The wealth disparity in the US is wider now than it’s been in 50 years, and significantly wider than it is in pretty much every other industrialized nation on the planet. Do you think the reason is that 125 million Americans are just way more lazy than ever and way lazier than their counterparts in the rest of the world?
I don’t think my opinion of people I don’t know and which by the way, has not even been formulated by me, is or would be relevant to this matter in any way whatsoever. Loaded question rebuffed.
I do however, believe people that need or want more money should do things like work harder for promotions in their present position, seek better jobs, or further their education and training to gain the qualifications necessary to get better jobs, or any job at all if that be the case.
The point (which others have made but you seem impervious to) is that the bottomw 125 million people simply do not have the money to pay taxes. They are using every penny for basic living. It is pointless to tax them because they don’t have the money. The policies of the past 40 years have ensured that they have less and less money. They don’t have it. Clear?
Over this same time period, the top earners have been getting more and more of the money. They have a higher proportion of the wealth than at any time in the past 50 years. That is where all the money is. If you want to have tax dollars to run a government, then that is where necessarily you must go to get the money. That is where it is now. In the past, it was with the middle class, and now it is being concentrated in fewer hands. Those owners of those hands are the ones you need to tax now.
It’s not about whining, or wealth redistribution or and “liberal” strawman you want to construct. It’s simply about where the money has gone now.
Is this clear enough for you Nadir?
Of course you do. Do you believe it is possible for 125 million Americans to all* get promoted, get better jobs, or get qualifications for better jobs, or get jobs if they’re currently unemployed?
Newsflash, there aren’t enough higher paying jobs out there for all* these poor people to take. Even if there were, someone has to do these crappy jobs that they already have, most likely someone who can’t get into that better job due to all this new competition for them.
The advice is great for one person trying to get a leg up, it’s useless for 125 million people who make up a huge piece of the economy.
*Not literally all, but in large enough numbers to actually change the overall demographics.
Are there any facts to back up this assertion? I don’t actually have any desire to nitpick, but when you said, “basic living” what are you actually referring to? To me that suggests living in a shanty town in a structure you built out of parts you found digging through the trash. I find it hard to believe that 1/3 of Americans are living in squalor.
Sure. CEOs who lose a ton of money and kill stockholder value vote themselves big raises. Gannet lays off a ton of people, destroys the quality of their local papers, put the workers on furloughs, and the CEO gets a bit raise. Transocean execs get a big bonus for their stellar safety record last year. It goes on and on.
You’ve clearly never made enough money to understand what marginal utility is.
The real class warfare is how the wealthy complain about the poor not paying enough in taxes.
My wife and I waited ten years after we were married and I was in my late 30’s before having children. This was because we agreed it would be better for them in the long run if we could assure them the security of a stable home with a good income during their upbringing.
They will not be among the whatever number of millions it ends up being a drag on the economy by the time they enter the job market.
That’s just one person’s approach. It’s workin’ for me. 
I have a marginal understanding of why the term marginal gets used in some contexts.
Duplicate message due to hange
My question: Are you being just ignorant or deliberately stupid?
Well, for someone who has no desire to nitpick, you certainly excel at it!
Did I say that 1/3 of Americans are living in squalor? (goes back to check) No, it does not appear so.
To help you out… The lowest earners in a society are spending most of their money on necessities of life. They do not have much extra. The total pool of available money they have that is available to the government in the form of taxes is small. The poorer someone is, the less money that will be able to be given up in the form of taxes, because they will be using most of it to live. Clear? No squalor need be involved.
In all fairness, Transocean did have a their best safety record in the company’s history. Granted that speaks more to their past safety record, but still, shouldn’t they be rewarded for improving?
Until bad luck strikes you.
It’d be pretty funny if in the rush to trim back the government, your particular area of defense contracting gets defunded completely and your employer closes. I’d chortle.
Good point, let’s go back and check:
“They are using every penny for basic living.”
To which I ask, what is, “basic living?” Is that living in squalor or having to drive a late modeled vehicle?
You used the term as emotional manipulation. boo hoo the bottom 125 million have it really really bad. So we all think, “damn, that’s a lot of people living in squalor.” But in reality, you’re not talking about squalor, which means “basic living” is something better.
I asked for facts, and instead I get weasels.
Clear? Not at all. If they use “most” of their money on necessities, what are they using the rest on? How much is “most?” 51% 2/3? 3/4? 99%?
Your first post suggested/implied the bottom 125million spend 100% (every penny) on basic living. Now you’ve backed up and said they spend “most” on “necessities” so they don’t have much extra.
Let’s be clear. I don’t give a fuck what poor people pay in taxes or what they get in social services. Provide relevant statistics and meaningful data and I’ll happily support social programs paid for by the rich. But don’t try to manipulate me using bullshit rhetoric. At least as the decency to lube up.
You’d chortle?
So if Nadir loses his job and ends up as part of the 125million people in the bottom, you’d stop supporting social programs?
If you’ll chortle at him, do you chortle at all the other people in need and distress?
Wouldn’t your definition of fairness now include him?
Of course we’d empathize. We also know poetic justice when we see it.
Cite please.
Sounds like histrionics.
What do you mean by equitably applied?
I think we have been missing the tax part of that calculus for some time now.
If you don’t understand marginal utility, then just say so, I’m sure someone will explain it to you.
You ignored it because it was inconvenient.
I see a some inconsistency from people who claim that social security is a Ponzi scheme and at the same time claim that the social security tax only pays for social security benefits.