Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[georgephillip]

It will keep on being like this since the money floodgates were opened with citizens united decision.

It's horrible that corporations can now spend like unions. Just awful!

Which is richer?

Which spent for decades with no restrictions?

Which controls all three branches of government today?

 

[georgephillip]

It's not my definition, it's NTU's:
https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNF_oT1xqa08Sjl7umFCepEpuUPKLw

Not for nothing, Heritage.org and Taxfoundation.org have the same figures. What about them do you not agree with?

Your link:

"Who Pays Income Taxes and How Much?"

I don't think Income Taxes equate to "the entire federal tax load", do you?

That depends on what your definition of "is" is.
Do you have different figures? Do you doubt the percentages are as stated? Do you doubt that the top 1% pays 36.73% of the taxes or that the bottom 50% pays 2.25%?

I'm sure your figures are accurate as far as Federal Income Taxes are concerned.
Most Americans don't earn enough to pay Income Tax.
What about FICA taxes?
The bottom 50% of workers pays a higher proportion of its earnings in taxes of all kinds than the 1% does.

 

[dblack]

Exactly. And the counter-intuitive aspect of that 'wall', the thing that took us awhile to come to understand, is that limiting the religion's influence in government required limiting government's power over religion.

At first, government leaders thought they could reign in religious power by co-opting it, by asserting state power over religion. But in doing so they merely invited religious leaders, albeit unintentionally, to become part of the government. Ambitious religious leaders were eager to use the power of the state to further their agenda.

The same thing is happening now with economic power. And we're making the same mistakes, assuming we can limit the power of wealth by bringing it under government control. When, in fact, that only amplifies and centralizes the oligarch's power.

Isn't the First Amendment asserting state power over religion?

???

George? I'm assuming this was a typo. Otherwise, kindly explain how a stipulation that "Congress shall make no law ..." asserts state power over anything.

 

[JT8691]

A wall between church and state.

Exactly. And the counter-intuitive aspect of that 'wall', the thing that took us awhile to come to understand, is that limiting the religion's influence in government required limiting government's power over religion.

At first, government leaders thought they could reign in religious power by co-opting it, by asserting state power over religion. But in doing so they merely invited religious leaders, albeit unintentionally, to become part of the government. Ambitious religious leaders were eager to use the power of the state to further their agenda.

The same thing is happening now with economic power. And we're making the same mistakes, assuming we can limit the power of wealth by bringing it under government control. When, in fact, that only amplifies and centralizes the oligarch's power.

Isn't the First Amendment asserting state power over religion?

The Constitution defines the role of government, NOT grant it power (necessarily). Big difference.

 

[SAYIT]

How much wealth have Socialists confiscated from private businesses? Provide a link with the exact dollar amount. Or even just a rough estimate.

It isn't that socialists have confiscated anything but certainly our gov't is used by socialists to do their dirty work.
In 2009, according to the National Taxpayers Union, The top 1% of America's earners carried 36.73% of the entire federal tax load. The top 10% ... 70.47%.
The bottom 50% saw their share of the load gradually cut from 4% in 1999 to 2.25% in 2009. That's HALF of America's taxpayers paying almost nothing.
Does the bottom half not benefit from all America has to offer? Clearly they don't help pay for it.

Most in the bottom half would like to be in higher tax brackets. When the extremely wealthy and corporations have more influence over our rule makers than all of us who vote combined, it's no wonder that the wealth distribution keeps on favoring the one percent. Or more like the on 1/4th of 1%. It will keep on being like this since the money floodgates were opened with citizens united decision.

As already mentioned America's capitalism offers virtually anyone the OPPORTUNITY to be an owner and for those who don't manage that, the OPPORTUNITY to whine about those who do.

 

[dnsmith35]

Your link:

"Who Pays Income Taxes and How Much?"

I don't think Income Taxes equate to "the entire federal tax load", do you?

That depends on what your definition of "is" is.
Do you have different figures? Do you doubt the percentages are as stated? Do you doubt that the top 1% pays 36.73% of the taxes or that the bottom 50% pays 2.25%?

I'm sure your figures are accurate as far as Federal Income Taxes are concerned.
Most Americans don't earn enough to pay Income Tax.
What about FICA taxes?
The bottom 50% of workers pays a higher proportion of its earnings in taxes of all kinds than the 1% does.

FICA are in reality INSURANCE premiums. Those in the lower brackets get their PREMIUMS back with Earned Income Tax Credits. It is disingenuous to try to combine retirement/disability insurance/Medicare premiums as "tax" since it was not intended as a tax.

Federal Insurance Contributions Act - FICA

Definition of 'Federal Insurance Contributions Act - FICA'

A U.S. law requiring a deduction from paychecks and income that goes toward the Social Security program and Medicare. Both employees and employers are responsible for sharing the FICA payments.​

Are you suggesting that we stop MANDATING INSURANCE? Are you wanting to reverse our great president FDR's most important contribution to our society? Trying to convince people that FICA is a tax in the same vein as Federal Income Tax is lame, very lame.

Also, as you noted, about 49% of Americans do not pay INCOME TAX; and the less wealthy wage earners get their FICA back.

 

[dnsmith35]

It isn't that socialists have confiscated anything but certainly our gov't is used by socialists to do their dirty work.
In 2009, according to the National Taxpayers Union, The top 1% of America's earners carried 36.73% of the entire federal tax load. The top 10% ... 70.47%.
The bottom 50% saw their share of the load gradually cut from 4% in 1999 to 2.25% in 2009. That's HALF of America's taxpayers paying almost nothing.
Does the bottom half not benefit from all America has to offer? Clearly they don't help pay for it.

Most in the bottom half would like to be in higher tax brackets. When the extremely wealthy and corporations have more influence over our rule makers than all of us who vote combined, it's no wonder that the wealth distribution keeps on favoring the one percent. Or more like the on 1/4th of 1%. It will keep on being like this since the money floodgates were opened with citizens united decision.

As already mentioned America's capitalism offers virtually anyone the OPPORTUNITY to be an owner and for those who don't manage that, the OPPORTUNITY to whine about those who do.

Jason regurgitates left wing propaganda without conscience. Wealth distribution is being affected by the individual's skills and education more so than anyone who is wealthy. Fortune Magazine had a great article about don't blame the 1% for the disparity of income. That page has been taken down, but there are still copies floating around.

Don't blame the 1% for America's pay gap - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet

Harvard's Lawrence Katz has calculated that even if all the gains of the top 1% were redistributed to the 99%, household incomes would go up by less than half of what they would if everyone had a college degree. In other words, the financial rewards of higher education are a big contributor to the income gap."​

Not just college degrees, but also skilled technical training are important.

Look at this chart: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_124.asp

Across the US the graduation rates of students average 78.2% Then look at D.C.: 59.9%; NY: 76%; Cal.: 78.2%

 

[SAYIT]

Most in the bottom half would like to be in higher tax brackets. When the extremely wealthy and corporations have more influence over our rule makers than all of us who vote combined, it's no wonder that the wealth distribution keeps on favoring the one percent. Or more like the on 1/4th of 1%. It will keep on being like this since the money floodgates were opened with citizens united decision.

As already mentioned America's capitalism offers virtually anyone the OPPORTUNITY to be an owner and for those who don't manage that, the OPPORTUNITY to whine about those who do.

Jason regurgitates left wing propaganda without conscience. Wealth distribution is being affected by the individual's skills and education more so than anyone who is wealthy. Fortune Magazine had a great article about don't blame the 1% for the disparity of income. That page has been taken down, but there are still copies floating around.

GeorgePhillip does the same but after squirming around he finally admitted that the bottom 50% of taxpayers pay virtually no federal income tax ... that they get a free ride on the backs of those who do pay those taxes. I think we are making progress.
Lotsa luck with JasonIwant4free.

 

[hipeter924]

You should only be taxed for government services you actually use or support. But talking heresy here because the propaganda line goes that if you make paying for the welfare state voluntary, then no one would contribute.

 

[georgephillip]

Isn't the First Amendment asserting state power over religion?

???

George? I'm assuming this was a typo. Otherwise, kindly explain how a stipulation that "Congress shall make no law ..." asserts state power over anything.

It was the state that erected the wall between church and state, right?

 

[dblack]

You should only be taxed for government services you actually use or support. But talking heresy here because the propaganda line goes that if you make paying for the welfare state voluntary, then no one would contribute.

I disagree. Government services that can't be justified as benefitting everyone more or less equally shouldn't be government services in the first place.

 

[dblack]

???

George? I'm assuming this was a typo. Otherwise, kindly explain how a stipulation that "Congress shall make no law ..." asserts state power over anything.

It was the state that erected the wall between church and state, right?

No. It was the people. That's the difference between the Constitution and ordinary laws. Regardless, the first amendment doesn't assert state power over religion. It expressly denies it.

 

[georgephillip]

Exactly. And the counter-intuitive aspect of that 'wall', the thing that took us awhile to come to understand, is that limiting the religion's influence in government required limiting government's power over religion.

At first, government leaders thought they could reign in religious power by co-opting it, by asserting state power over religion. But in doing so they merely invited religious leaders, albeit unintentionally, to become part of the government. Ambitious religious leaders were eager to use the power of the state to further their agenda.

The same thing is happening now with economic power. And we're making the same mistakes, assuming we can limit the power of wealth by bringing it under government control. When, in fact, that only amplifies and centralizes the oligarch's power.

Isn't the First Amendment asserting state power over religion?

The Constitution defines the role of government, NOT grant it power (necessarily). Big difference.

"Jefferson wrote, 'I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.'"[1]

If the state exerted its power over religion with the First Amendment, it could do the same with private wealth today.

Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SAYIT]

Isn't the First Amendment asserting state power over religion?

The Constitution defines the role of government, NOT grant it power (necessarily). Big difference.

"Jefferson wrote, 'I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.'"[1]

If the state exerted its power over religion with the First Amendment, it could do the same with private wealth today.

Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One has nothing to do with the other and you are distorting the meaning of the First Amendment. Rather than giving the gov't power over religion it expressly prohibits gov't from acting in that arena. You do understand the diff, right?

 

[Contumacious]

Isn't the First Amendment asserting state power over religion?

The Constitution defines the role of government, NOT grant it power (necessarily). Big difference.

"Jefferson wrote, 'I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.'"[1]

If the state exerted its power over religion with the First Amendment, it could do the same with private wealth today.

Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Church and tthe ECONOMY ought to be separated - there should be a wall of separation between the state and the economy - thereby nullifying Obama Hellcare and similar transgressions.

.

 

[georgephillip]

The Constitution defines the role of government, NOT grant it power (necessarily). Big difference.

"Jefferson wrote, 'I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.'"[1]

If the state exerted its power over religion with the First Amendment, it could do the same with private wealth today.

Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Church and tthe ECONOMY ought to be separated - there should be a wall of separation between the state and the economy - thereby nullifying Obama Hellcare and similar transgressions.

.

Article I Section 8 gives government the power to coin money and to lay and collect taxes so I don't know how to separate the state from its economy exactly. It does seem like government could separate the influence of private wealth on the state by limiting the amount of money that could be donated to any campaign.

 

[Contumacious]

"Jefferson wrote, 'I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.'"[1]

If the state exerted its power over religion with the First Amendment, it could do the same with private wealth today.

Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Church and tthe ECONOMY ought to be separated - there should be a wall of separation between the state and the economy - thereby nullifying Obama Hellcare and similar transgressions.

.

Article I Section 8 gives government the power to coin money and to lay and collect taxes so I don't know how to separate the state from its economy exactly. It does seem like government could separate the influence of private wealth on the state by limiting the amount of money that could be donated to any campaign.

Before 1935 it was understood that a Constitutional tax was one used to finance the functions which were necessary to pay for the government SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED POWERS.

But the scumbags in the SCOTUS have expanded the authority to include EVERYTHING.

.

 

[georgephillip]

The Church and tthe ECONOMY ought to be separated - there should be a wall of separation between the state and the economy - thereby nullifying Obama Hellcare and similar transgressions.

.

Article I Section 8 gives government the power to coin money and to lay and collect taxes so I don't know how to separate the state from its economy exactly. It does seem like government could separate the influence of private wealth on the state by limiting the amount of money that could be donated to any campaign.

Before 1935 it was understood that a Constitutional tax was one used to finance the functions which were necessary to pay for the government SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED POWERS.

But the scumbags in the SCOTUS have expanded the authority to include EVERYTHING.

.

SCOTUS has a lot to answer for, IMHO, starting with Santa Clara v Southern Pacific Railroad

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dblack]

"Jefferson wrote, 'I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.'"[1]

If the state exerted its power over religion with the First Amendment, it could do the same with private wealth today.

Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Church and the ECONOMY ought to be separated - there should be a wall of separation between the state and the economy - thereby nullifying Obama Hellcare and similar transgressions.

.

Article I Section 8 gives government the power to coin money and to lay and collect taxes so I don't know how to separate the state from its economy exactly.

We faced exactly the same situation with religion. Laws that everyone must follow necessarily apply to religious people, and will have an impact on some religious practice. But the first amendment prohibits the state from making laws that specifically target or promote religions. Likewise, taxes and other economic regulation will have an impact on the economy, but they should never target, or promote, specific economic interests.

And right now, no such separation exists. Lobbyists push for legislation promoting specific economic agendas as a matter of course. The practice represents the bulk of Congressional power. This is why private money is so deeply embedded in Washington, and it won't end until the government's power to manipulate our economic decisions is revoked.

 

[crisismangement]

Isn't the First Amendment asserting state power over religion?

The Constitution defines the role of government, NOT grant it power (necessarily). Big difference.

"Jefferson wrote, 'I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.'"[1]

If the state exerted its power over religion with the First Amendment, it could do the same with private wealth today.

Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I believe the 1st amendment has been grossly misinterpreted by the courts. All it says relative to religion is that there would effectively no state religion. It does not mean that we have freedom from religion. The government should simply stay out of religion so long as no one forcibly tries to push a religion upon the people. The mere existence of religion and the practice thereof should not be tread upon no matter who or where any given religion is practiced.