Just so you know, not everyone you are arguing against holds the view that the rich are the reason for inequality.
I was thinking of marginal tax rates (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213), but you are correct, he signed laws that increased revenues including TEFRA, DEFRA and even the 1986 tax reform ended up increasing revenues but mostly through removing tax preferences, and loopholes.
Yeah Ronald Reagan would be primaried in the current environment.
I’ve heard this argument a dozen times. Homeowners basically have more of a stake in this country (subtext: so we should do all that we can to make sure that noone else can acquire a stake).
These are averages based on IRS statistics.
Nevermind…
Because corporations are run by upper management for the benefit of upper management. Because they went to the same schools, go to the same clubs, employ each other when they run their respective companies into the ground, serve on each other’s Board of Directors, employ each other’s children as the next generation of upper management, and in general are a tight knit caste that mutually assists each other. While regarding everyone and everything else as expendable.
It’s more that the lower classes tend to rent rather than own their homes, so limiting the vote to property owners is a mass disenfranchisement of the poor, who of course tend to vote Democrat. And of course racial minorities are disproportionately poor and would also lose votes, and the Republicans hate them even more than they hate the poor.
This is great debates…not GQ. Google it.
That was not a statement about taxation. The statement refers to people who feel they are not taxed enough. I thought you were smart enough to understand that.
Please try to read my posts for comprehension before responding.
I agree. The problem is that we are approaching 50% of the population who have no disincentive to vote to raise income tax on the other half because they pay no federal income tax. Can’t you see the problem there.
That has nothing at all to do with our government.
I understand that. The person who I was responding to seems to be suggesting that income inequality is due to government redistribution from the poor to the rich.
*Somebody *is responsible for the policies that have had that effect. But some seem not to grasp that that effect has even occurred. Let’s start with establishing that fact, since we obviously have to. Do that, and we can go right to the corrective measures part without even attributing responsibility.
Forget upper management; why do corporations give higher pay to middle management?
I want to say that I’m not giving President Obama Four Gold Stars for this whole mess, either. I bitched about my party because I feel they are being stupid at this point, not because I think Mr. Obama and the Democrats are necessarily being better.
I will also say that there have been many negotiations, with varying levels of detail being leaked after each round of them. There have been some claims that Mr. Obama has gone into some negotiations where Speaker Boehner was willing to agree to the broad outlines of a deal, but Mr. Obama then dropped larger tax increases into the pot.
I don’t really care/want to talk about that, because I’m sure both sides have offered and retracted a lot of different things. Mr. Obama had serious failures of leadership on this matter himself, and for a significant period of critical time he was acting as though the Presidency was above being part of these negotiations. When he became involved, he seemed to put a great deal of emphasis on touting his own willingness to compromise in a thinly veiled attempt to ridicule the Republicans.
I’m not calling foul, or at least not calling foul with bias. I’m calling foul on both the Democrats and Republicans because they have both chosen to make this issue a political football when in truth it should have just been a simple procedural vote. I will not take my condemnation of my own party’s behavior so far as to say that Mr. Obama is a blameless ball of holy light on this, he has definitely engaged in his own level of grand standing. I do feel that the hardliners who are behind Rep. Cantor are by far the biggest problem we have right now, so they are the focus of my initial ire, along with Speaker Boehner for being unable to essentially do his job of marshaling the caucus to the required finish line.
It is absolutely asinine for a Congress to pass budgets and then later on threaten to cause a second recession because they refuse to give the government the ability to fund the budget that they passed.
My opinions on the proper function of government have not changed. When I read class warfare, anti-capitalist, pseudo-Marxist stuff such as what foolsguinea routinely posts in any thread about taxation and wealth that is exactly what I’m voting down every time I go into the voting booth. I’m 100% behind capitalism, the ability of people to prosper far above others and a tax system that is not so redistributive as to make an industrialist’s quality of life no different from a postal worker.
At the same time I have always been firmly committed to the concept that if you’re going to have a government, it needs to be close to self funded. Rolling deficits are not actually that bad of a deal as long as they are kept as a small percent of GDP and the overall debt does not grow as a percentage of GDP. When the deficits become massive and the debt begins to grow massively something has to be done, and if revenue increases (through taxation) are necessary (and I believe they are in this case) to right the fiscal house then so be it. The Democrats haven’t offered everything I’d like to see but we haven’t given anything we need to give, either. My personal preference would not be a strict increase but a simple restructuring of the tax code, that for many would actually be a decrease in their marginal rate but you would see the elimination of most deductions and you would see capital gains tax rates go up from 15% to 20% (as they were under Clinton) and dividends would be taxed the same as income. To me that just makes sense, a dividend is a payment you receive and it is not a growth in your capital investment. I receive dividend payments from many of my stocks regardless of whether the company’s stock price has appreciated or depreciated, so I do not think dividends should ever have been classified differently from income.
I don’t know the details of the negotiations which are by nature not public, but that is no more indicative of trying to sabotage the debt deal than reports that Boehner demanded that the individual mandate be dropped from the healthcare bill a couple days ago. Negotiations are give and take.
Immediate responsibility falls on the highly ideological faction of the Republican base. A broader responsibility can be given to Republican leadership and President Obama for setting up a framework where a minority of the House unrealistically thinks it can assert every whim it has with no consequence.
Anyone have any thoughts on how the Asian markets will open today? A yawn? Apocalypse? Somewhere in between?
To some degree it is happening. Only managers don’t get replaced, they get eliminated altogether. It is happening at a lot of big companies these days.
Also, perhaps your framing of the issue is a little off. In most instances it isn’t a single guy ‘greedily reaping the profits from such a company’- no, there is a board, and a management team with a hierarchy, and of course shareholders if it is a corporation. Together it is this team making the decisions about who’s hired, who’s fired, and who is paid what. ISTM the notion that this team acts in its own self-interest is at least a candidate for the simplest explanation. In instances where there really is just one or a couple of guys reaping all the gains, well… how does Koch Industries actually treat its management?
Also, as things are structured now, with management acting as a team and the producers kept isolated as much as possible, it may make more of a certain kind of sense to encourage inertia in management and the opposite in production. The kind of sense that makes may be more selfish than truly productive- happy, well-compensated workers with a voice in how things are run tend to be more valuable than people you denigrate as the equivalent of a bunch of burger-flippers. Again, see the German example.
A bigger house gives you a bigger stake. Two homes doubles your stake. The rich should be allowed to vote in every area they own a house. It like McClain they own 10 homes. they deserve 10 votes.
http://jimhightower.com/node/7502 The income disparity was supposed to be open according to the financial reform act. The Repubs will cover that up pretty fast.
The reason the rich make so much is they determine their own salaries. They do not provide some special services that nobody else can . Everybody is replaceable.
I’m not sure I’m denigrating burger-flippers – except in the sense that I’d pay a guy less to flip burgers than repair cars, and less to repair cars than transplant organs, and so on. Or, to put it another way: I see the guy who flips my burger the way I see the guy who paints my house – in that I’d do it myself if either guy was charging too much for the service, and in that neither charges that much because they know other folks are perfectly willing to do just as good a job for a fairly low price. Is it denigration for me to therefore pay both men accordingly? An argument could be made, I guess – but I don’t see it that way.
(At that, I’ve worked as a burger-flipper, back when I had no other skills to contribute; I didn’t work for free, but I didn’t expect a high wage either. Was that self-denigration? You could call it that, but I didn’t…)