, anyone?
Flash, I already knew that you couldn't support your contentions. No conservative has ever been able to support those kinds of contentions with hard facts and data. The reason is, the data doesn't exist to support them, which is proof positive that those/your contentions are simply wrong.
The reason that close to 50% may not pay income taxes is that the lion's share of taxable income is at the top, just like the reservoir of all the wealth, it's at the top. They are the ones who disparately benefited from the vast majority of the other Americans, the working class, who do all the work but only manage a subsistence level of income. It’s the working class society that maintains the conditions and consumer market from which the wealthy few prosper. They should arithmetically pay substantially all the taxes. They got their excess wealth from the working class who didn’t get to keep any excess wealth to speak of which they created with their owns hands and minds. You know the stats by now: bottom 85% have only 15% of the wealth, bottom 60% only 4%, top 10% has 71%.
When and if the economy ever gets better for the working class to such an extent that the top 10% have only 20% of the wealth and the working class gets to keep that other 51% that was siphoned away from them through our current inequitable economic system, then and only then will ever have any hope of your current tenets even being remotely realistic. Right now, your contentions are empty, unsupported and completely without accuracy or any reality. Even Milton Friedman believed in empirical evidence, something you apparently have an aversion to.
BTW, inspite of the fact that 50% may not pay income taxes, implying this untoward burden that the top income earners are paying an unfair lopsided proportion of the taxes, how is it that they are able to have retained so much wealth, even after paying 'all those income taxes'? Explain Fox, anyone?
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Replies
- 95
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 11
- Views
- 160
- Replies
- 18
- Views
- 297
- Replies
- 88
- Views
- 753
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 121
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 3
- Replies
- 366
- Views
- 3K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8004
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 466
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-