Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2019 18:47:06 GMT -8
I disavow this article. I did the research using US Census, Federal Reserve and Forbes. My numbers are in another post. |
|
|
|
Post by corkscrew on Feb 18, 2019 18:51:29 GMT -8
There is growing sentiment, first mined and exploited by Donald Trump, that the middle class is disappearing. It's not a sentiment, it is a statistical fact. The middle class HAS shrunk drastically. It is also a statistical fact that since the industrial revolution of the 1800s, whenever the middle class gained in strength, the overall economy gained even stronger, and whenever capitalism was allowed to operate with limited or no checks and regulations, the middle class suffered and the overall economy as well. |
|
|
|
Post by corkscrew on Feb 18, 2019 19:02:08 GMT -8
If you like unemployment insurance, you like socialism. If you like Social Security, you like socialism. If you like Medicare for your grandparents, you like socialism. If you like police protection, you like government-run programs. If you like the military, you like government-run programs. If you like toll-free roads, and traffic signals, and the USDA ensuring the food you buy at the grocery store is safe to eat, you like government-run programs. The word Socialism is being turned (again) into a boogeyman. I hope the general public doesn't fall for it (again), but I am skeptical, I think they will. |
|
|
|
Post by prince2250 on Feb 19, 2019 8:23:15 GMT -8
If you like unemployment insurance, you like socialism. If you like Social Security, you like socialism. If you like Medicare for your grandparents, you like socialism. If you like police protection, you like government-run programs. If you like the military, you like government-run programs. If you like toll-free roads, and traffic signals, and the USDA ensuring the food you buy at the grocery store is safe to eat, you like government-run programs. The word Socialism is being turned (again) into a boogeyman. I hope the general public doesn't fall for it (again), but I am skeptical, I think they will. Thank you for saying this!!! I can tell you as someone that lives outside the US but has access to US television that it is crazy how much the media distorts political views to control the populace. Socialism is not ultimate evil. It has its cons, but it also embodies a lot of the values that we teach our children in kindergarten. What I've also noticed is that US media uses the terms socialism and communism interchangeably which they are not! Fundamentally they are two different concepts. But oh well. I will say that the global economy is going to take a huge dip in the next few years probably more severe than 2008 due to all the radical behavior of the various global regimes. The Brexit situation next month will also dramatically have effects that can be felt on this side of the world whether good or bad. For those of you who may trade currencies I would definitely look into shorting the GBP. It's how Joe Lewis made over a billion dollars I believe in the 80s. |
|
|
|
Post by clippers1121 on Feb 19, 2019 10:31:06 GMT -8
Social Security is not socialism. It is an insurance program. You get a social security check based on how much you earned and contributed to the system. It isn't based on how much money you need or how many dependents you have. It is a very capitalistic type system which is based on earnings and contributions. Some people don't even get social security because they never paid into the system. So no it isn't socialism. Unemployment insurance is paid into by employers to protect people from the sudden loss of their jobs. Not socialism since it is funded as part of the cost of doing business. Arguably, Medicare insurance is something you pay for your whole work life through Medicare deductions on your paycheck. But giving it to people who never worked is a form of socialism. As is a lot of Medicaid.
We would be better off with government helping people more who don't have money. But we are not a wealthy country anymore like we were in the 60s and 70s. We are 22 trillion in debt and that total is rising daily. So we can't afford to give away money anymore. We can raise taxes as I suggested but we can't keep borrowing. These aspirational goals like free college, free health care, etc... don't pay for themselves. And no the wealthy don't pay the bulk of the new taxes. The middle class always has to pay for this stuff. I am not sure California can keep sticking it to the rich without them moving to a different state.
|
|
|
|
Post by mistwell on Feb 19, 2019 12:19:55 GMT -8
That's lovely but a total non-sequitur. You said, "The number of billionaires has exploded". There are only 540 billionaires in the entire U.S.. Even if they owned ALLLL the money that still would have nothing to do with the NUMBER OF BILLIONAIRES. The number of them is not exploding. It remains an incredibly small number. Forbes listed 49 US billionaires in 1987. Today they list 594. That is a change of 1,212%. US median household income in 1987 was $26,061. It was $61,372 in 2017 per the US Census Bureau. That is a change of 235%, or 2.9% annual growth over 30 years. US income has barely kept up with inflation, but the number of billionaires has EXPLODED because wealth is created through owning businesses and/or real estate. The 594 US billionaires represent .0002% of the US population of 327 million. Their combined net worth is $3.15 trillion, or 2.89% of total US household net worth of $109 trillion (according to Federal Reserve's latest Z1 report). Now you're being silly. If the number had remained exactly static it would have gone drastically up just from inflation. But regardless, when you're dealing with numbers like 540, versus a population of 326 million (it was 240 million in 1987), this is statistical noise. It's not even enough to call a rounding error. There is not one single analyst you can find who would call the NUMBER of billionaires "exploding". Indeed, the typical complaint is that the quantity is SO FEW which means the money is spread in too concentrated a number. Nobody except you is trying to argue the number of billionaires is "exploding". It's in fact mutually exclusive to be arguing too few people have concentrated wealth and that the number of those people is exploding. I think you dug yourself into a hole on this one. You obviously meant to argue there is too much money in too few hands and didn't mean the number of those hands is exploding, but rather than just say "whoops" you're digging in further. It's OK to make a minor mistake like that man - don't let your ego entrench you further in an error. Nobody (including me) is going to think less of you for just saying "whoops I meant..." except if you continue to double down on the error after you already know you made it. |
|
|
|
Post by mistwell on Feb 19, 2019 12:27:40 GMT -8
If you like unemployment insurance, you like socialism. If you like Social Security, you like socialism. If you like Medicare for your grandparents, you like socialism. If you like police protection, you like government-run programs. If you like the military, you like government-run programs. If you like toll-free roads, and traffic signals, and the USDA ensuring the food you buy at the grocery store is safe to eat, you like government-run programs. The word Socialism is being turned (again) into a boogeyman. I hope the general public doesn't fall for it (again), but I am skeptical, I think they will. This is a bad canard. Saying "I like a handful of socialist-like programs" is not the same as saying "I like socialism". That's like saying if you like trains running on time, which was something the NAZI's liked and did, then you must like NAZIs! It' a pitifully stupid argument. You can like a handful of socialist programs, without liking socialism as a generalization. And when people say they don't like socialism, that's what they mean. And we all know that's what they mean, despite the gotcha argumentation style of "but what about X!". I don't like socialism as a generalization. I prefer a capitalism based system, without the extremes of capitalism, and with some lower level socialism within it. Which is what most modern nations have to one degree or another. You can turn the knob more towards the socialist end of the spectrum, or more towards the capitalist end of the spectrum. But my preference on that spectrum is to more towards the capitalism end than the socialism end. Not at the far end of capitalism, simply more towards that end than towards the socialism end. And saying that makes it a lot harder for people to make the silly arguments you just made of "What about program X!!" like they made a good point when they made a simplistic one intended as a cheap gotcha as opposed to a good point for further discussion. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2019 12:43:13 GMT -8
Forbes listed 49 US billionaires in 1987. Today they list 594. That is a change of 1,212%. US median household income in 1987 was $26,061. It was $61,372 in 2017 per the US Census Bureau. That is a change of 235%, or 2.9% annual growth over 30 years. US income has barely kept up with inflation, but the number of billionaires has EXPLODED because wealth is created through owning businesses and/or real estate. The 594 US billionaires represent .0002% of the US population of 327 million. Their combined net worth is $3.15 trillion, or 2.89% of total US household net worth of $109 trillion (according to Federal Reserve's latest Z1 report). Now you're being silly. If the number had remained exactly static it would have gone drastically up just from inflation. But regardless, when you're dealing with numbers like 540, versus a population of 326 million (it was 240 million in 1987), this is statistical noise. It's not even enough to call a rounding error. There is not one single analyst you can find who would call the NUMBER of billionaires "exploding". Indeed, the typical complaint is that the quantity is SO FEW which means the money is spread in too concentrated a number. Nobody except you is trying to argue the number of billionaires is "exploding". It's in fact mutually exclusive to be arguing too few people have concentrated wealth and that the number of those people is exploding. I think you dug yourself into a hole on this one. You obviously meant to argue there is too much money in too few hands and didn't mean the number of those hands is exploding, but rather than just say "whoops" you're digging in further. It's OK to make a minor mistake like that man - don't let your ego entrench you further in an error. Nobody (including me) is going to think less of you for just saying "whoops I meant..." except if you continue to double down on the error after you already know you made it. I give you referenceable facts to support a position and you respond with a six line paragraph that doesn't seem to make a point. What are you saying? Do you disagree with my main point that the middle class is disappearing and more wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few people? How do you feel that 600 people control 3% of all the wealth of the United States? I did some more digging and found that the median US household net worth is less than $100,000. www.marketwatch.com/story/whats-your-net-worth-and-how-do-you-compare-to-others-2018-09-24This means tens of millions of people do not have enough money to retire or afford adequate healthcare. If they can't afford it, then the government has to take care of them. I'm sure even the most alt-right conservative would not want to see that. My suggestion is that we need to rebuild our middle class. This will create a larger consumer base to buy US goods and services. This will create less reliance on government programs. This will reduce the anxiety that a lot of people feel that gets channeled in to all sorts of bad outcomes, like voting for con men for president. |
|
|
|
Post by mistwell on Feb 19, 2019 14:52:35 GMT -8
I do not disagree with your point that the middle class is disappearing.
I don't care much about how much money the wealthiest have, but I do care about the quality of life for the poorest of our nation, and I do want more people in the middle class.
To me, the only big issue with the wealthy having "too much" money is access to Government. But to me that's an issue of campaign finance and lobbying reform, which are issues much easier to tackle than "trying to make the wealthy less wealthy" which doesn't tend to work anyway. You can't really make the wealthy have less money, not even with taxation, as the truly super wealthy like those 540 people can always find ways to legally avoid paying those taxes.
Usually, an income tax hits go to the middle class, even the taxes which are supposed to be on the wealthy. Most often, a small business owner sells their business in order to retire, and they make an ordinary middle class income most years and then in that one single year they make over a million dollars (followed by the next year going back to a middle class income or even a very low income), and they get hit with the high tax rate. That's not an actual rich person being hit with those taxes intended to hit the wealthy, that's a middle class person who sold a business they built over a lifetime being hit with a single year tax because that's how they have to retire since small businesses don't usually have a 401K or pension plan to allow another path to retirement. And you don't have to believe me on that - that is exactly what our Governor Jerry Brown said when the California Millionaire's tax was being proposed (a governor I happened to like by the way).
I do not feel like the wealthy having "too much" money takes away from others who "do not have enough" money. I think the poor should have a better quality of life, and I think more poor should be able to get into the middle class, without having to "do something" about the wealthy. That is, aside from access to Government, which I view as a serious issue that needs to be addressed through campaign finance reform and lobbying reform (even if it means a Constitutional amendment).
Do not try and associate me with the alt-right. Fuck the alt-right. I have never once mentioned even the vaguest of support for the alt-right and if you and I don't agree 100% of this topic that doesn't make me the alt-right. Nor did I vote for the con man in chief.
|
|
|
|
Post by clippers1121 on Feb 19, 2019 15:25:48 GMT -8
I support Amy Klobuchar to be our next president. A moderate democrat who says no to free college and no to medicare for all. A pragmatist with an eye toward producing a more balanced budget. I wanted to support Camilla Harris but she is way too out there on the left wing of the party for me. Of course I am a Republican who is a never Trump member since early 2016 so I have to pick a Democrat to support. So yes, I agree with moderate socialist programs like Medicare and Medicaid but no to Medicare for all and free college. If college costs money people will work harder once they get there instead of using it as an excuse and a vacation from the work force. Some people would stay in college 10 years if there was not some financial incentive to get out.
The ten richest billionaires could not pay off our annual deficit even if you confiscated all of their fortunes. They don't have the trillion dollars it would take. Plus, their stocks where their wealth is stored would crater as soon as the public found out they were selling all of their shares. They would be lucky to come out with half their net worth. Then they would be taxed on that so subtract another 20%. So maybe they could raise 400 billion if they were lucky. So sure you can raise taxes on the wealthy but since they hold most of their wealth in stock that they don't sell very often you would not raise much money from them. And you can't force them to sell their assets just so you can tax them. So yeah, the not so rich would end up paying the bulk of the taxes to support more socialist programs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2019 16:43:06 GMT -8
I am hearing leave the rich alone and government should not increase their handouts to poor people.
OK, what do you think about my original proposal of increasing the tax deductibility for businesses on paying wages? I am a CFO for a startup company and I see the disincentive of paying someone $100,000 per year plus an extra 30% in benefits compared to hiring someone overseas or using the latest software solution.
Businesses need an incentive to want to create good paying jobs. A tax benefit doesn't cost anybody anything but can promote certain behavior.
With regard to the federal deficit, we made a pact a long time ago that "deficits don't matter" because governments never have to pay off their debts. In fact there are plenty of investors who WANT to buy US debt as an investment. If the government can borrow for 10 years at 3%, why wouldn't it? There is an argument among the moneyed crowd that they would rather lend money to the government than give it up in taxes as a safeguard to keep the government from wasting the money.
|
|
|
|
Post by mistwell on Feb 19, 2019 21:26:55 GMT -8
I support Amy Klobuchar to be our next president. So far she's likely my favorite, though I need to hear a lot more from the candidates. |
|
|
|
Post by trapp76 on Feb 19, 2019 22:17:56 GMT -8
If you like unemployment insurance, you like socialism. If you like Social Security, you like socialism. If you like Medicare for your grandparents, you like socialism. If you like police protection, you like government-run programs. If you like the military, you like government-run programs. If you like toll-free roads, and traffic signals, and the USDA ensuring the food you buy at the grocery store is safe to eat, you like government-run programs. The word Socialism is being turned (again) into a boogeyman. I hope the general public doesn't fall for it (again), but I am skeptical, I think they will. Great post. |
|
|
|
Post by clippers1121 on Feb 20, 2019 8:40:52 GMT -8
Why in hell would you pay somebody 100K a year to do work that you could do with a piece of software. That is like saying why should I use a computer to do calculations when I could pay a person 100K a year to do the calculations manually. The whole point of work is to do something productive. Not to replicate with a person what a machine or piece of software can do. But I see your point. Why not outsource to do things cheaper and make more money. Government tax incentives should not be the solution to this problem. I guess the solution is to make enough money to be able to hire employees and pay them well so that you don't have to resort to foreign labor to or outsourcing to make a profit. True of Google and Facebook. Not so much with companies that don't have pricing power or monopolies. www.nytimes.com/2018/09/25/business/economy/us-government-debt-interest.htmlOf course deficits matter. In this article it points out that in 10 years we will be paying more in interest payments for the national debt than we do on our entire military expenditures. If the interest is 900 billion a year where do we come up with that money with all of the increases in entitlement spending like Social Security and Medicare. Stupid to say deficits don't matter although if that is true you would have to say our presidents and Congress are really stupid. More like irresponsible. Just pander to voters by giving them freebies and get elected and re-elected. That is the name of the game in politics. Not leadership. Last thing we need is more socialism in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by trapp76 on Feb 20, 2019 11:07:32 GMT -8
I love how conservative politicians somehow "find the money" to pay for huge tax cuts for the rich and corporations or massive military spending, but when it comes to things like medicare and college it's "how are we gonna pay for that???!!"
"Entitlements"? Fuck yeah I'm entitled to something when they take 40% of my fucking check every two weeks.
|
|
