Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[Bombur]

I have not supported that Reagan used massive increases in debt spending to deal with the economy? Are you denying these facts or just ignorant of them?

I called your bluff, then and now.

It is hard for me to support something when you simply ignore what has been said.

Also revenues were decreasing. You keep making crap up and then denying facts that are inconvenient.

What revenues when? You talk in smoke and mirrors. Get your money back from your school, they burned you.

https://www.google.com/

It is your friend. Use it and maybe you can have this conversation without looking so horribly ignorant.

 

[Iceweasel]

In hindsight, the changes that the Reagan Administration made in government for the most part were quite small. However, that did not keep the Washington establishment from acting as though the federal government had been destroyed. They fought back by not only blaming the recession on cuts in marginal tax rates, but also claiming that the Reagan policies — as modest as they were — were driving people into the street. It was not long before every major news network was claiming that there were three million homeless people in the USA. This was preposterous, but the fake numbers were circulated as proof that Reagan had killed the Holy Welfare State.
"

...and Reagan put all the crazies on the street by getting rid of federal loonie bins. Which should have never been a federal responsibility ain the first place.

 

[Dragonlady]

We get it. You hate rich people.

Stay poor my friend.

Liberals don't hate rich people you moron. They hate the inequitable system that currently exists under which wages, benefits and wealth are all rising for the top 5% only. Wages need to go up for everyone, not just the wealthy. The wealthy need to be taxed at the same or higher rates than the middle class. Jobs need to be created that pay living wages, not just minimum wage service sector jobs.

If the poor and middle class, don't start getting a fair shake in wages taxes, the US will turn into a Third World country. This is the economic legacy of Ronnie Reagan and the Friedman economists.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

We get it. You hate rich people.

Stay poor my friend.

Liberals don't hate rich people you moron. They hate the inequitable system that currently exists under which wages, benefits and wealth are all rising for the top 5% only. Wages need to go up for everyone, not just the wealthy. The wealthy need to be taxed at the same or higher rates than the middle class. Jobs need to be created that pay living wages, not just minimum wage service sector jobs.

If the poor and middle class, don't start getting a fair shake in wages taxes, the US will turn into a Third World country. This is the economic legacy of Ronnie Reagan and the Friedman economists.

Sure sounded like he was bitching about rich people getting richer to me.

If the government would stop taxing the hell out of us and institute a flat tax then everyone would benefit. If the government would stop hindering small business with thousands of regulations each year then they could expand which means hiring more people. If Obama would allow the Keystone XL pipeline to move forward, thousand of people would be employed.

Rich people isn't the problem, it's your government that's the problem.

 

[Iceweasel]

Liberals don't hate rich people you moron. They hate the inequitable system that currently exists under which wages, benefits and wealth are all rising for the top 5% only. Wages need to go up for everyone, not just the wealthy. The wealthy need to be taxed at the same or higher rates than the middle class. Jobs need to be created that pay living wages, not just minimum wage service sector jobs.

If the poor and middle class, don't start getting a fair shake in wages taxes, the US will turn into a Third World country. This is the economic legacy of Ronnie Reagan and the Friedman economists.

So Obama isn't responsible, Reagan is. What incredible insight.

 

[itfitzme]

Sure sounded like he was bitching about rich people getting richer to me.

That would be a problem with your reading comprehension.

If the government would stop taxing the hell out of us and institute a flat tax then everyone would benefit.

False. The statement is not demonstrated empirically or deductively. Regardless, presented here, the statement is surely not based on fact or deductive reasoning.

If the government would stop hindering small business with thousands of regulations each year then they could expand which means hiring more people.

False.

To begin, all regulations don't apply to all businesses. Regulation of lead solder has nothing to do with running an accounting firm.

Then, "thousands of regulations per year" is complete bs. A quick search reveals that the Heritage Foundation counts "75 new major regulations from January 2009 to mid-FY 2011".

Lastly, "then they could expand which means hiring more people" is complete bs. Regulations often create new opportunities for growth and employment.

What keeps companies from expanding is either lack of demand or lack of capital to take advantage of demand. It certainly isn't regulations.

If Obama would allow the Keystone XL pipeline to move forward, thousand of people would be employed.

So they say. There are four stages to the Keystone pipeline project. Stage 1 and 2 have already been completed. Canadian crude currently ships and is refined in Oklahoma and Illinoise. Stage 3 is a short stretch from Oklahoma to Texas. Stage 4 is simply a duplicate of stage 1.

So, stage three is the one of concern.

Rich people isn't the problem, it's your government that's the problem.

Do you know what market power is? Price elasticity? Market inefficiency?

 

[georgephillip]

As Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy, the government was left with less money to spend.

That's awful! How much lower were revenues when Reagan left office, compared to when he was elected?

What's awful about raising other people's taxes?

"Ronald Reagan is loved by conservatives and was loved by big business throughout his presidency and there's a reason for it.

When Reagan came into office in January of 1981, the top tax rate was 70%, but when he left office in 1989 the top tax rate was down to only 28%.

"As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government.

"In order to bring money back into the government, Reagan was forced to raise taxes eleven times throughout his time in office.

"One example was when he signed into law the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982.

"Reagan raised taxes seven of the eight years he was in office and the tax increases were felt hardest by the lower and middle class."

Surely you're not too stupid to doubt Reagan was anything except a corporate tool (like you)

10 reasons why Ronald Reagan was the worst president of our lifetime - Orlando liberal | Examiner.com

"As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government.

Prove it. Use facts and numbers, not feelings.

Let us see if we agree on some facts and numbers.
Revenues for the 1980s increased by 99.6%.
Does that sound factual or sentimental to you?

 

[georgephillip]

George, I want to come back to something we sort of skimmed over earlier. I was hoping to get some insight into whether it's the pure fact of income inequality that you think is wrong, or is it that you think that, in the current state of things, most of that income inequality isn't legitimate. Do you, in fact, think there is such a thing as legitimate income inequality?

It seems like these questions must be answered before we can address whether there is a problem and how we might fix it if there is.

I agree this entire thread needs some First Principles.
I don't have any problem with my doctor or lawyer earning more than I ever did as a blue-collar wage slave for 45 years. IMHO, they likely earned their wealth by virtue of their intelligence and education. I don't feel the same way about billionaires or those who have simply gamed the system and exploited "illustrious" ancestors.

There is certainly legitimate income inequality; however, where I see that most clearly is on those very rare level playing fields you don't usually find outside professional athletics.
It's also worth noting there's a large dose of regulation applied in those arenas.

 

[georgephillip]

You just explained the economic recovery without referencing the largest increase in government debt since WW2. That happens when you reference websites that are re-writing history to suit their political agenda.

Then there is the "cost". A symptom no one in support of the magical mandate ever considers.
The fact is, everything is relative. Costs rise, prices rise.
And the real indignity here is nearly ever union contract has in it a condition where wages are indexed to the federal min wage. Meaning, if the federal min wage is increased, union worker's wages must also increase relative to the new mandate.
This minimum wage thing is not about the workers. It's about politics. It's vote buying.

It's about equality of opportunity to share equally in the steadily rising US productivity over the last forty years. If the minimum wage increase during that time period had matched that of the richest 1%, so would all other income quintiles. The richest 1% earned about 8% of US income in the 70s and they earn almost 25% today. Their gain didn't come from working harder or from longer hours; it came from bribing politicians from both parties for favorable tax and trade policies. Had US workers shared proportionally in the productivity gains since the 80s, the richest 1% would have much less and everyone else would have more. Relatively speaking, you can think of it as Economic Democracy.

Share? There is no "share"....What someone else's income may be is nobody else's business.
Productivity rises with for example, technology, education and technical training. Productivity is realized when fewer people are required to increase output.
The most wealthy people are not the stereotypical blue blooded Greenwich CT mansion dwelling people you equate with wealth. The fact is most wealthy people work very hard to earn their wages. They also take the highest risk.
The one constant is this. Higher education and better training lead to higher wages. It has to be that way.
BTW, opportunity is EARNED. Not given. Not deserved.
There are far too many of us who work hard so that we may EARN opportunity to see it given away to those who refuse to make it their business to improve their skill set so that they are in the running for higher pay.

Where did you get the idea opportunity was something you had to earn, and who have you selected as the judge for deciding who among us deserves opportunity?

"op·por·tu·ni·ty noun \ˌä-pər-ˈtü-nə-tē, -ˈtyü-\
: an amount of time or a situation in which something can be done
plural op·por·tu·ni·ties

Full Definition of OPPORTUNITY

1
: a favorable juncture of circumstances <the halt provided an opportunity for rest and refreshment>
2
: a good chance for advancement or progress"

Opportunity - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[georgephillip]

It was all very effective. Reaganomics worked. I am not sure why people try and act like Reagan didn't use debt spending to help the economy when he so clearly did.

I don't know why you can't prove it. Seems simple enough. How do we know that the debt spending boosted the economy or the economy would have been in even better shape without the spending? Like I said, things started turning around almost immediately, long before the Dems got their spending increases.

Try to focus.

Focus on the Dems, right...

"As Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy, the government was left with less money to spend. When Reagan came into office the national debt was $900 billion, by the time he left the national debt had tripled to $2.8 trillion."

They had the veto.

10 reasons why Ronald Reagan was the worst president of our lifetime - Orlando liberal | Examiner.com

 

[georgephillip]

"Ronald Reagan is loved by conservatives and was loved by big business throughout his presidency and there's a reason for it.

When Reagan came into office in January of 1981, the top tax rate was 70%, but when he left office in 1989 the top tax rate was down to only 28%.

And that's a bad thing? I guess we can flip it around and say that why he's despised by liberals. Less access to other people's money. The fact is that it worked, GDP went up, not down. Completely opposite of libthink. Now, enough time has passed where new lemmings with no clue are regugitating the deceit of the left.

"As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government.

Lot's of folks were rich, I doubt they were all friends. Were you alive then? I remember famous actors lampooning him regularly. And visiously. I don't know why they didn't volunteer to pay mnore taxes, perhaps because liberalism and hypocrisy are two sides of the same coin. And again, revenues went up. Look it up instead of relying on spiteful op-ed pieces.
No, he had to deal with Democrats and the tax rate was much much lower when he left. That's called selective facts. Dishonest but expected from leftwing loons.

Tax Equity And Fiscal Responsibility Act Of 1982 (TEFRA) Definition | Investopedia
Investopedia explains 'Tax Equity And Fiscal Responsibility Act Of 1982 - TEFRA'

The ERTA was a piece of tax legislation that greatly lowered income tax rates, and all very high rates were given a maximum of 50%. The TEFRA modified aspects of the ERTA which caused concern over potential large budget deficits. TEFRA increased the tax received but not the tax rates. This was done by removing some of the tax breaks businesses received in the ERTA, such as the increase in the amount of accelerated depreciation that a company could deduct.

"Reagan raised taxes seven of the eight years he was in office and the tax increases were felt hardest by the lower and middle class."

Source?

Surely you're not too stupid to doubt Reagan was anything except a corporate tool (like you)

Oh the irony.

Not unlike the irony of expecting a supply-side troll to prove a correlation between lower taxes and higher TOTAL revenues in the 1980s, which you haven't even attempted yet.

 

[georgephillip]

What's awful about raising other people's taxes?

"Ronald Reagan is loved by conservatives and was loved by big business throughout his presidency and there's a reason for it.

When Reagan came into office in January of 1981, the top tax rate was 70%, but when he left office in 1989 the top tax rate was down to only 28%.

"As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government.

"In order to bring money back into the government, Reagan was forced to raise taxes eleven times throughout his time in office.

"One example was when he signed into law the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982.

"Reagan raised taxes seven of the eight years he was in office and the tax increases were felt hardest by the lower and middle class."

Surely you're not too stupid to doubt Reagan was anything except a corporate tool (like you)

10 reasons why Ronald Reagan was the worst president of our lifetime - Orlando liberal | Examiner.com

"As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government.

Prove it. Use facts and numbers, not feelings.

I could've sworn remembering tax revenue skyrocketing.

What do you remember about the FICA tax rate in the 1980s?

 

[dblack]

George, I want to come back to something we sort of skimmed over earlier. I was hoping to get some insight into whether it's the pure fact of income inequality that you think is wrong, or is it that you think that, in the current state of things, most of that income inequality isn't legitimate. Do you, in fact, think there is such a thing as legitimate income inequality?

It seems like these questions must be answered before we can address whether there is a problem and how we might fix it if there is.

I agree this entire thread needs some First Principles.
I don't have any problem with my doctor or lawyer earning more than I ever did as a blue-collar wage slave for 45 years. IMHO, they likely earned their wealth by virtue of their intelligence and education. I don't feel the same way about billionaires or those who have simply gamed the system and exploited "illustrious" ancestors.

There is certainly legitimate income inequality; however, where I see that most clearly is on those very rare level playing fields you don't usually find outside professional athletics.
It's also worth noting there's a large dose of regulation applied in those arenas.

And what criteria would you use to decide which incomes are warranted and which aren't? I ask because I've yet to find a system of making such judgments that is less subject to corruption and graft than free markets. Any scheme which centralizes authority over distributing economic power, regardless of whether it's nominally 'democratic' or not, is a more convenient target for those interested in manipulating matters to their own ends.

 

[Bombur]

George, I want to come back to something we sort of skimmed over earlier. I was hoping to get some insight into whether it's the pure fact of income inequality that you think is wrong, or is it that you think that, in the current state of things, most of that income inequality isn't legitimate. Do you, in fact, think there is such a thing as legitimate income inequality?

It seems like these questions must be answered before we can address whether there is a problem and how we might fix it if there is.

I agree this entire thread needs some First Principles.
I don't have any problem with my doctor or lawyer earning more than I ever did as a blue-collar wage slave for 45 years. IMHO, they likely earned their wealth by virtue of their intelligence and education. I don't feel the same way about billionaires or those who have simply gamed the system and exploited "illustrious" ancestors.

There is certainly legitimate income inequality; however, where I see that most clearly is on those very rare level playing fields you don't usually find outside professional athletics.
It's also worth noting there's a large dose of regulation applied in those arenas.

And what criteria would you use to decide which incomes are warranted and which aren't? I ask because I've yet to find a system of making such judgments that is less subject to corruption and graft than free markets. Any scheme which centralizes authority over distributing economic power, regardless of whether it's nominally 'democratic' or not, is a more convenient target for those interested in manipulating matters to their own ends.

Markets should be used but when those markets are shown to be favoring one group over another there could definitely be a problem. In the case of the US there is clear favoritism in our trade policies and our tax policies that help lead to markets favoring the capital owners over labor and the upper class over the middle class.

 

[Iceweasel]

Not unlike the irony of expecting a supply-side troll to prove a correlation between lower taxes and higher TOTAL revenues in the 1980s, which you haven't even attempted yet.

Such hate. I did, go back and read it. There are links that you can click on and the take you to the website. Only fools believe in spending your way into prosperity. I don't have a link for that, normal people know it.


I'll even post a picture since you have problems with words.

taxfoundation.org/blog/reagan-showed-it-can-be-done-lower-top-rate-28-percent-and-raise-more-revenue

 

[Bombur]

Not unlike the irony of expecting a supply-side troll to prove a correlation between lower taxes and higher TOTAL revenues in the 1980s, which you haven't even attempted yet.

Such hate. I did, go back and read it. There are links that you can click on and the take you to the website. Only fools believe in spending your way into prosperity. I don't have a link for that, normal people know it.

Don't hate on Reagan like that. He is so dreamy!

 

[Contumacious]

"Ronald Reagan is loved by conservatives and was loved by big business throughout his presidency and there's a reason for it.

When Reagan came into office in January of 1981, the top tax rate was 70%, but when he left office in 1989 the top tax rate was down to only 28%.

And that's a bad thing? I guess we can flip it around and say that why he's despised by liberals. Less access to other people's money. The fact is that it worked, GDP went up, not down. Completely opposite of libthink. Now, enough time has passed where new lemmings with no clue are regugitating the deceit of the left.
Lot's of folks were rich, I doubt they were all friends. Were you alive then? I remember famous actors lampooning him regularly. And visiously. I don't know why they didn't volunteer to pay mnore taxes, perhaps because liberalism and hypocrisy are two sides of the same coin. And again, revenues went up. Look it up instead of relying on spiteful op-ed pieces.
No, he had to deal with Democrats and the tax rate was much much lower when he left. That's called selective facts. Dishonest but expected from leftwing loons.

Tax Equity And Fiscal Responsibility Act Of 1982 (TEFRA) Definition | Investopedia
Investopedia explains 'Tax Equity And Fiscal Responsibility Act Of 1982 - TEFRA'

The ERTA was a piece of tax legislation that greatly lowered income tax rates, and all very high rates were given a maximum of 50%. The TEFRA modified aspects of the ERTA which caused concern over potential large budget deficits. TEFRA increased the tax received but not the tax rates. This was done by removing some of the tax breaks businesses received in the ERTA, such as the increase in the amount of accelerated depreciation that a company could deduct.
Source?

Surely you're not too stupid to doubt Reagan was anything except a corporate tool (like you)

Oh the irony.

Not unlike the irony of expecting a supply-side troll to prove a correlation between lower taxes and higher TOTAL revenues in the 1980s, which you haven't even attempted yet.

Well they are waiting for you to prove that the Constitution authorized higher TOTAL revenues in the 1980's.

.

 

[dblack]

I agree this entire thread needs some First Principles.
I don't have any problem with my doctor or lawyer earning more than I ever did as a blue-collar wage slave for 45 years. IMHO, they likely earned their wealth by virtue of their intelligence and education. I don't feel the same way about billionaires or those who have simply gamed the system and exploited "illustrious" ancestors.

There is certainly legitimate income inequality; however, where I see that most clearly is on those very rare level playing fields you don't usually find outside professional athletics.
It's also worth noting there's a large dose of regulation applied in those arenas.

And what criteria would you use to decide which incomes are warranted and which aren't? I ask because I've yet to find a system of making such judgments that is less subject to corruption and graft than free markets. Any scheme which centralizes authority over distributing economic power, regardless of whether it's nominally 'democratic' or not, is a more convenient target for those interested in manipulating matters to their own ends.

Markets should be used but when those markets are shown to be favoring one group over another there could definitely be a problem. In the case of the US there is clear favoritism in our trade policies and our tax policies that help lead to markets favoring the capital owners over labor and the upper class over the middle class.

Which policies?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Military spending increases started before Reagan even took office peaking in the mid 80's. Debt spending exploded during this time as receipts couldn't keep up with outlays. Tax cuts and increases in military spending were paid for through debt.

This is a vastly different approach than responding to falling revenues with austerity.

You seem impervious to the truth and call education brainwashing.

I called your education brainwashing. You haven't supported a solitary thing, assertions are not support. How can you pay for tax cuts? And how is it that the INCREASED revenue had nothing to do with growth? You seem impervious to honesty.

I have not supported that Reagan used massive increases in debt spending to deal with the economy? Are you denying these facts or just ignorant of them?

It is hard for me to support something when you simply ignore what has been said.

Also revenues were decreasing. You keep making crap up and then denying facts that are inconvenient.

Also revenues were decreasing.

Prove it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We get it. You hate rich people.

Stay poor my friend.

Liberals don't hate rich people you moron. They hate the inequitable system that currently exists under which wages, benefits and wealth are all rising for the top 5% only. Wages need to go up for everyone, not just the wealthy. The wealthy need to be taxed at the same or higher rates than the middle class. Jobs need to be created that pay living wages, not just minimum wage service sector jobs.

If the poor and middle class, don't start getting a fair shake in wages taxes, the US will turn into a Third World country. This is the economic legacy of Ronnie Reagan and the Friedman economists.

The wealthy need to be taxed at the same or higher rates than the middle class.

They are taxed at a higher rate.
Will your whining end now?