Of course, your argument ignores the fact that the corporations and the one percenters are parking their money in offshore accounts to avoid taxation. In short, the money does zero, nada, zilch good to the US economy.
Well, you can either leave the Democratic party as I have, or work to make the Democrats adopt more progressive values. Getting money out of politics through groups like WolfPak is good, and you can sign Al Franken’s petition for a constitutional amendment to get money out of politics. Because the Democrats, under our present system, have little choice but to be for sale. And the folks at Alternetalways have plenty of ideas along these lines as well. Basically, get out of the Dem/Republican liberal/conservative rut, because it’s a well-designed trap.
Thanks for the lob, Brainglutton!
“Not knowing where to start” is often a sign of not actually having an argument to make. I would suggest starting at the very beginning. I hear that is a very good place to start.
I’m guessing that is a complete non sequitur.
Which makes poor people poorer how, exactly? Again, start at the very beginning if you find that you don’t know where to start. 
This is all so extremely basic, I feel like I’m teaching 3rd graders.
XYZ Widgets increases prices or production but instead of giving its workers a raise, raises dividends. Who benefits?
The Federal Government reduces taxes on dividends and, ultimately, must raise taxes on earned income or reduce services for the needy. Who benefits?
You really couldn’t figure this out for yourselves? :dubious: One might (if one were in BBQ Pit) comment adversely on “conservative” cognitive acuity.
If you move on to the fourth grade level of understanding you would see where you were wrong. XYZ widgets gives raises to workers based on supply and demand for labor.
Taxes on investments are much more responsive to rates than almost any other type of taxes. Lowering rates will generally raise the amount of taxes collected from investment taxes.
Low investment tax rates will also lead to more investments in this country which will mean more companies competing for workers. Since we have already covered supply and demand determine wages we can see who benefits. (its the workers)
I understand why you couldn’t figure this out for yourself, after all if you could understand economics you wouldn’t be a liberal, now would you?
The poor pay no Federal Income taxes on earned income, and we just raised income taxes on “the rich”, so your analysis fails. There are plenty of ways to finance services for the poor, either on the federal level or the state level. When MSFT stock goes up a dollar and Bill Gates is $1B richer (or whatever), the poor do not get poorer.
Please leave the personal commentary out of your posts if you wish to continue debating with me. There are lots of people on this MB who can debate civilly, and I have no interest in engaging with those who don’t.
Wrong, but I’m tired of trying to connect the dots for you.
And if you want more respect from me perhaps you should reciprocate. Just from your most recent:
ETA: Every single sentence of your #13 upthread was absurd, and not up to your usual standard.. I thought ignoring that post was a friendly gesture. 
This is pretty much a standard tactic of conservatives on the Dope now, septimus. if they can keep us all arguing about the basics we’ll never move on and reach any conclusions. So they’ll happily argue basic economics with you til the cows come home. Best just make your points and move on. Of COURSE the middle class has been losing money because corporations are not paying salary raises. Of COURSE they are putting that money into stock dividends, that’s why they’re swimming in cash. Of COURSE this has exacerbated joblessness and hurt people’s ability to buy goods, that’s why this recession has been so prolonged and painful. And of COURSE rich corporations and conservatives could give a shit about the middle class.
The question is, as Brian Glutton points out, what to do about it?
No, it doesn’t. Unless you also have some way of measuring to the minutia that each and every comparison you make is apt. Apples to apples and all that. Care is equivalent, etc
Can you?
Can you utilize some broad stroke stuff to actually start a dialogue, of course you can. But that isn’t what you or those like you do, you automatically assume that because it agrees with your worldview that we ought to use it.
Mistake #1
And gone where? Third-party politics are a dead end, y’know.
First, I know exactly how banking works. If I put $1,000,000 in a 1% savings account, the bank pays me a premium in the form of interest of $10,000. In return of that premium, the bank can, as you say, lend money to businesses and so forth, however, that “monetary magic” is transitory as that money can be called at any time by the despositer (me in this case). It’s such sorcery that if all savings despositers were to withdraw their money at the same time, the house of cards collapses because banks aren’t required to have the collateral to match banking deposits.
Second, your farmer and bushel example is flawed. You’re looking at one as morally and economically superior without seeing that both farmers are contributing to the economy. In your example, if Farmer A uses his harvest to purchase hookers and wine. Well, we could say for certain that at minimum hundreds of people will be affected from his purchase: from the State and local taxes excised from that wine, the profit from the storekeeper gets from that wine, the payment of utilities of the store, payment to employee’s, who, for the latter, will start the cycle again with their purchases. ISpending by consumers increases economic activity by increases taxes gained, profits earned by businesses, which leads to expansion and innovation, and the cycle repeats.
Lastly, my last point is the compared to the poor and middle class, the rich do not spend, as a percentage of income, on heavily taxes categories such as groceries, utilities, transportation, and healthcare. The rich put more of their cash into savings accounts which effectively puts that cash out of circulation but still apart of the overall nation’s wealth supply. Even worse, interest gained from savings accounts (for the rich ) ranges from 12-20%, much lower than the nominal 35% rate.
I would strongly suggest you take look at this. I think you’ll find it helpful.
- Honesty
No, they have a higher marginal rate of consumption because they are poor, unless you know of a study showing that poor people are somehow less hungry and greedy than rich people by nature. I doubt that is true in general.
Not a higher total level of consumption - or else Nieman Marcus sales would match that of WalMart. Investment, yes, thanks to not needing or wanting to consume all they make.
You are assuming there is demand for 220 bushels of corn. If there is demand for 180 (or less) Farmer B might find no market for his excess production, or have to reduce his selling price a lot. The Farmer A, who out less money into the 90 bushels he can sell, would come out ahead.
Farmer B would have been much better off to put his $100 in the bank or some better investment. Then he would have it when demand increased. And he would be better off if the government, seeing this lack of demand, bought the excess corn to distribute to the poor. He might pay a bit more in taxes, but his investment in growing more corn would pay off, and he’d come out ahead.
That’s more or less what happened during the Depression, though the farmers got paid for not growing corn.
As long as there is a lack of demand, only an idiot invests in increased capacity, and business people are not idiots. So they sit on the money.
If taxes are being thrown into a pit, true. If they are being invested in new infrastructure or R&D or in supporting increased consumption and thus the need for investment, then money going into taxes is doing more for the economy than money sitting in treasury bonds. And it is highly likely that our rich friend will come out ahead in terms of investment price and business profitability than the additional money he paid in taxes.
It depends on why that stock went up $1. Due to random fluctuations or more profit due to more sales, the poor will likely benefit like they did in the 1990s. If, as is often the case today, the extra $1 is share price is from increased profits from stagnant wages, increased productivity from workers with no salary increase, or off-shoring, the poor who will be competing with more people who need services will suffer.
BTW, where is this extra revenue coming from again? Taxing those with the least money?
So I hear from Democratic dopers. But frankly, working to support the thoroughly bought is not only a dead end, it’s actually counterproductive. Sucker!
BTW, a graph in an article I linked to upthread shows that income inequality is most severe at the very top. Eyeballing the graph shows that
[ul][li]Almost half of the total income earned by the top 10% is earned by the top 1%.[/li][li]Roughly half of the total income earned by the top 1% is earned by the top 0.1%.[/li][li]Roughly half of the total income earned by the top 0.1% is earned by the top 0.01% ![/li][/ul]
This may help explain some of the right-wingers’ confusions. Their sentiment is to defend hard-working lawyers who may be making only a million dollars or so per year. “Left-wing” antipathy isn’t directed against hard-working lawyers so much as against the egregious inherited wealth of the Koch brothers and Walton siblings.
As Brain Glutton and Evil Captor point out, the real question for good-spirited progressive thinkers is What to do about it? I have no magic silver bullet to offer, except to note simple “copper bullets” are available like
[ul][li] Restoring higher taxes on capital gains, dividends and large estates;[/li][li] Raising income taxes at the very highest levels; raising the cap on SS-tax;[/li][li] Increasing minimum wages;[/li][li] Antitrust and financial regulations (some excess corporate profit is due to poor regulations).[/li][/ul]
Well, I will certainly concede that there are some instances when the rich getting richer means the poor get poorer, but that need not generally be the case, which is what I think people are talking about here.
Even your own examples are not, per se, indicative of the poor getting poorer. “Increased profits” are just as likely to come from expanded overseas markets these days rather than rising consumer prices. And “stagnant wages” in an era of low to no inflation doesn’t necessarily make people poorer, either. Offshoring can easily be a mixed bag-- it hurts some poor people but helps others (lower prices for goods).
And, especially when we are talking about super rich, the 0.1%, then they make up a tiny minority of the people in a country. What difference does it make to Joe Sixpack if Bill Gates is worth $40B or $50B, as long as Bill isn’t robbing Joe to fill his vault with gold?
“The rich” are doing fabulously well, but they are also paying a larger share of the Income Tax burden than they did in the past. We can argue about whether they should pay even more, or if certain of their income should be taxed differently, but those are policy decisions and not necessarily indicative of whether people are getting poorer or not.
Well, one way a lot of people say that the rich get richer at the direct expense of the poor is political lobbying and influence that allows the rich to do and pay less while balancing that out by forcing the middle class and poor to do and pay more (not to mention the whole non-prosecution of financial crimes, but that’s another thread, literally).
What sort of examples of that would you (general “you”, not necessarily just John Mace) want that you think are relevant to the discussion? How much support would you need?
This didn’t happen.
It was you who wrote “Rich people getting richer doesn’t make other people poorer … [soaring profit margins] makes poor people poorer how, exactly?” But now you claim it is your opponents here who perceive in one-dimension. If you’d meant “Some enrichments do not imply others getting poorer,” you should have said so. Perhaps you think we denigrated your intelligence by thinking you held the absolute statement you made. Since we all would certainly agree that some enrichments imply others getting poorer and some don’t, I can only conclude that either you’ve changed your position in the last few minutes, or accuse us of the same one-dimensional thinking you claim to think we accused you of.
A very interesting focus might be a quantitative analysis: What portion of high incomes are “earned” in the sense that they reflect new wealth that wouldn’t exist without the earning’s work. This will lead to many controversial issues. (Cocaine dealers perform a valuable service for their clients. Do Wall St. fraudsters?)
I’m not sure, but think the corporate profit citations we’ve seen are for domestic operations. At this point, with the rationalists having done most of the “heavy citing” in this thread, I suggest we dismiss this Mace claim unless you can defend it.
Please don’t start this stupid meme up again, which demonstrates exactly the opposite of what you want it to prove: With the Top 0.1% share twice what it was 25 years ago, they could be paying 40% less relatively, and still be paying a larger share. Do you need help on that math “paradox”?
Its kinda inevitable, isn’t it? If someone has more money than they can spend, they invest it, at interest. Then their money is making more money. The miracle of compounded interest takes over from there. A quote I cannot attribute: “If you have a hundred dollars, making a thousand is difficult. If you have a million, making a thousand is almost inevitable.”
Personally, don’t much care what rich people do, I don’t actually know any. Their ability to buy more loud shiny crap than me is not interesting. I want decent housing, schooling, food and medicine for our people, because if they are not our people, who’s people are they? If giving rich folks twice as much money will accomplish that, I’m all for it. If someone proves that holding them by their heels and shaking them till all the money falls out will accomplish that, lets go for it. I stop short at putting them to the Wall, we still need baristas and bicycle messengers.