Republicans: why do you ignore the wealth inequality issue?

[The T]

A person that takes over a failing company and fires 50% of the workers, closes down 1/3 of the retail outlets is worth 12 million dollars. He knows which of the 50% to fire and which retail outlets should be closed.

A commercial enterprise is NOT a welfare office.

It's thier company IF they bought it...and it was failing. YOU aren't one of those that thinks companies exist just to give out jobs are you?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No one is "moving jobs"....Global competition dictates the marketplace. .

yes, a liberal simply cant understand this point or capitalism in general. He imagines that if corporations just stayed here and made over priced union junk the American people would mysteriously stop going to WalMart to buy lower priced higher quality stuff from China.

In fact the people would continue to shop at WalMart to improve their standard of living and the home bound American corporations would go bankrupt with 100% of the jobs.

 

[Intense]

As a liberal you miss the point completely, if a company pays its employees too much in a capitalist system a competitor can undersell them and drive them into bankruptcy. The Yankees pay Jeter 10 million because they need his talent.

Everyone gets paid according to their worth or talent in a capitalist system so you have the best possible products in a competitive global market.

The second your bleeding heart makes you start paying fake inflated union wages or fake inflated liberal wages you lose your competitive position and your country sinks as ours is doing.

Yes and no. If that were true in Domestic phone service, everyone would choose magic Jack, which is fine until you need to make a phone call or receive one, or get equipment replaced. Service Matters. Reliability matters, Customer Satisfaction matters. I have Vendors that I stick with because of experience, Reliability, and Customer Service. Undercutting with incompetence is bad form.

no idea what your point is??

My point is that it is not only the wages that determine success. If your Company has it's shit together, it makes a difference, wherever your Employees are located. True there is a balance, true that overcompensation can hurt your company, but there are other factors. If what you produce is useless, it isn't going to go far. If you are plagued with quality control issues and Recalls, you are not going to survive either. If you have problems with Customer Service, you are going to lose repeat business. You want to maintain Stability and Good Faith with your work force wherever they are. I'm not plugging Unions. They can be both good and bad, just fair compensation.

 

[Intense]

actually our corporate rate is the highest in the world, although the effective rate is competitive, i.e., they don't pay much tax as long as they do things like move operations off shore and don't repatriate the profits . Kevin Bassett is my source on this.

Right, that is the problem. We need realistic expectancies regarding Tax Rates for All of Us without the games. IRS Tax Code is not helping us.

It isn't. It's punative, and used by politicians for vote buying.

Needs to go. 16th? Buh-bye. FAIR or Flat tax...Hello.

That's kinda what I was saying.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yes and no. If that were true in Domestic phone service, everyone would choose magic Jack, which is fine until you need to make a phone call or receive one, or get equipment replaced. Service Matters. Reliability matters, Customer Satisfaction matters. I have Vendors that I stick with because of experience, Reliability, and Customer Service. Undercutting with incompetence is bad form.

no idea what your point is??

My point is that it is not only the wages that determine success.

did I disagree??

 

[Intense]

actually our corporate rate is the highest in the world, although the effective rate is competitive, i.e., they don't pay much tax as long as they do things like move operations off shore and don't repatriate the profits . Kevin Bassett is my source on this.

Right, that is the problem. We need realistic expectancies regarding Tax Rates for All of Us without the games. IRS Tax Code is not helping us.

by far most intelligent thing is to eliminate business taxes altogether since they are passed on anyway. GE has 1000 tax professionals shifting business all around the globe not because it makes them more efficient but because it saves taxes. It makes them very very inefficient.

What it does do is pander to the pure ignorance of liberal voters who think it make evil corporations pay up when really it is they who are paying up!!

I'm not big on GE either. These clowns need to lose their exemptions and loop holes. Watch what open competition does to them when they lose Government Protection.

 

[Intense]

no idea what your point is??

My point is that it is not only the wages that determine success.

did I disagree??

We are on the same side.

 

[The T]

Right, that is the problem. We need realistic expectancies regarding Tax Rates for All of Us without the games. IRS Tax Code is not helping us.

by far most intelligent thing is to eliminate business taxes altogether since they are passed on anyway. GE has 1000 tax professionals shifting business all around the globe not because it makes them more efficient but because it saves taxes. It makes them very very inefficient.

What it does do is pander to the pure ignorance of liberal voters who think it make evil corporations pay up when really it is they who are paying up!!

I'm not big on GE either. These clowns need to lose their exemptions and loop holes. Watch what open competition does to them when they lose Government Protection.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I'm not big on GE either. These clowns need to lose their exemptions and loop holes. Watch what open competition does to them when they lose Government Protection.

I assume when cut lose from liberal corporate welfare they'd thrive.
They'd better since they are one of our biggest and best.

 

[The T]

I'm not big on GE either. These clowns need to lose their exemptions and loop holes. Watch what open competition does to them when they lose Government Protection.

I assume when cut lose from liberal corporate welfare they'd thrive.
They'd better since they are one of our biggest and best.

Thus why they are protected as Gubmint is picking winners and losers.

Wake up.

 

[Sunshine]

The facts should anger you.

You say any person deserves to keep every cent they make. That would be fine, except that most of the people in the top 5% are not EARNING all of the money that they are MAKING.

Why ignore the evidence?

Wealth And Inequality In America

Productivity and profits are up, yet wages for the middle class haven't changed over the last few decades unlike the 1%

I don't think that I should make more money simply because of the top 5%. I just the think the wealthy should pay a fair tax that would go to benefit programs for lower level workers. In doing so, their hardwork can be fulfilled.

But opportunities have increased over the last few decades. When I graduated high school, you either had the money to go to college or you didn't. Or if you were lucky you got some kind of scholarship. Now pretty much any C student can go to college. And those people will make far more over their lifetime than they would if the didn't go.

So income is not equal in this country. Barring a serious mental illness, retardation, or physical disability opportunity IS equal. In those other cases, there are social services to help them. Why anyone would settle for $500/month in disability and food stamps is beyond me. But I have actually seen some of the people in places where I work jealous of the disabled because they don't have to work.

The rich don't work hard.

The poor do.

The better educated don't work hard. The lesser educated do. The money is there if you want an education. It wasn't when I was a new high school grad. Get over it.

The facts should anger you.

You say any person deserves to keep every cent they make. That would be fine, except that most of the people in the top 5% are not EARNING all of the money that they are MAKING.

Why ignore the evidence?

Wealth And Inequality In America

Productivity and profits are up, yet wages for the middle class haven't changed over the last few decades unlike the 1%

I don't think that I should make more money simply because of the top 5%. I just the think the wealthy should pay a fair tax that would go to benefit programs for lower level workers. In doing so, their hardwork can be fulfilled.

This seems to be a recurring theme, but is almost always short on specifics. How much tax is "fair"? And how will those additional funds be used to provide "benefit programs for lower level workers"? Despite your assertion that the rich aren't paying enough, the federal government spends every bit as much or more on "benefit programs", and yet according to you, the middle class still can't make it. What specific additional benefit programs would provide the needed push to get these poor and lower level workers to where you would like them to be? And how would those additional dollars do more good in government's hands than being invested in private sector capital?

I'm also curious to know the difference between "earning" and "making". If a doctor spends the entire decade of his 20's working hard in college, medical school and interning, then works 60-70 hour weeks throughout his 30's and 40's, should he then feel guilty that he has some money invested in financial assets and is doing well? Isn't that part of the reason he applied himself in the first place? Should his kids feel badly that he was able to pass some of it to them as well?

It is difficult to consider your post to be a serious call for action when it is long on blame and short on solutions.

I had a high school algebra teacher who encouraged saving money. He said that he let his money work hard for him so he wouldn't have to work so hard. My mother saved an unreal amount of money to have earned so little in her lifetime. She knew the value of compound interest. She didn't think much of spending her money on things like double whoppers.

The facts should anger you.

You say any person deserves to keep every cent they make. That would be fine, except that most of the people in the top 5% are not EARNING all of the money that they are MAKING.

Why ignore the evidence?

Wealth And Inequality In America

Productivity and profits are up, yet wages for the middle class haven't changed over the last few decades unlike the 1%

I don't think that I should make more money simply because of the top 5%. I just the think the wealthy should pay a fair tax that would go to benefit programs for lower level workers. In doing so, their hardwork can be fulfilled.

what do you mean "they aren't earning it"?

Anyone who invests wisely is earning.

then what the hell are you saying with this..??


oh that's right..you would tax that money from them for the greater good of the country...you are so generous with other peoples money..

An inheritance is not income. What I am suggesting is a general policy on high income individuals.

It isn't YOUR money, nor does it belong to government. And it's none of your business what they do with it.

Get it? Hands off.

If you want to leave your kids money tax free. Buy a fat insurance policy. The purpose of insurance is to create an estate. Don't have an estate? Create one. Buy life insurance. It's not part of your estate unless you are dumb enough to mention it in the Will. It is tax free because it was a product you purchased, and not income.

Republicans ignore it as we feel that you need to earn it. Most of the poor are lazy and don't wish to pound the floor to advance them selfs.

Poor-think it should be handed to you=no wealth. You think life is a joke.
Rich-work hard and plan=more wealth!

Why should the people that work hard and are smart enough to save up give you their money?

You guys do realize that becoming wealthy is like climbing the inside of a pyramid, right? The closer you get to the top, the less room there is.

I completely disagree that most of the poor are lazy. There are many more working poor than there are the "welfare bums" that you Conservatives love to rail on about.

So I guess you never heard the old saying; "There's plenty of room at the top."?

There is plenty of room at the top if you get an education and choose your place wisely, AND if you don't blow all your money on lattes!

Wealth is not a zero sum game. I can be wealthy (actually I am wealthy) and YOU can be wealthy. Want to help the poor? Get rich. Lead by example. Want to get rich? Commit as much time to being wealthy as you do to: complaining, watching television, drinking alcohol, surfing the internet, being envious of others, and screwing off.

America is the land of opportunity. As stated above, barring some serious disability, opportunity is there for all. I am amazed at how many people from other countries know that, and yet we have people here who couldn't see if if their glasses were thick enough to see the future! If the system changes to make us all have equal income, then the opportunity is gone. We want the system to remain one of opportunity.

And those opportunities have just gotten better and better since I was a girl!

If I garbled anyone's quote, I apologize. It was not intentional. Sometimes I have a bit of trouble with the multiple quote feature.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I'm not big on GE either. These clowns need to lose their exemptions and loop holes. Watch what open competition does to them when they lose Government Protection.

I assume when cut lose from liberal corporate welfare they'd thrive.
They'd better since they are one of our biggest and best.

Thus why they are protected as Gubmint is picking winners and losers.

Wake up.

about what exactly????????????????

 

[thereisnospoon]

Wealth is not a zero sum game. I can be wealthy (actually I am wealthy) and YOU can be wealthy. Want to help the poor? Get rich. Lead by example. Want to get rich? Commit as much time to being wealthy as you do to: complaining, watching television, drinking alcohol, surfing the internet, being envious of others, and screwing off.

Bullshit.

No one is doing 80 million dollars of work.

No one.

They are manipulating the system so they get the rewards. The physical work they do is nowhere near what they get paid.

Do I think the CEO should get paid more than I do? Sure. No problem. Do I think that we should have a system where they make 8 figures, even if they run the company into the ground and require a government bailout? NOPE!!!!!

And this is the problem with Romney, and why he's toxic. He and his boys did exactly that with these companies, and left lenders, stockholder, workers and the government on the hook.

Oh please stop whining..
.
...AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM and Chrysler....That's it! And why were these firms selected for "bail out"....AIG is the largest insurer in the world. AND AIG also holds the policy that carries the health insurance for federal employees...
GM and Chrysler were bailed out because the democrat party and especially Obama owed the UAW for their undying support. Those that ran Fannie and Freddie were major fuckups .
Remember the screaming of what if GM declares bankruptcy...The confidence of American car buyers in GM would be destroyed....Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!...
So what if those companies went bankrupt., Not the end of the world. In fact they would have either come back leaner and stronger or gone out of business. So what. The other auto mfgrs would have been there to fill the void.
Here's a link that pretty much blows a hole the size of the Lincoln Tunnel through your class envy sob story...Bailout List: Banks, Auto Companies, and More | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica
In case you decide to ignore the link .
Here are the major receivers of bailout money. Note the firms that HAVE NOT returned either any of the money or have returned very little and probably never will pay back the TAXPAYERS in FULL.
Company received returned
Fannie...................$112B....................ZERO
Freddie..................$71B........................ZERO
AIG.........................$68B.....................$18B..................26%
GM..........................$51B......................$23B.................45%..Oh they are doing well
Bank of America........$45........................$45B................100%
Citigroup...................$45B.......................$45B...............100%

JPM Chase.................$25B........................$25................100%
Wells Fargo................$25B........................$25................100%
GMAC.........................$16B........................$3B................19%
[looks to me like the largest firms to benefit from government bail outs are government firms and those friendly to the democrat party..
If you want to complain about big corps getting bailed out and their top level management you need to look inward to direct your anger...

 

[thereisnospoon]

Wealth is not a zero sum game. I can be wealthy (actually I am wealthy) and YOU can be wealthy. Want to help the poor? Get rich. Lead by example. Want to get rich? Commit as much time to being wealthy as you do to: complaining, watching television, drinking alcohol, surfing the internet, being envious of others, and screwing off.

Bullshit.

No one is doing 80 million dollars of work.

No one.

They are manipulating the system so they get the rewards. The physical work they do is nowhere near what they get paid.

Do I think the CEO should get paid more than I do? Sure. No problem. Do I think that we should have a system where they make 8 figures, even if they run the company into the ground and require a government bailout? NOPE!!!!!

And this is the problem with Romney, and why he's toxic. He and his boys did exactly that with these companies, and left lenders, stockholder, workers and the government on the hook.

Do you believe those Hollywood liberals such as Tom Cruise and George Clooney "work" for their millions? After all, these people and others like them live cloistered far away from the great unwashed masses.
What about George Soros? He's one the richest people in the world and he does not "work"...

 

[g5000]

Wealth is not a zero sum game. I can be wealthy (actually I am wealthy) and YOU can be wealthy. Want to help the poor? Get rich. Lead by example. Want to get rich? Commit as much time to being wealthy as you do to: complaining, watching television, drinking alcohol, surfing the internet, being envious of others, and screwing off.

Bullshit.

No one is doing 80 million dollars of work.

No one.

You just don't get it. How much wealth did Steve Jobs create?

A lot more than $80 million. Should he only have been paid minimum wage?

He certainly earned his billions.

 

[BillyV]

The facts should anger you.

You say any person deserves to keep every cent they make. That would be fine, except that most of the people in the top 5% are not EARNING all of the money that they are MAKING.

Why ignore the evidence?

Wealth And Inequality In America

Productivity and profits are up, yet wages for the middle class haven't changed over the last few decades unlike the 1%

I don't think that I should make more money simply because of the top 5%. I just the think the wealthy should pay a fair tax that would go to benefit programs for lower level workers. In doing so, their hardwork can be fulfilled.

This seems to be a recurring theme, but is almost always short on specifics. How much tax is "fair"? And how will those additional funds be used to provide "benefit programs for lower level workers"? Despite your assertion that the rich aren't paying enough, the federal government spends every bit as much or more on "benefit programs", and yet according to you, the middle class still can't make it. What specific additional benefit programs would provide the needed push to get these poor and lower level workers to where you would like them to be? And how would those additional dollars do more good in government's hands than being invested in private sector capital?

I'm also curious to know the difference between "earning" and "making". If a doctor spends the entire decade of his 20's working hard in college, medical school and interning, then works 60-70 hour weeks throughout his 30's and 40's, should he then feel guilty that he has some money invested in financial assets and is doing well? Isn't that part of the reason he applied himself in the first place? Should his kids feel badly that he was able to pass some of it to them as well?

It is difficult to consider your post to be a serious call for action when it is long on blame and short on solutions.

I am not an economist, so I do not know what a fair tax would be. However, I do believe the question can answered mathematically given the disparity of wealth. A rate can be determined based upon the gap between the top 1% and everybody else. Also, these "additional funds" would not likely go to benefit the poor if they were invested in private capital.

You seem to think I am against success altogether. That's where this black and white thinkinging comes in. I am not wanting to punish success. I think doctors should be well-paid for what they do. Anyone at the top 1%, however, need to at least pay their fair share if they are going to have this monopoly.

Well, if you don't know what a fair tax or fair share would be, how do you know it isn't fair now? Are you planning to "mathematically" equalize all citizens through taxation, or just alleviate the disparity? How much disparity is OK with you? You also didn't comment on what specific programs would benefit from this windfall; how will these additional taxes be distributed and how will they benefit your target groups? These are questions that would need answers before deciding that those dollars in government's hands were more valuable than dollars in private hands. The doctor example was simply to help me understand why you refer to them not earning all the money they're making; I assume that is your reference to someone's income from investments. Is it?

 

[thereisnospoon]

did the guy who ran GM into the ground and require a government bailout, deserve a 12 million dollar salary??

As a liberal you miss the point completely, if a company pays its employees too much in a capitalist system a competitor can undersell them and drive them into bankruptcy. The Yankees pay Jeter 10 million because they need his talent.

Everyone gets paid according to their worth or talent in a capitalist system so you have the best possible products in a competitive global market.

The second your bleeding heart makes you start paying fake inflated union wages or fake inflated liberal wages you lose your competitive position and your country sinks as ours is doing.

Yes and no. If that were true in Domestic phone service, everyone would choose magic Jack, which is fine until you need to make a phone call or receive one, or get equipment replaced. Service Matters. Reliability matters, Customer Satisfaction matters. I have Vendors that I stick with because of experience, Reliability, and Customer Service. Undercutting with incompetence is bad form.

And Companies such as Vonage or the other VoIP phone services?...My monthly cost for phone service went from $37 per month to $15 per month. Granted I have a 500 min(outbound) per month plan, caller ID, waiting( useless as I never pick up) and voice mail. I don't need international calling because I don't know anyone outside the US.
BTW our incumbent carrier (Windstream) is non union....Their service is fine. $37 for a basic line with an unpublished number( $3.50 per month) is non competitive.
For purposes of this discussion, I think telco service is a poor example.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Republicans ignore it as we feel that you need to earn it. Most of the poor are lazy and don't wish to pound the floor to advance them selfs.

Poor-think it should be handed to you=no wealth. You think life is a joke.
Rich-work hard and plan=more wealth!

Why should the people that work hard and are smart enough to save up give you their money?

I already told you I personally did not want their money. Again, it's arguably not their money if they didn't technically earn it.

Really? How is that "arguable"? Where is it written that the only money that belongs to someone is money that has been "earned" according to Billy Zero's definition of "earning"?

If they got it legally, it's theirs, whether you personally approve of it or not. We don't worry about the "income inequality issue" because we don't consider it an issue. Case closed.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Productivity and profits are up, yet wages for the middle class haven't changed over the last few decades unlike the 1%

lots of reason for that:

1) liberals have destroyed familes creating lots of poor single mothers who would have been in 2 parent middle class families. 50% are now born out of wedlock

2) many new recent immigrants are just arriving into the bottom of the middle class

3) many women are now in college and marrying college grad men to form families that are above the middle class shortly after leaving school.

you have been brainwashed by the liberals. Sorry

 

[BillyV]

The facts should anger you.

You say any person deserves to keep every cent they make. That would be fine, except that most of the people in the top 5% are not EARNING all of the money that they are MAKING.

Why ignore the evidence?

Wealth And Inequality In America

Productivity and profits are up, yet wages for the middle class haven't changed over the last few decades unlike the 1%

I don't think that I should make more money simply because of the top 5%. I just the think the wealthy should pay a fair tax that would go to benefit programs for lower level workers. In doing so, their hardwork can be fulfilled.

Suppose you are intolerably rich and because you have more money than you need, you decide to invest some of it in a new business that you expect to yield to you a net return after taxes of 20%, and this business will create more jobs, but taxes on your income are increased so that now you would only expect to net 10% after taxes. This investment carried a risk that was acceptable when you expected a 20% return but now that you only expect a 10% return the risk is unacceptable, so you don't make the investment and the jobs are not created and more (unemployed) workers need more government benefits and we're back where we started.

The way to help workers is to increase job creating investments in the private sector so that when demand for workers increases companies will compete for them by offering more benefits or higher salaries. Every dollar that is taxed away by the government is a dollar that can't be invested in the private sector to create more jobs; moreover, higher tax rates make investors more risk averse and that slows economic growth and job creation further.

Is that common sense? There's no place for that in this thread!

Actually, what happens is, you take advantage of tax credits and favorable deductions created by the government specifically to spur the economy and hiring to get back to your 20% after tax return and create the jobs and the profit, and at the end of the year when you pay less than the 35% statutory rate in taxes you are vilified for doing exactly what the government was trying to encourage (and what was best for the country). So you learn your lesson for next time and decide the bad press isn't worth the return even if it meets your risk/return tolerance, and then the jobs (and the profit) don't get created.