I ask that those right of center not reply to this thread

[LoneLaugher]

For those of you on the left.

The question is very simple, but with a very complex answer.

Detail what it is that you think will benefit the Middle Class.

Now, by benefit, I mean provide a means for them to retain their middle class status and to begin advancing themselves upward.

Take your time. Be specific and as detailed as you can.

That's easy!

We need a "Financial Transactions Tax".

We need to tax every single transaction made on Wall Street.

So, you are saying to help the middle class, you need to tax the middle classes investments even more?

No. That isn't what he is saying.

 

[Billo_Really]

So, you are saying to help the middle class, you need to tax the middle classes investments even more?

The majority of investment trading is not done by the middle class.

 

[Darkwind]

So, you are saying to help the middle class, you need to tax the middle classes investments even more?

The majority of investment trading is not done by the middle class.

So, you just ignored the purpose of the thread to post some diatribe of your own?

 

[Darkwind]

That's easy!

We need a "Financial Transactions Tax".

We need to tax every single transaction made on Wall Street.

So, you are saying to help the middle class, you need to tax the middle classes investments even more?

No. That isn't what he is saying.

So, taxing more investments will promote and further jobs and advancement for the middle class?

 

[Billo_Really]

So, taxing more investments will promote and further jobs and advancement for the middle class?

Yes. It would bring in enough revenue to the government to pay down the deficit and promote infrastructure projects that in turn, put money back into the system. Once that starts occurring, demand goes up and then the private sector starts investing. And that brings more jobs to the middle class.

 

[Darkwind]

So, taxing more investments will promote and further jobs and advancement for the middle class?

Yes. It would bring in enough revenue to the government to pay down the deficit and promote infrastructure projects that in turn, put money back into the system. Once that starts occurring, demand goes up and then the private sector starts investing. And that brings more jobs to the middle class.

So, is that all it will take?

 

[Billo_Really]

So, you just ignored the purpose of the thread to post some diatribe of your own?

Why is it some diatribe?

 

[Billo_Really]

So, is that all it will take?

Probably not.

 

[Darkwind]

So, you just ignored the purpose of the thread to post some diatribe of your own?

Why is it some diatribe?

I asked for specifics on policy that will benefit the middle class. A random and unspecified rant about taxing investment (I presume its just a dig at the rich) does not answer what will help the middle class grow, gain productive jobs, and increase their wealth and lot in life.

 

[Darkwind]

So, is that all it will take?

Probably not.

As I said in the opening post. Take your time.

 

[hipeter924]

Detail what it is that you think will benefit the Middle Class.

Now, by benefit, I mean provide a means for them to retain their middle class status and to begin advancing themselves upward.

More people joining the middle class, as the larger the middle class, the more is being spent and saved in the economy.

A lot of the problems exist with income-equality because the middle class is no longer growing at a fast pace, and there are attempts in government and in the corporate world to keep salaries and wages stagnant or even drag them down.

'Provide jobs and better wages/salaries' is an easy answer, though that can't be achieved without much less of student loan burden on students (which stops Americans getting a higher education).

 

[Nyvin]

I'm centered so that is not left of center nor right of center.
My suggestion (and solution) is to open up all avenues of domestic fossil fuel extraction and grant no subsidies for marriages except those that can result in procreation. Give fathers equal rights (and responsibility) as far as their potential offspring are concerned and that should pretty much do it.

Is that all it will take?

It wouldn't do anything for the middle class...as two of the three are social issues and very meekly related to the financial well being of the middle class. The third is more tied to the corporate sector and even then only relates to a select few regions of the United States.

 

[Darkwind]

I'm centered so that is not left of center nor right of center.
My suggestion (and solution) is to open up all avenues of domestic fossil fuel extraction and grant no subsidies for marriages except those that can result in procreation. Give fathers equal rights (and responsibility) as far as their potential offspring are concerned and that should pretty much do it.

Is that all it will take?

It wouldn't do anything for the middle class...as two of the three are social issues and very meekly related to the financial well being of the middle class. The third is more tied to the corporate sector and even then only relates to a select few regions of the United States.

So, it doesn't really fit in with the purpose of the thread.

 

[Dad2three]

For those of you on the left.

The question is very simple, but with a very complex answer.

Detail what it is that you think will benefit the Middle Class.

Now, by benefit, I mean provide a means for them to retain their middle class status and to begin advancing themselves upward.

Take your time. Be specific and as detailed as you can.

Simple, go back to what the US Founders wanted and what the US used to help create the worlds largest middle class, until right wing 'think tanks' created policies the US has followed the past 40+ years


When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.

Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)

government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)

a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation

Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders

American School of Economics

(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics


American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


GO BACK TO TAX RATES WHERE, AS OUR FOUNDERS WANTED, IT STOPPED THE INEQUALITY


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

These three sentences do nothing less than blow apart the central tenet of modern conservative economic theory, confirming that lowering tax rates on the wealthy does nothing to grow the economy while doing a great deal to concentrate more wealth in the pockets of those at the very top of the income chain.


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes



George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."


The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."


http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html

 

[Darkwind]

Detail what it is that you think will benefit the Middle Class.

Now, by benefit, I mean provide a means for them to retain their middle class status and to begin advancing themselves upward.

More people joining the middle class, as the larger the middle class, the more is being spent and saved in the economy.

A lot of the problems exist with income-equality because the middle class is no longer growing at a fast pace, and there are attempts in government and in the corporate world to keep salaries and wages stagnant or even drag them down.

'Provide jobs and better wages/salaries' is an easy answer, though that can't be achieved without much less of student loan burden on students (which stops Americans getting a higher education).

So, thats the solution? Eliminate income inequality?

 

[hipeter924]

Detail what it is that you think will benefit the Middle Class.

Now, by benefit, I mean provide a means for them to retain their middle class status and to begin advancing themselves upward.

More people joining the middle class, as the larger the middle class, the more is being spent and saved in the economy.

A lot of the problems exist with income-equality because the middle class is no longer growing at a fast pace, and there are attempts in government and in the corporate world to keep salaries and wages stagnant or even drag them down.

'Provide jobs and better wages/salaries' is an easy answer, though that can't be achieved without much less of student loan burden on students (which stops Americans getting a higher education).

So, thats the solution? Eliminate income inequality?

No, provide better access to education, so that people can move out of poverty and reduce the strain on the welfare state.

 

[Darkwind]

For those of you on the left.

The question is very simple, but with a very complex answer.

Detail what it is that you think will benefit the Middle Class.

Now, by benefit, I mean provide a means for them to retain their middle class status and to begin advancing themselves upward.

Take your time. Be specific and as detailed as you can.

Simple, go back to what the US Founders wanted and what the US used to help create the worlds largest middle class, until right wing 'think tanks' created policies the US has followed the past 40+ years


When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.

Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)

government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)

a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation

Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders

American School of Economics

(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics


American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


GO BACK TO TAX RATES WHERE, AS OUR FOUNDERS WANTED, IT STOPPED THE INEQUALITY


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

These three sentences do nothing less than blow apart the central tenet of modern conservative economic theory, confirming that lowering tax rates on the wealthy does nothing to grow the economy while doing a great deal to concentrate more wealth in the pockets of those at the very top of the income chain.


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes



George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."


The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."


http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html

To much to unpack and analyize right now, but while I wait for others to weigh in, I'll make a single comment on how I see your position (even though it isn't yours, its the person who wrote the article).

You believe that taxing the rich to the point that their income is no greater than the middle class is essentially the answer to helping the middle class regain the benefit of upward mobility?

 

[Dad2three]

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated. What middle class?



Neo-Liberalism/Conservatives is/has destroyed the American Economy in favor of the so called "Job Creator"... In reality are "Job Exporters"...


The last 40 years of conservati*ve think tank legislatio*n has killed the economy



Third World countries. One of the things they all had in common was a small, very rich elite, small middle class, and a large lower class. They also shared very low economic growth as a result. This has been known for at least 50 years. The US has been going in this direction for at least the last 30 years as we have gradually de-industrialized and government policies (such as trickle down economics) have promoted the shift of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the economic elite




In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data | Tax Foundation

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.

 

[Darkwind]

More people joining the middle class, as the larger the middle class, the more is being spent and saved in the economy.

A lot of the problems exist with income-equality because the middle class is no longer growing at a fast pace, and there are attempts in government and in the corporate world to keep salaries and wages stagnant or even drag them down.

'Provide jobs and better wages/salaries' is an easy answer, though that can't be achieved without much less of student loan burden on students (which stops Americans getting a higher education).

So, thats the solution? Eliminate income inequality?

No, provide better access to education, so that people can move out of poverty and reduce the strain on the welfare state.

What else?

 

[Dad2three]

For those of you on the left.

The question is very simple, but with a very complex answer.

Detail what it is that you think will benefit the Middle Class.

Now, by benefit, I mean provide a means for them to retain their middle class status and to begin advancing themselves upward.

Take your time. Be specific and as detailed as you can.

Simple, go back to what the US Founders wanted and what the US used to help create the worlds largest middle class, until right wing 'think tanks' created policies the US has followed the past 40+ years


When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.

Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)

government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)

a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation

Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders

American School of Economics

(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics


American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


GO BACK TO TAX RATES WHERE, AS OUR FOUNDERS WANTED, IT STOPPED THE INEQUALITY


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

These three sentences do nothing less than blow apart the central tenet of modern conservative economic theory, confirming that lowering tax rates on the wealthy does nothing to grow the economy while doing a great deal to concentrate more wealth in the pockets of those at the very top of the income chain.


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes



George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."


The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."


http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html

To much to unpack and analyize right now, but while I wait for others to weigh in, I'll make a single comment on how I see your position (even though it isn't yours, its the person who wrote the article).

You believe that taxing the rich to the point that their income is no greater than the middle class is essentially the answer to helping the middle class regain the benefit of upward mobility?

No greater than? You mean from 1945-1980 the US didn't have any rich? When the top 1% ONLY had 6%-9% of ALL US income versus 23% by 2007 and Reaganomics/Bushanomics?



Sorry, tax policy has AND can help rebuild the US middle class that was CREATED using PROGRESSIVE policies!


Of course it's MUCH more important for 10 hedge funders to make more than 250,000 teachers AND to pay a smaller SHARE of their income in taxes right?

Ten Hedge Fund Managers Made More Combined Than 250,000 Teachers | Too Big Has Failed