Tax Burden of Top 1% Now Exceeds That of Bottom 95%

[Bern80]

The wealth in the USA is concentrated among a smaller per centage of the population than in the past.

Those with the greatest wealth have greater opportunity to increase their wealth than those with less wealth.

The compensation programs in public corporations trends up for the very top management at a much higher rate than other employees.

This is not the way it is suppose to be in a free and open economy.

What exactly is a free and open economy in your mind? You get rewarded more the more you do. That's EXACTLY how it is supposed to work. Top management gets paid more because they are ultimately of the greatest value in terms of return on investment.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

What exactly is a free and open economy in your mind? You get rewarded more the more you do. That's EXACTLY how it is supposed to work. Top management gets paid more because they are ultimately of the greatest value in terms of return on investment.


Are you INSANE management gets rewarded for FAILURE!!!

 

[Cold Fusion38]

You do know that that is how these banks justify BILLIONS in bonuses right? The claim that HAVE to pay those bonises to keep good employees. You know what I or YOU would get for doing the kind of bang up job those execs are doing..............YOU AND I WOULD GET FIRED!!!!!!

 

[Bern80]

You do know that that is how these banks justify BILLIONS in bonuses right? The claim that HAVE to pay those bonises to keep good employees. You know what I or YOU would get for doing the kind of bang up job those execs are doing..............YOU AND I WOULD GET FIRED!!!!!!

Of course they do, because companies have money to waste on bad employees. Give me a break.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Give ME a break Bern execs ALWAYS get rewarded whether they succede or FAIL!!

 

[edthecynic]

Oh for ***** sake. Time to go back to school, Math first.

Here are 8 people's incomes, all these people are conservatives.

575,000
950,000
750,000
500,000
800,000
1,000,000
850,000
1,200,000

Here are 5 people's incomes. They're all liberals

600,000
900,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
800,000

Question 1: Which group has the higher avg?

Question 2: Which group has more people?

I'm not sure why I even bothered with that because, the point is rendered mute when hardly anyone is claiming all or most of the people on welfare are liberals. Frankly I don't know.

Again you deceitfully leave out the welfare recipients CON$ say are Libs. But keep up the dumb act, I'm sure it's scoring points for you.

Read last two sentences and try again.

Just because you deny it doesn't change the fact that CON$ have been claiming for decades that Welfare people are lazy unproductive freeloading Libs. Your denials only destroy your credibility.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

You know Bern you really have to get over your "man crush" on Ronnie.

 

[ElmerMudd]

The wealth in the USA is concentrated among a smaller per centage of the population than in the past.

Those with the greatest wealth have greater opportunity to increase their wealth than those with less wealth.

The compensation programs in public corporations trends up for the very top management at a much higher rate than other employees.

This is not the way it is suppose to be in a free and open economy.

What exactly is a free and open economy in your mind? You get rewarded more the more you do. That's EXACTLY how it is supposed to work. Top management gets paid more because they are ultimately of the greatest value in terms of return on investment.

A free and open economy should provide equal opportunity to all. It is never perfect but it must trend that way. The purpose of anti trust laws is to prevent corporations from dominating an industry so other corporations cannot compete.

This is happening to individuals.

An open economy does not give equal pay but should give equal opportunity.

The top management in a corporation should make more money. I was commenting on the fact the wages of top executives in 2001 thru 2008 grew at double digit rates while the income at other levels grew at single digit rates at best. If you are making $10.00 an hour and you receive a 1% raise you receive 10 cents more an hour. If you are making $10,000,000 a year and receive a 50% raise you receive a $5,000,000 raise. That was happening in the past 10 years. CEO's were making multiple millions while their companies were losing money and laying people off. After increasing their own compensation and laying people off their companies continued to lose money.

 

[Vast LWC]

glad to see I know somebody over here

Nice to see familiar names.

These boards are a bit on the conservative side though. Perhaps the infusion of MSNBC folks will even it out a bit, present company excluded of course.

 

[Bern80]

Again you deceitfully leave out the welfare recipients CON$ say are Libs. But keep up the dumb act, I'm sure it's scoring points for you.

Read last two sentences and try again.

Just because you deny it doesn't change the fact that CON$ have been claiming for decades that Welfare people are lazy unproductive freeloading Libs. Your denials only destroy your credibility.

So in a nutshell the credibility of YOUR argument essentially rests on calling me a liar and claiming something you can't prove? Yeah bud, you win.

 

[Bern80]

A free and open economy should provide equal opportunity to all. It is never perfect but it must trend that way. The purpose of anti trust laws is to prevent corporations from dominating an industry so other corporations cannot compete.

This is happening to individuals.

An open economy does not give equal pay but should give equal opportunity.

Nice try. What you really want is equal outcomes because the opportunity is already there. Something libs simply can not seem to accept about people is that they can and predominantly do fail through no one elses fault but their own. What you write here is proof positive of that. I can, with 100% honesty say I have never, ever, EVER seen a liberal look to themselves, when justified as the cause for their failure. It is ALWAYS someone else's fault. That is what is so frustrating. If people spent as much time actually working at being successful as they did trying to blame this amorphous entity for not being successful, there would be far more successful people. How do I know this? Simple observation. You can't tell me the bulk of the people you know have maxed out on their potential. That and there simply aren't that many insurmountable odds out there.

The top management in a corporation should make more money. I was commenting on the fact the wages of top executives in 2001 thru 2008 grew at double digit rates while the income at other levels grew at single digit rates at best. If you are making $10.00 an hour and you receive a 1% raise you receive 10 cents more an hour. If you are making $10,000,000 a year and receive a 50% raise you receive a $5,000,000 raise. That was happening in the past 10 years. CEO's were making multiple millions while their companies were losing money and laying people off. After increasing their own compensation and laying people off their companies continued to lose money.

This is a slightly different argument, and one am I actually inclined to agree with. After all, in the business world one is more likely to be successful through wise business decisions. Sure some may get a quick payday above, but a lot of them are starting to reap what they sowed in this economy. The bulk of businesses that are successful, however you choose to define that, are not doing the above and you don't have to back stab and screw over the 'peons' to get wealthy.

 

[TT16]

Someone said earlier that Obama hasen't accomplished anything. How about this? He went from a relivatively unknown keynote speaker at the 1996 democratic convention to President of the US in 4 years. He brought enough democrats with him to the house and senate that he can and has gotten all the legislation passed that he has wanted so far. He has regained respect and credibitility for the US from across the world. There are only 5 guaranteed Red states left in the US. With 42 percent registered as democrats and 40 percent regestered as republicans, even Texas is now a Blue state. Seems to me these are pretty big accomplishments. And we're not done yet.

 

[Bern80]

Someone said earlier that Obama hasen't accomplished anything. How about this? He went from a relivatively unknown keynote speaker at the 1996 democratic convention to President of the US in 4 years. He brought enough democrats with him to the house and senate that he can and has gotten all the legislation passed that he has wanted so far. He has regained respect and credibitility for the US from across the world. There are only 5 guaranteed Red states left in the US. With 42 percent registered as democrats and 40 percent regestered as republicans, even Texas is now a Blue state. Seems to me these are pretty big accomplishments. And we're not done yet.

Not sure you can lay most any of those at his feet. Democrats and indeed Obama himself, were elected in no small as a backlash to the failures of Bush, not because he was such a great leader. His two biggest reforms are in trouble (Cap in Trade, and health care reform). Personally i see an interesting dichotomy between him and Bush. There is no question Bush was a horrid orator. That doesn't mean he was stupid however. Obama on the other hand is a hell of a speaker. Hell i believe the guy when I actually listen to him. He has a charisma about him that is simply, makes him agreeable. But underneath he must either being trying to pull the wool over on everyone or he is the most stupid, naive President we have had in a good while.

 

[ElmerMudd]

A free and open economy should provide equal opportunity to all. It is never perfect but it must trend that way. The purpose of anti trust laws is to prevent corporations from dominating an industry so other corporations cannot compete.

This is happening to individuals.

An open economy does not give equal pay but should give equal opportunity.

Nice try. What you really want is equal outcomes because the opportunity is already there. Something libs simply can not seem to accept about people is that they can and predominantly do fail through no one elses fault but their own. What you write here is proof positive of that. I can, with 100% honesty say I have never, ever, EVER seen a liberal look to themselves, when justified as the cause for their failure. It is ALWAYS someone else's fault. That is what is so frustrating. If people spent as much time actually working at being successful as they did trying to blame this amorphous entity for not being successful, there would be far more successful people. How do I know this? Simple observation. You can't tell me the bulk of the people you know have maxed out on their potential. That and there simply aren't that many insurmountable odds out there.

The top management in a corporation should make more money. I was commenting on the fact the wages of top executives in 2001 thru 2008 grew at double digit rates while the income at other levels grew at single digit rates at best. If you are making $10.00 an hour and you receive a 1% raise you receive 10 cents more an hour. If you are making $10,000,000 a year and receive a 50% raise you receive a $5,000,000 raise. That was happening in the past 10 years. CEO's were making multiple millions while their companies were losing money and laying people off. After increasing their own compensation and laying people off their companies continued to lose money.

This is a slightly different argument, and one am I actually inclined to agree with. After all, in the business world one is more likely to be successful through wise business decisions. Sure some may get a quick payday above, but a lot of them are starting to reap what they sowed in this economy. The bulk of businesses that are successful, however you choose to define that, are not doing the above and you don't have to back stab and screw over the 'peons' to get wealthy.

Don't put words in my mouth. I said equal opportunity not equal results.
I also know the world is not perfect and we will never have equal opportunity. The world is not fair. Those that are successful are those who take the opportunity they have and make the most of it.
I don't like a government or economic system that trends toward making OPPORTUNITY unequal the RESULTS are up to the individual.

 

[TT16]

293-Bern80 There is a reason that Obama made it through the primaries to run against Bush. Because he represents the fast changing face of the US. The republicans are in denial and are digging themselves a big hole. Without major change with this party, there may never be another Ronny in the white house.

 

[ElmerMudd]

293-Bern80 There is a reason that Obama made it through the primaries to run against Bush. Because he represents the fast changing face of the US. The republicans are in denial and are digging themselves a big hole. Without major change with this party, there may never be another Ronny in the white house.

There are some very bright conservatives and Republicans but way too many just don't get it. It is amazing.
The face of the Republican party is Joe the Plumber and the crazy people shouting uninformed, overly emotional statements to stop any debate on health reform.

It is obvious these people are not very intelligent. They seem to have neither street smarts nor any formal education. They could be very nice people but they are just plain dumb.

The current Republican party includes very few minorities and very few young people. The largest growing demographic catagories in the US are the young and minorities.

 

[Bern80]

A free and open economy should provide equal opportunity to all. It is never perfect but it must trend that way. The purpose of anti trust laws is to prevent corporations from dominating an industry so other corporations cannot compete.

This is happening to individuals.

An open economy does not give equal pay but should give equal opportunity.

Nice try. What you really want is equal outcomes because the opportunity is already there. Something libs simply can not seem to accept about people is that they can and predominantly do fail through no one elses fault but their own. What you write here is proof positive of that. I can, with 100% honesty say I have never, ever, EVER seen a liberal look to themselves, when justified as the cause for their failure. It is ALWAYS someone else's fault. That is what is so frustrating. If people spent as much time actually working at being successful as they did trying to blame this amorphous entity for not being successful, there would be far more successful people. How do I know this? Simple observation. You can't tell me the bulk of the people you know have maxed out on their potential. That and there simply aren't that many insurmountable odds out there.

The top management in a corporation should make more money. I was commenting on the fact the wages of top executives in 2001 thru 2008 grew at double digit rates while the income at other levels grew at single digit rates at best. If you are making $10.00 an hour and you receive a 1% raise you receive 10 cents more an hour. If you are making $10,000,000 a year and receive a 50% raise you receive a $5,000,000 raise. That was happening in the past 10 years. CEO's were making multiple millions while their companies were losing money and laying people off. After increasing their own compensation and laying people off their companies continued to lose money.

This is a slightly different argument, and one am I actually inclined to agree with. After all, in the business world one is more likely to be successful through wise business decisions. Sure some may get a quick payday above, but a lot of them are starting to reap what they sowed in this economy. The bulk of businesses that are successful, however you choose to define that, are not doing the above and you don't have to back stab and screw over the 'peons' to get wealthy.

Don't put words in my mouth. I said equal opportunity not equal results.
I also know the world is not perfect and we will never have equal opportunity. The world is not fair. Those that are successful are those who take the opportunity they have and make the most of it.
I don't like a government or economic system that trends toward making OPPORTUNITY unequal the RESULTS are up to the individual.

Then we understand that outcomes are not where you would like them to be. Yet we have differing opinions as to WHY the outcomes are what they are. It would seem you would have to be of the opinion the reason outcomes aren't what you want them to be is due to an unfair distribution of opportunities rather than a failure on the part of individuals to make the best of those opportunities otherwise you wouldn't be making the argument.

 

[Bern80]

293-Bern80 There is a reason that Obama made it through the primaries to run against Bush. Because he represents the fast changing face of the US. The republicans are in denial and are digging themselves a big hole. Without major change with this party, there may never be another Ronny in the white house.

I personally don't deny the face of the country changing. It's just not for the better. Look at how we evolve. On a fundamental level humans in their innovations and technology strive to make things easier for themselves. Sometimes for the better, sometimes at our own peril. The point is most people are going to travel the path of least resistance. Everyone also has a tipping point where there level of disagreement for their current life style pushes them to action to change it. Because on so many fronts, things have made so much easier for people as a result simply getting by takes considerably less use of your potential than it once did.

That translates into the political realm for dems quite nicely. Look at Obama. 'I'm going to do this for you and I'm going to do that for you'. And we have lost sight of the role government should play. It isn't their job to babysit you through life. that doesn't do society as a whole any favors. It makes it weaker. And what candidate could possibly get elected on the truth. That if we want this strong society that everyone would surely agree we have, then YOU are going to have to put in the work. Because YOU are the single best solution for changing your position in life. Who really wants to hear that. Of course their gonna vote for the guy that says you shouldn't be burdened with the cost of your health care needs and you should get a 5k from the taxpayers for your next automobile. Frankly I don't wonder why the dems are in power. I wonder why on earth they wouldn't be.

 

[edthecynic]

Read last two sentences and try again.

Just because you deny it doesn't change the fact that CON$ have been claiming for decades that Welfare people are lazy unproductive freeloading Libs. Your denials only destroy your credibility.

So in a nutshell the credibility of YOUR argument essentially rests on calling me a liar and claiming something you can't prove? Yeah bud, you win.

You can play dumb all you want, but anyone who has listened to GOP hate radio knows CON$ have been claiming the nonproductive, underachieving welfare people are Liberal Democratic voters. So much so that they have gone so far as to want to deny them the right to vote!!! If the GOP wasn't absolutely convinced they are Liberal Democratic voters they would never try to get them banned from voting.

Political Differences: A Tale of Two Parties
July 28, 2001
by Tom Barrett, Editor@ConservativeTruth.org
D- Expansion of the welfare state (most welfare recipients vote Democrat)
R- All able-bodied people should work; welfare should be reserved for people with real disabilities

April 4, 2008
RUSH: The next thing is, remember, Republicans have jobs. When they vote, they show up before they go to the work, or after work. Democrats show up throughout the day, you know, they get the welfare check and then bop into the polling place,

Boortz: People on Welfare Should Not Be Allowed to Vote
"Everybody still living in a hotel or trailer after Hurricane Katrina, no votes, can’t vote again, ever, ever. Everybody living in Section 8 housing, should not, nobody living in Section 8 housing should be allowed to vote, and don’t give me this elderly, if you’re elderly and living in Section 8 housing, you’ve done a piss poor job of planning your life, no vote for you.”

Feb 20, 2009
Mayoral candidate supports taking away welfare recipients' right to vote
Racine Mayoral Candidate Jody Harding supports taking away people's right to vote if they're on welfare or receiving other forms of government subsidies.

Harding first shared her opinion in February 2008 on her blog, "The World According to Jody." (Read the post here.) She writes:
In American hearts, the vote is probably our most sacred right, so what I am about to say may shock you.

I believe that any individual who is receiving a government subsidy should lose his/her right to vote for as long as s/he receives that subsidy.

This right would be reinstated as soon as the government subsidies ceased; however, no vote could be cast as long government “aid” was received. By “aid” I mean any form of payment from the government, whether it be cash or voucher, food stamps, housing allowance, aid to dependent children or farm subsidies. Any payment or reduced expense funded by the government should cause its recipient to lose his/her right to vote.

Sunday, April 12, 2009
Tammy Bruce: Obama's Mass Amnesty of 35 Million Democrat-Voting Welfare Recipients

 

[rightwinger]

293-Bern80 There is a reason that Obama made it through the primaries to run against Bush. Because he represents the fast changing face of the US. The republicans are in denial and are digging themselves a big hole. Without major change with this party, there may never be another Ronny in the white house.

There are some very bright conservatives and Republicans but way too many just don't get it. It is amazing.
The face of the Republican party is Joe the Plumber and the crazy people shouting uninformed, overly emotional statements to stop any debate on health reform.

It is obvious these people are not very intelligent. They seem to have neither street smarts nor any formal education. They could be very nice people but they are just plain dumb.

The current Republican party includes very few minorities and very few young people. The largest growing demographic catagories in the US are the young and minorities.

Exactly, the bright, moderate republicans who are willing to compromise for the good of the country get shouted down by the Boss Limbaugh wing. When the public face of your party is Limbaugh, Cheney, Palin and Joe the Plummer....you know you are in trouble