Forum Post: If we took 100% from the 1%
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 23, 2011, 10:06 a.m. EST by JoeTheFarmer
(2654)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
If we took everything, we would have about $1.3 trillion which is less than 1/10 of the national debt.
We have added more than $1.3 trillion to the national debt this year.
So after we take 100% from the 1% where do we go next?
The federal debt IS the money supply. All of our money except coins is created as bank debt. Historically, when the deficit has been reduced, the money supply has been reduced along with it, throwing the economy into recession.
The real problem with a growing federal debt is the interest on it, which WILL become an insurmountable burden if allowed to grow exponentially. Interest paid on the federal debt in 2010 was $414 billion, or about one-half of personal income tax receipts. That’s about as high as we dare let it go. But this problem can be eliminated either by funding the debt through the nation’s own central bank, effectively interest-free; or by the Treasury issuing the money outright, interest-free.
The burgeoning debt has been blamed on reckless government and consumer spending; but the debt crisis was created, not by a social safety net bought and paid for by the taxpayers, but by a banking system taken over by Wall Street gamblers. The banking debacle of 2008 caused credit to collapse, businesses to go bankrupt, and unemployment to soar, drastically reducing the federal tax base. If anyone should be held to account, it is Wall Street; but the bankers were bailed rather than jailed, and the taxpayers got billed for the crime.
We have been deluded into thinking that “fiscal responsibility” is something for our benefit, something we actually need in order to save the country from bankruptcy. In fact, it has simply been an excuse to impose radical austerity measures on the people, measures that benefit the 1% while locking the 99% in a dungeon of debt peonage.
http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/super.php
I agree as long as the creation of money is in the hands of privately owned banks like the FED. We will never be free. To pay the interest we have no choice but to borrow more money into existence, creating more debt and more interest. This is very similar to a company store, or truck system on a global scale. The central banks of every nation on earth are owned by a few banking families. All money in use today is in effect the debt of those families. The worst part is, by accepting paper money we are actually loaning, not borrowing. We are paying interest to the people that owe us money.
This is why inflation is good - it lowers the value of previously incurred debt, making it easier to pay off.
But the real truth is that economics is not a science, and economic theories are just an excuse to concentrate wealth.
Inflation is a big fishhook they make more money available to make more jobs and make people feel secure. They deflate it by raising interest rates and removing dollars from circulation. This results in a recession, they then get to take everything. It is not an accident it is a scam.
The worst part is, by accepting paper money we are actually loaning, not borrowing. We are paying interest to the people that owe us money. , ,
What a world . . .
Thank you for that concise explanation of the facts. Balanced budgets create recession folks.
Thank you . . actually, click the link and read the rest of the article by Ellen Brown J.D. She is a brilliant researcher and her website is
http://www.WebOfDebt.com
Very cool website.. thank you.
thank you
see also . . .
http://www.Monetary.org
http://www.TheMoneyMasters.com
Exactly! Federal spending creates wealth! Why don't we spend ten times more? A hundred? It would only help!
Want my screen name? ;)
What you're missing, is that the money supply must approximately match the productivity of the economy. It can not be an unlimited supply.
Exactly - goods and services must rise with the money supply - then there will be neither inflation nor deflation.
Thanks, but I was being sarcastic.
Good. Around here, one never knows.
"The debt crisis was created, not by a social safety net bought and paid for by the taxpayers, but by a banking system taken over by Wall Street gamblers."
So, the Federal government never spent a dime too much on anything, then all of a sudden the private sector started pulling on the slot machines and WHAMMO!! GOOD GOSH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS 13 TRILLION IN THE HOLE! DARN YOU WALL STREET!!!
Riiiiiiight.
Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the Reagan and Bush tax cuts.
It has to do with the recession/depression we have been in for the last five years. The tax cuts did not cause the economic mess, the real estate decline and the many families who took mortgages that they should never had taken. The banks should not have made these loans, but they did, due to an Act passed by then President Clinton forcing the banks to lower their credit standards so more Americans could own homes. Then all these junk loans were bundled by the financial institutions into derivative bets and without any government regulation of these new instruments the house of cards fell when the defaults began. Unemployment reached depression levels in some parts of the country. That is a summary of what happened and why.
Sure it did. Along with Bush spending on AIDS in Africa. And all of the wars he and Obama have started now. As well as ridiculous domestic spending by every president in the last 75 years. And many other stupid financial acts intended to buy power and votes at the sake of our futures. "Wall Street gambling" might have brought the economy down, but it has nothing at all to do with the National Debt.
Sure it does. Revenue is off because GDP took a huge hit when the bubble, that Wall Street created with their speculation and flawed financial instruments, burst.
That, and all the regulations they slowly took off the financial industry over the past thirty years. I find it ironic that the same people that caused many developing countries to go under due to ill-advised privatization schemes are are of the same class of people who are promoting financial policy here.
I am not a financial expert, but as far as I know, if we produced a progressive income tax system, coupled maybe with a maximum wage, then we could achieve upward mobility for most of the 99%. It's not about living in luxury, but for most to at least leave comfortably.
I suspect we need to simply stipulate that the national debt is nonsense if we continue to advocate conservative-style tax cuts. If we continue to support the balanced budget amendment and cutting social programs that benefit the underprivileged, then expect the debt to continue to increase.
The conservatives often rally the public through money given via tax relief, but they need the liberals to raise taxes in order to continue their support. What happens when the conservatives have their way and there are less and less programs to cut? I suspect that is unlikely to happen, since history has shown that a liberal always come into play sooner or later.
In a June 30 article in the Wall Street Journal titled “Smaller Businesses Seeking Loans Still Come Up Empty,” Emily Maltby reported that business owners rank access to capital as the most important issue facing them today; and only 17% of smaller businesses said they were able to land needed bank financing. Businesses have to pay for workers and materials before they can get paid for the products they produce, and for that they need bank credit; but they are reporting that their credit lines are being cut. They are being pushed instead into credit card accounts that average 16 percent interest, more than double the rate of the average business loan. It is one of many changes in banking trends that have been very lucrative for Wall Street banks but are killing local businesses.
Why banks aren’t lending is a matter of debate, but the Fed’s decision to pay interest on bank reserves is high on the list of suspects. Bruce Bartlett, writing in the Fiscal Times in July 2010, observed:
Economists are divided on why banks are not lending, but increasingly are focusing on a Fed policy of paying interest on reserves — a policy that began, interestingly enough, on October 9, 2008, at almost exactly the moment when the financial crisis became acute. . .
Historically, the Fed paid banks nothing on required reserves. This was like a tax equivalent to the interest rate banks could have earned if they had been allowed to lend such funds. But in 2006, the Fed requested permission to pay interest on reserves because it believes that it would help control the money supply should inflation reappear.
. . . Many economists believe that the Fed has unwittingly encouraged banks to sit on their cash and not lend it by paying interest on reserves.
http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/why_banks.php
I think the representation of the Fed as "private" misleads a lot of people. I think it's clear that it has been the unregulated actions of truly private banks that has caused the problems. It's an important distinction.
Henry Ford said, “It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
We are beginning to understand, and Occupy Wall Street looks like the beginning of the revolution.
We are beginning to understand that our money is created, not by the government, but by banks. Many authorities have confirmed this, including the Federal Reserve itself. The only money the government creates today are coins, which compose less than one ten-thousandth of the money supply. Federal Reserve Notes, or dollar bills, are issued by Federal Reserve Banks, all twelve of which are owned by the private banks in their district. Most of our money comes into circulation as bank loans, and it comes with an interest charge attached.
According to Margrit Kennedy, a German researcher who has studied this issue extensively, interest now composes 40% of the cost of everything we buy. We don’t see it on the sales slips, but interest is exacted at every stage of production. Suppliers need to take out loans to pay for labor and materials, before they have a product to sell.
For government projects, Kennedy found that the average cost of interest is 50%. If the government owned the banks, it could keep the interest and get these projects at half price. That means governments—state and federal—could double the number of projects they could afford, without costing the taxpayers a single penny more than we are paying now.
This opens up exciting possibilities. Federal and state governments could fund all sorts of things we think we can’t afford now, simply by owning their own banks. They could fund something Franklin D. Roosevelt and Martin Luther King dreamt of—an Economic Bill of Rights.
http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/rights.php
http://dallasfed.org/educate/everyday/ev9.html
http://www.converge.org.nz/evcnz/resources/money.pdf
http://www.mkeever.com/kent.html
So, if you got a pay cut at your job, would you keep spending the same amount of money? I guess so. The federal government started spending MORE. You basically left the hose on all week and now you're saying the well went dry because "It didn't rain enough". Please take an economics class, you folks are the future leaders of the country.
Applying microeconomics to the macroeconomic sphere is the surest way towards doom.
YEAH! Stop making sense Classicliberal! I'm trying to be unreasonable here! I have nothing to say in response so I'll just say "It doesn't work that way!"
So, exsessive federal spending had nothing at all to do with the debt? Nothing? Even the auto bailouts?
It really doesn't.
Bank of America (BAC) has ALREADY shifted about $22 trillion worth of derivative obligations from Merrill Lynch and the BAC holding company to the FDIC insured retail deposit division. Along with this information came the revelation that the FDIC insured unit was already stuffed with $53 trillion worth of these potentially toxic obligations, making a total of $75 trillion. The FDIC was reluctant in insuring the deal but guess who pushed it through? The Federal Reserve...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-18/bofa-said-to-split-regulators-over-moving-merrill-derivatives-to-bank-unit.html
http://spiritofjubilee.com/debt/recipe-for-armageddon-fdic-to-back-75-trillion-of-bank-of-as-derivatives-trades
The FDIC should not take on any additional liabilities unless they have the funds to cover them. Or else you could phenomenally rook the taxpayers.
"I am a former consultant for a few major wall street companies that worked on speculative trading. I left in disgust because of there complete antipathy towards humanity. If you knew anything about whats going on right now in the markets as a conservative you would be in the streets protesting.
The american government is backing a considerable portion of the derivates market liabilities through the FDIC. To put it into perspective Bank of America alone has about 70 trillion in Derivative liabilities its trying to push onto the FDIC. If a derivates failure occurs due to the dependent investments go sour. For example the Europe debt crisis or political instability in the middle east, or the money market funds. We would face a major devaluation of the dollar. As well as the risk for losing our position as the reserve currency.
While OWS is a eclectic group. The general sentiment is fundamentally correct. Republicans and democrats. Conservatives and Liberals needs to stop bickering. The level of speculative trading being done with peoples 401k's, pension funds, bank accounts and investments is being leveraged in the upwards values of 100 to 1. Meaning they will NEVER be able to pay off those liabilities.
The problem is severe, it is deeply rooted in lobbying and deregulation. It will affect the poor, middle and the upper class. This means if your not in the top .0001% you will be lose the majority of your savings, investments and value of your capital.
This is not 99% vs the 1%, this is a 99.999% vs .0001%. The only ones that will be immune to a derivative and speculative trading collapse are those insulated with alternative currencies and massive commodity investments.
If people do not come together you will all fall separately ." by FormerWS
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-derivative-problem/
I agree with you. I am not a Republican.
The spending side has to be fixed. If you taxed the 1% at 100% you still would not close the gap.
We spend trillions on the miltiary, SSI, and midicare. They are more than 60% of the budget. We need to cut military spending, raise the retirement age, and do something to fix health care costs. Raising the retirement age affect me but I know we have to do it. I am willing to work for two more years to make this work.
Raising the retirement age will only make the unimployment rate get even worse. Why would you make people work longer if there aren't enough jobs to begin with. If anything we should be working less, not more.
Work is good for you. I will probably work beyond 65. Not sure why you tink we should be working less.
It's not so much what's good for me. But what's good for society. The way i see it, it's simply a mater of mathematics. There is just so much work that needs to be done. So what we have to do is spread the work among those most capable of doing it.
To only think of ourselves would be selfish imho.
I do not believe in age discrimination.
You seem to think someone over 65 is less capable than someone under 65? Why do you want to discriminate based on age? There are people out there in their 70s that are smarter, wiser, and harder working than some people I know in their 20s and 30s.
There is plenty of work for those who really want to work. Most entrepreneurs are created during a recession.
I'm not gonna stop you from working. Just saying that forcing people to work longer is kinda pointless since there is a shortage of jobs. And jobs will only get less and less, it will never increase again. This is not a recession like we had in the past. This is technology catching us up and forcing us to start thinking different.
Anybody who really wants a job and wants to succeed has a great chance to do so right now. I have never gone without work and I have worked for 15 or more different companies in the last 25 years.
There are a lot of people that do not really try to find a job. They complete enough interviews to fill in their unemployment form. I have even had folks ask me if they can use me as a reference for unemployment even though they didn't want a job.
Definitely, we should cut military spending, most importantly, because that would save untold numbers of innocent lives and suffering for our own and for those we are "helping." We were only bombing Libya to "help" them - don't you know . . .
Take away the incredible advantage of the one thousandth of one percent: take away the privilege of creating money out of thin air and receiving interest on the newly created money. Take away "fractional reserve lending by private institutions." And all of our money problems will go away. . .
If you’re looking for a major cause of the current banking meltdown, you need seek no farther than the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.
The Glass-Steagall Act, passed in 1933, mandated the separation of commercial and investment banking in order to protect depositors from the hazards of risky investment and speculation. It worked fine for fifty years until the banking industry began lobbying for its repeal during the 1980s, the go-go years of Reaganesque market fundamentalism, an outlook embraced wholeheartedly by mainstream Democrats under the rubric "neoliberalism."
The main cheerleader for the repeal was Phil Gramm, the fulsome reactionary who, until he recently shoved his foot even farther into his mouth than usual, was McCain’s chief economic advisor.
But wait . . . as usual, the Democrats were eager to pile on to this reversal of New Deal regulatory progressivism — fully 38 of 45 Senate Democrats voted for the repeal (which passed 90-8), including some famous names commonly associated with "progressive" politics by the easily gulled: Dodd, Kennedy, Kerry, Reid, and Schumer. And, of course, there was the inevitable shout of "yea" from the ever-servile corporate factotum Joseph Biden, Barack Obama’s idea of a tribune of "change"–if by change one means erasing any lingering obstacle to corporate domination of the polity.
This disgraceful bow to the banking industry, eagerly signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1999, bears a major share of responsibility for the current banking crisis. Here’s the complete roll call of shame:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/09/19/shattering-the-glass-steagall-act/
The government doesn't spend money on SSI. The Government has been taking money from SSI. People have been paying into SS since it was created, and continue to do so. It should have been self-sustaining. And then the government said - "Oh, look, money" - and borrowed from it. And then - oops - never got around paying it back. I agree that health care costs need fixed, but not for raising the retirement age.
Raising the retirement age means that people will not only be unable to access SSI without punishment for doing so "early" (if they do choose to retire before this new mandatory retirement age), but punished for using their own retirement funds as well. If you choose to work after 65 - more power to you. But those who wish to retire shouldn't be punished for it.
Someone downed your post. Despicable...
You misunderstand the argument. Very few in the Occupy Wall Street movement want to tax all the money away from the 1%. What they want is for the 1% to, at least, pay their own fair share. Liars on the right (and I am not saying most on the right are liars, but speaking only of the outspoken ones who are) say that the top 1% already pay more than their fair share because they pay (depending on whom you listen to) 35-45% of all income taxes. Well, that only means they are GROSSLY underpaying. Since the top 1% in the U.S. make over 55% of all the income in the U.S., clearly they should be paying a full 55% of all income taxes just to be paying an equal share of the burden to those under them.
A similar case is, in fact, true for the entire top 20%. (See the following article, "Bushwhacked" if you want a more thorough argument about this sad half-truth lie we've been told by commentators on the right: http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/2011/11/bushwhacked-by-the-bush-tax-cuts-for-the-rich/ )
What I hear people in OWS saying is that they want to end all the privileged tax breaks created by the Bush Tax Cuts that allow the rich to pay FAR LESS than an equitable share of the tax burden. One of the biggest steps we can take in reducing our deficits is to get the entire 20% to pay an equal percentage of their income to what the lower 80% pay.
I cannot understand why ANYONE would be against that kind of fairness, once they are apprised of the actual facts and stop accepting everything they hear from FOX verbatim.
--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog
Progressive taxes are not "equal share", but increase with income. The top 1% should be paying far more than a rate "equal" to everyone else.
The effective top rate on the 400 richest Americans is around 16% (this report was classified by the Bush administration). Top tax rates from 1945-1970 were in the 90% range. We also need a strong inheritance tax.
Right now we have a completely regressive rate because the people who created the tax structure KNEW that the rich do not make their money off of pay checks. Therefore, they created a higher income tax for money made by paychecks and a much lower income tax for money made by capital gains. That way, it looks like our tax structure is "progressive," even while it shelters MOST of the money the rich make from even having to pay the same tax rate that most middle class people (who do make most of their money from paychecks) make.
Details available: http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-now-unoccupied-but-stronger/
--Knave Dave
So what we need is a flat tax where everyone pays the same percent. No deductions, no loopholes...
Does that mean we take away deductions for charitable contributions? What if the 1% pay 70% of the money that goes to charity? Salvation Army, Feed the Children, American Cancer Society, AmeriCares, YMCA, PBS... I wonder what happens to them.
I know that they get a lot of money from the 1%
What we need is a tax system that makes sure the 1% (and the top 20% for that matter) pay the same portion of their wealth that others do. If they wish to give money charitably, fine. The middle class takes that deduction all the time. I'm talking about making sure they pay the same rate on capital gains income that everyone else pays on their salary because capital gains is how the wealthy make most of their money. I'm talking about eliminating all the deductions and loopholes that apply mainly to the wealthy and from which the middle class derives little or no benefit until we get to a tax structure where the wealthy are paying the same portion of their income in taxes as the other 99%.
I have no problem with them taking taking 10% off their taxes because they gave 10% of all their income to charity. The middle class gets to do the same thing. That doesn't wind up changing the balance of what percentage of income one class changes versus the next. The middle class tends to be as generous in terms of percentage of their income as the rich, so they can both give whatever percentage they want and deduct it. But that is NOT where the difference now lies. It lies in the huge difference between capital gain income and other forms of income and in hundreds of special deductions that the middle class never qualifies for.
Personally, I favor dispensing with income tax altogether and replacing it with a progressive sales tax (made progressive by not taxing certain basics such as groceries, medicine, medical services, etc.) It is far less manipulable by the rich or by the government than income tax. Sales tax by nature has to stay simple because it is calculated AND COLLECTED with each and every purchase or exchange of services by the seller or giver of services. That's why government hates it and constantly spreads the lie that it is by nature regressive. It is as progressive as you choose to make it.
--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog
What most people do not realize is that it would not stop with the top 1%. If our federal government has the power and ability to take 100% of what the wealthiest earn, then they have the power and ability to take 100% of what anyone in this nation earns.
...
~ thinking ~
...
OMG! Burn the 2%!
I think it has very little to do with the 1%'s wealth, it has everything to do with that small amount of money being made by destroying so much for the other 99%. Step right up, screw 2,300 workers out of their pensions and win a $500,000 bonus.
This is, simply put, the biggest load of Conservative Claptrap I have ever heard. This comes straight out of the mouth of Carl Rove, and bears no relationship to truth or reality.
For instance. A 3% raise in taxes equals about 750 Billion in new revenue for the country according to the Congressional Budget Office. A simple 10% increase would triple that to more than 21/4 Trillion, and stretched out over ten years that would mean something like 22.5 Trillion. And, what’s our debt now? 1.3 trillion? I’ll let someone else do the math, but that would mean that we could balance the budget, save Social Security & Medicaid for our children, pay for a Public Option, rebuild our infrastructure, end unemployment as we know it, and still have enough for a surplus.
And, thats the truth.
Use all the math you like it does not convince me of anything. You are talking about raising the tax 10% on everyone that is different. I prefer the government cut back on spending over taking more money from us.
They are setting us up for another war with Iran. If they succeed it will be more trillions in dollars but even worse it will be more lives lost. I am tired of giving my money to Lockheed Martin, Northop Grumman, and Boeing.
I am tired of giving my money to Oil and Gas, Solar, Ethanol, and all the politicians’ buddies. Stop all subsidies. We need to slow down government spending and let people keep more of their money.
Why is it that the people who pay the least in taxes always complain about how the Taxes they don't pay are used?
I did not say to raise taxes 10% on everyone. That's a Republican talking point. What my illustration was talking about was raising taxes 10% on the top 10% for 10 years.
Our Economy is emphatically not in trouble because we have a Spending problem! The only spending in America that is out of control is Wall Street Spending.
Our economy is clearly in trouble because we have a Revenue problem. Until the Government takes in enough to cover what It's mission is supposed to be, we will continue to have two Americas, one Rich, and one Poor, and nearly Poor.
If you have a problem using tax money for War, I'm with you. The question then becomes do you also have a problem with the Government paying Entitlements???
Yes I have a problem with entitlement programs. Specifically I have a problem with the inefficiency of entitlement programs as they are currently implemented.
Another load of Crap! Don't you know anything that is based in fact or reality?
Entitlement programs have been under the Republican knife for 30 Years. As a result,they are in fact so efficient that private Companies simply cannot compete.
You need to stop trying to come up with lame excuses for not doing the right thing by your fellow Americans, and start actually trying to do something positive. Grinch!
Since the 1930s when SSI and Medicare were created they have increased in $ spent per year every year. No knife has been taken to these programs.
When SSI was created teh average life expectency was 59.3 and it is now 78.9. We are at a point now where SSI, and Medicare/Medicaid are 41% of the federal budget. Raising the retirement age would help. Some people are collecting SSI and working. That makes no sense to me. SSI was supposed to be a safety net for people who could not work, not a retirement program.
Do you deal in anything else but crap!
SSI increased along with inflation. And the population has increased along with life expectancy. Social Security is solvent for the next 75 years, and you know it! SSI does not contrubute a single dollar to the deficit, and you know that too.
SSI was never a part of the "Safety Net" and has always been intended as a Retirement program for the working poor. And, in this economy almost no one is working and collecting SSI, and those who are are nowhere near being rich.
And, not for nothing, why would you begrudge a retired gentleman the fruits of his labor in his later years??? The next thing you're gonna tell me is that you're a "Christian!"
Stop lying!
I am not against a safety net I am against using it as retirement.
SSI was intended to based on a concet of "social insurance". It was not meant for me to retire while I am still able to work and collet more than I put in.
You are also wrong about rich people not working. Many rich people prefer working. As a programmer I enjoy writing software.
Before SSI, children took care of their parents.
By the way, I am an atheist.
I am sorry to diagree with you, but Social Security has always been intended to be a government retirement plan for the working poor. And, nobody ever collects more then they put in! (You could look it up.)
But, who retires while they can still work??? I don't know anybody like that, and I live in the Big City where there are thousands of people to talk to. People leaving a job to go on Social Security is a myth born in the mind of Carl Rove, that has no basis in fact or reality.
if you're not working anymore, or as in my case, can't find a job anymore, most Americans apply for Social Security, or go broke. Shoot, I was down to my last $50 before my first SSI check came through.
I accept that many rich people perfer work to retirement. They probably have a very good monetary reason to continue to work. (Shoot, if i were making a 100k a year writing software, I wouldn't even think about retirement either!) However, that by definition, means that you are not retired, and should not be applying for Social Security payments, Hello! (Unless of course you're a Greedy Unpatriotic Bastard!)
It is true that before SSI some children took care of their parents, it is also true that some other children elected to leave their parents on an Ice floe for the good of the tribe!
I don't think, Atheist or not, that you ae advocating a return to those dreadful days. Or are things so bad down on the Farm that you want to take away Grandma's check???
I am not against a safety net.
On average people receive more than they put it (You can look it up)
When you reach your full retirement age, you can work and earn as much as you want and still receive your full Social Security benefit payment.
About one out of every four 65-year-olds today will live past age 90, and one out of 10 will live past age 95. Social Security benefits last as long as you live.
Social Security and Medicare/Medicare are 42% of the budget. Throw in interest on the debt and we are up to 50%. We need to do something to address this problem.
The Social Security trust fund is currently projected to be sufficient to provide payments until the end of 2037. Then, unless changes are made to the program, there will only be sufficient resources to pay about 78 percent of scheduled benefits.
Hypothetical metaphors of putting grandma on an ice flow or pushing her off a cliff add nothing to the conversation since they are not based in reality.
If we took 100% from the 1% we would have about 50% of the national debt. That is because the 1% have 50% of the nations wealth and the national debt is equal to the nations wealth. Its called math. Its different than BS.
So you want take more than 100% of their income, you want them to sell their houses, furniture, cars, businesses... and hand that money over to the government to cover the wasteful spending.
That sounds very reasonable.
And then we add another 1.5 trillion to the debt next year. Bu we already took the property of the 1% so we are basically screwed.
I guess that is where the saying comes from
"Socialism works great until you run out of other people's money"
No, I am not saying that at all. I don't think you understand the main point I am trying to make. If we needed to pay off all the national debt, we would have to take 100% of everyone's money. Since that is absolutely impossible, society needs money to function, the debt will never and should never be paid off completely.
Government spending may seem wasteful to you but it is not wasteful to those who are getting the money. Whether it is a defense contractor, or a retiree collecting social security, it amounts to money pumped into the society. This money moves around but eventually, as the statistics show, 50% of it ends up in the hands of the 1%.
Naturally the top 1% will end up with a disproportionate share, that is essentially the definition of the top. That is all good. But the fraction is the highest it has been in the history of the US, and trends show it is on the rise. This is bad, income inequality is the root cause of much of society's woes. From increasing health care costs, to increased violent crime, to poisoned politics, it can all be seen as resulting from extreme inequality. You think working class republicans who curse the liberal elites are not thinking along the lines of class? Of course they are. As are working class liberals who curse wall street fat cats. They are both responding to the very legitimate feeling that they are getting screwed economically.
Extreme inequality is not the result of the added value the rich have contributed, it is the result of legislation that facilitated it. Legislation pushed by the ever increasing influence of money in politics. I don't want socialism, I want democracy that is not corrupt. I think you do too.
Unless the person getting the money is getting it via a drone or tomahawk missile.
And remember, the government doesn't really have any money. Any money they government gives out, they took from someone else.
The executives of the company that makes the tomahawk missile are the ones who get the money. Them, and to a lesser extent, the employees that make em. The poor guy who is killed by it doesn't get money, they get the product. I am talking about money not products. This money can stimulate the broader economy as it did for Reagan. But there is a big difference now. Now, the employees get a far smaller share since much of the work is done oversees and the work that is done here is not by unionized labor. Thus the stimulative effects are much less. Certainly the economy would be stimulated if these executives spent the money but now days they seem to only want to save it.
On your second point, all money that is out there originally came from the government. To say that the government must take money from someone before they can spend it is simply not true. The spending comes first, as the government simply creates money to finance whatever it wants. Taxes come later as a means to prevent inflation and or devaluation of the currency resulting from the increased money supply. If the spending does not lead to inflation or devaluation of the currency, there is no need for additional taxes. This outcome is not inconceivable, but to achieve it the spending has to be targeted correctly. Defense spending is not very good for this. Infrastructure spending is.
I find our elected officials incompetent to govern. They need some incentive that will mean something to them instead of putting funds at risk that will cause harm to those persons and institutions who can least afford such loss. I suggest that these officials’ pay and/or benefits be cut if and/or when they fail to do their job. As it is, party “a” threatens to harm parties “”d” through “z” if parties “b” and “c” can’t come to an agreement. It makes no sense whatsoever to threaten Congress with cuts that will not have any impact on them directly. Our Constitution establishes the type of government we are to have. We do not need to establish any “sub” groups within these institutions. They are all responsible collectively to govern and if/when they fail to do so they are all liable collectively. The “carrot and stick” method only works when the carrot or stick is guaranteed to the same one. These officials have received their carrot upon being elected as they shall receive full pay and full benefits for the rest of their life even if they only serve one term. I say put all options “on the table” including their lifetime pay and benefits. I’m of the position that such a “stick” would cause these officials to get their head out of the clouds and their feet on the ground.
Well you gotta start somewhere...take it!
bring back the whey quarter?
There is no way out of this mess. We are just in the beginning.
Actually all signs are that the economy is picking up.
The unemployment rate has gone down five months in a row. I am hopeful that we may be turning a corner.
Let's hope we have a good last quarter of the year!
Too bad we are still 14t (wait, just hit 15t!) in debt and have 50t coming down the tubes the next 20 yrs.
These will be hte good ol days in 10 yrs.
Indeed. We are nowhere near turning the corner. We have not even started to pay for any of the bailouts we have given. We just took out loans for others to pay. We have not prosecuted the criminals who created the Great Recession. We haven't even figured out for sure who they are yet. We have scarcely begun to correct the regulatory laxness that allowed all of this to happen. Our government has immediately returned to encouraging consumer debt as a way of "growing the economy." We have not restructured the taxes of the wealthy so that they pay their fair share. Unemployment has only slightly reversed and that is solely because more people are dropping off the far end of the unemployment roll because they have overstayed their benefits than are coming onto it; we still have millions of homes that have been foreclosed and not sold and many more still in the process of foreclosure. Heavens! We are FAR from turning the corner. We have not even started to correct the problems. That's why I began The Great Recession Blog. There were too many people in the media parroting the talking points of the government.
The government claimed the Great Recession ended in June of 2009. How has it ended when things are still growing worse in Europe due to the problems we began and when the tsunami we sent to Europe is certain to bounce back to our shores soon now? How has The Great Recession ended when all of the causes of the crash in 2008 are still in play. Banks are still grossly undercapitalized. No part of the problem has even been addressed.
No, what happened was quantitative easing created a slight uplift in the middle of what is really an economic depression; but quantitative easing has ended, and the strain is being felt again. Quantitative easing by the Fed was never sustainable and was always the wrong answer in the first place.
NO, we have a LONNNG way to go before this is over because we have not even come into agreement about the causes of the problem so that we can begin to correct it. Congress is in total gridlock because there is no agreement. So, the problems will continue to mount until we break our economic denial and see them.
--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog
As long as the worst is yet to come, no need to ponder :)
Or EVERY need to ponder, as the worst would not be YET to come if it had been dealt with in the past two years, and until it is pondered and DEALT with, it will continue to come. : )
Happy Thanksgiving, all.
--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog
zzzzzzzzzzzzz
The majority sleeping while the rich played crony politics helped get us into this great recession. But enjoy your nap.
--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog
But OWS wants to occupy retailers on Black Friday. They are trying to hurt the 4th quarter.
WE! Are! The-Ninety-Eight-Percent!
WE! Are! The-Ninety-Eight-Percent!
WE! Are! The-Ninety-Eight-Percent!
I guess that is wher ethe quote came from:
"Socialism works until you run out of other people's money"
haha. that should prove to you that it requires forms of capitalism to keep the world progressing. The Govt and big Corporations have been defrauding us for decades. they need to go to jail. and we need to let the little guys prop themself up w/out this illegal activity and oppression.
We could go after the NEW 1%, the ones that were previously the 2%, ad infinitum.
This is a feature of percentages of the population I don't care for in wealth/poverty calculations. Many of the metrics of what we define as 'poor' are always the bottom x%, regardless of what new technology or advancements give them better homes, television, cars, internet, etc.
There is also something about using percentages that suggest both consensus and the worst aspects of democracy; maybe not in a 99 vs 1, but if it were the 70% vs. the 30% we could see some nasty implications of democracy.
I guess that is where that quote come from:
"Socialism works great until you run out of other people's money."
So let's just keep taking from the 99% to pay for all the BS insane decisions the 1% made.
Much is described in this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/59412528/The-Debt-Ceiling-and-Class-Warfare
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
Civil Strategy
Since we don’t have numbers; we have to move like a small Greek army, demand little at first, and as you get closer demand more, and once the enemy is defeated get what you want. Make history and bring in this Victory. Be resilient. You are in battle.
Social Reform Demand something little at first like this. Companies making a lot of money and paying their employees 50k, 40K, 30K, or even minimum wage; is treating them like slaves while they walk away with a lot of money sometimes millions. What we want is companies making a lot of money pay back a small percentage of the companies earnings at the end of each year to the employees. Wealthy people only spend their money in certain places like mostly in high end Real estate and designer clothing. If the little guy had a little bit more money; more money would be spent in retail and at other businesses, and the money would be spread out more thus boosting the nations economy. This is demanding something little and we can get this and much more. If it comes down to it have a vote. Demand this little thing first and as we get closer demand more and once the enemy is defeated get what you want. Be God willing.
(If you come across any objections demanding this little thing for social reform, demand a vote. Now you are a sales person)
raines, to your comment :never be utopia... all I can respond is simply .. "how do you know this ?"
He does have a point. We do have a spending problem.
They are already setting us up for the next war. "Iran is building a nuclear bomb." That sounds a little like "Iraq has WMDs"....
Trust me; if they go forward with this the current deficit will look like peanuts. It will cost trillions of dollars and thousands of lives.
well than lets all throw our hands in the air .. is that American?
what exactly is raines point , that he doesn't want utopia?
Wait, I thought you were talking about his comment "We have a spending problem" What were you talking about?
pessimism
Not if you have a plan to fix it.
fix pessimism ? lets here your plan
And I will answer simply,human nature.
thats unfair to say human nature .. when so many people are suffering and dreaming of a day when there will be "utopia" and for you to come along and tell them their nature prevents it..
raines you really should be ashamed of yourself, the pessimism inside you is making your mouth say things it shouldn't.
Human nature is what it is. With all the billions of people on the planet there will always be people who are miscreants of one sort or another. I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist.
but in those billionsof people there are also morally good hearted people. people that would help a stranger in need or in danger. I remember when the minneapolis bridge collapsed into the mississippi river. Are you aware there were people who dove into that swirling churning river ..put their lives in great jeopardy to help those that had fallen .. it's an incredible example of human nature .. unlike the pessimism you would espouse.
And there are people will NOT lift a finger to help anyone. I do not espouse pessimism. I recognize human nature for what it is. There certainly is good in most people,...........most not all.
you said," human nature would prevent utopia . "
raines, you are a pessimist as sure as Sarah Palin wears Lipstick.
Jesus Joe, you may be able to do simple math but please at least get your #'s right.
Well it is not my math, it is from the IRS web site.
As long as you focus on the problem, all you will get is the problem. You need to focus on the solution. The solution is empowering your life and the lives of those around you. Focus on taking care of the land (not talking about it, but doing it), focus on helping the poor, focus on spending your money in a conscious manner, focus on your friends, and your community.
If you Occupy Wall Street, are you really fighting it? You fight Wall Street by Occupying Main Street. Occupy Your Life. Occupy the Land. Occupy the Market. Occupy Your Time.
That is true which is why volunteer to help those in need. My favorite charities are those that are participatory rather than money oriented. You don’t have to have money to volunteer.
A good example is America’s grow a row, a movement for everyone who has a garden to grow a row for those in need. In our town it grew to a community project that has grown an handed out over 1 million pounds of fresh produce.
http://americasgrowarow.org/
Talk about grass roots!
"Talk about grass roots!" - I see what you did there :)
Awesome, that is such a positive effort. Thank you!!!!
[Deleted]
Thank You? (a response parody)
If you have a scab do you pick it? Or do you leave it alone?
Let me see...you know how when someone has a cramp they have them look for the smallest rock they can find? If they sit and think about their cramp it doesn't get better, if they occupy themselves with something else it goes away....magic!
I'm sure I can come up with a way to help this "make sense" (even though you will still not agree with me).
Should we be in the Middle East looking for enemies to fight or back home building our infrastructure, health care, and economy?
You can look for dragons to slay (and boy, will you find them), or you can look for Princesses to build a Kingdom with.
...I think I'm getting close.
"For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened." - Jesus
Not a Jesus fan? Okay, moving on...
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." - Albert Einstein
You got to like Einstein...oh, that quote doesn't relate to what I'm saying? If you say so...
"Is your cucumber bitter? Throw it away. Are there briars in your path? Turn aside. That is enough. Do not go on and say, 'Why were things of this sort ever brought into the world?' - Marcus Aurelius
You didn't like Gladiator? It was such a great movie...okay, I got one more:
"I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." - Che
Yeah, I'm not very inspired by Che either, he killed a lot of political rivals after having already won. Pretty brutal. Okay, I got it, let's just break it down to numbers:
“Focus 90% of your time on solutions and only 10% of your time on problems.” – Anthony J. D’Angelo
How about this, you are already rich and in power: http://freeindependentsun.com/zen/occupy-yourself-how-to-fight-corporatism/
http://www.creditcontraction.com/images/affiliate/Great-Credit-Contraction-Liquidity-Pyramid-Large.jpg
the rich are always going to be rich we don't care about there lfestyle if they would not take way more than they need to live there lifestyles and would leave a little more for all of us so we could at have a lifestyle not have to live week to week not knowing wether we will be able to eat next week or not
an economy works kinda like a water fountain water in the tub at the top drains to the bottom therfore it can be pumped back to the top and if u start shutting the valve off at the top eventually the bottom will dry and the top will over flow so if the top keep taking more n more money there will be none at the bottom and for a econmy to work they can not hold the money at the top it has to circulate FDR figured that out along time ago by raising taxes on the rich to a very high amount they will not pay the tax but will lower prices and spend the the money before they have to pay the tax therefore it will circulate back to the people who buy product the rich will keep there life style but the rest of us will be able to at least have a lifestye and recreate a middleclass
It's hard to find someone willing to discuss change in the capitalist movement. And at least , consider the possibility something is broken ..
I have studied the inner workings and outcomes of capitalism a number of years.
Extreme wealth is attained through high sales profits.
There are two types of profits:
Profit made on manufacturing , this is profit on labor.
Profit made when buying and selling a product.
Both of these profits are found in a capitalist economy. and both create great wealth.
The idea is to place a percentage style "profit CAP" on the products bought and sold. example an item bought for one dollar with a profit CAP of 10% would resell for $1.10. [the actual percentage would be determined by federal interest rates ]
This profit CAP would :
It would prevent markets from making unfettered profits and wealth.
It would leave money in the hands of the consumer raising their standard of living.
It would lower prices at the retail end , creating an increase in sales and an increase in demand.
the increase in demand would create an increase in jobs.
All of this would create an increase in money flow which ultimately would lower debt.
So yes there is a viable way to actually regulate capitalism , while still allowing a free market system to flourish.
I don't believe in profit caps. Who decides what should be capped.
Suppose I buy $10 of acrylic paint and paint a picture. A lot of people like it and would pay me $10,000 for it. According to you I can only accept $11 for it.
I could build a house that is beautiful and fabricated with attention to detail and good architecural patterns and right next to someone who builds an ugly, crooked, sloppily built house. We both used the same cost for materials. According to your plan, even though people are willing to pay more for the house I built I cannot charge more than the lazy ass builder next door.
well actually .. if you read the idea again the cap is placed between points of buy and sell ... this is not placed on the manufacturer.. if you build a home you may sell for any price .. or if you paint a picture ..same thing sell it 10 000 $ if thats what you ask for it.. but if you buy the picture from the artist and want to resell it .. than you can only ask the Capped profit allowed .. as in the example 10 %.
I understand your concern .. I hope this clears up the thought
It does not.
I buy wine all the time and hold on to it because it increases in quality and value. I should be allowed to charge whatever I want for a bottle of wine. I have some old Beatles records in mint condition. I should be able to charge whatever I want for them. My brother has a 66 corvette that he has kept in the garage. It is worth a lot more than he paid for it. I think he should be able to charge whatever he wants.
I can think of 1,000 other examples.
..okay .. you have a very strong point.. the items you will be than reselling are 2nd hand items .. which are excluded from any sort of Cap. The CAP is placed on the retailer .. who is in the business of directly buying merchandise from the manufacture and reselling for unfettered profits .. this is where the cap will be placed , on new items sold by the retailer .. that bottle of wine for instance .. you would have bought that from a retailer.. and that retailer would have the CAP placed on what he sold it for to you ..
thanks again .. hope that helped
"Unfettered"? Really?
As a retailer I can't sell anything for unfettered profits. I can only sell them for what people are willing to pay - which is way below what I would like to sell it for - - an unfettered amount.
The cost for you to buy a pillow from my store is as low as $13 - for a standard cotton-cluster filled pillow. I pay $6.50 for it but I have to buy 50 at a time to get that price. My price for 1 pillow (except if I have earned a favor or 2) would be closer to $13 with shipping. All a retailer is, really, is a place that turns volume discount-purchasing into affordable single-purchasing power. You don't need 50 pillows, you need 1. I facilitate that while also centralizing your ability to buy the rest of your home furnishing needs without traveling to many locations. That travel, shopping, time, and negotiation savings justify the few pennies per item more you may spend.
Technological advantages like the internet and automated shipping may run retailers out of business in the future.
Trying to cap what I can sell a pillow for is a great way to create shortages. Sure, pillow shortages don't sound scary or frustrating but oil shortages do. Ask someone who drove in the 70s.
how would a CAP create a shortage ?
I should be able to resell things for what people are willing to pay for them.
If I am a wine "retailer" I make money by picking the best wines. I educate myself on which wines will increase in value the most based on many factors including region, season, weather... I buy them directly from the manufacturer and make money based on how wise my decisions were.
If I sell skiis, cars, books, shoes or anything else I should able to charge what people are willing to pay. If I charge too much, people will not pay.
If the retailer was allowed to charge the highest price he could go .. than eventually he would have all the money and there would be an economy collapse ..
with traffic laws there is a need for speed limits
with economic laws there is a need for GREED limits
The retailer can only charge what people are willing to pay.
If A&P charges $4 for milk and Acme Charges $3.50 I will but from Acme. Retailers know this. Competition keeps prices down. Subway has the $5 foot long so McDonalds has the $1 menu so QuickChek comes out with the $2.99 signature sandwich menu with a free soft drink.
Free markets do work when government gets out of the way.
just the opposite really , we need more government .. and more regulation.
the retailer can charge more than what people are willing to pay the retailer can in fact charge any amount of profit .. and will hold out longer than the consumer .. because the consumer needs it and will borrow money if neccessary to buy what he needs ... the retailer has no conscience of the consumers debt.
You have a very jaded view of the world my friend.
Competition prevents this. If you charge more than your competition people will not buy your product. Businesses compete for customers by offering low prices.
and you are not looking at reality .. we have an occcupy movement protesting in our streets..
Not true. If people think your prices are too high, they won't buy.
very true , in fact it's the reason we are in an economic crisis today
I buy what I can afford , I have no debt. They govt spends money it doesn't have. They borrow and that equals debt.
yes you buy what you can afford, but if there was a price cap you could afford more .. raising your standard of living .. and creating jobs
I believe in a free market economy. No price caps, on anything.
do you also believe in inequality ?
There is NO utopia and there never will be.
It sounds like FDR was pointing at the right problem; the wealthy have way too much. Unfortunately raising taxes did not solve the problem.
we are paying higher prices every year to corporations to rebuild roads,buy police cars,school supplies, ect with our tax dollars and the ceo's and executives put millions n the bank while the deficit goes up because of it
House of Rothschild controls 500 trillion in assets
This is not about "taking", it is about creating a system where a few cannot steal from the many.
The 99% Declaration
"do we go next?"
Re-education camps where United Federation of Teachers members (UFT is a few doors down Broadway from Zuccotti Park) will promote the failed every time/everywhere Marxist/Communist/Statist ideology of "Social Justice".
In the camps we will also learn how to follow the OWS 5 year plan that if we just steal enough of our neighbors' liberty & money we too can join the wonderful "Workers' Paradises" of Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, China, Soviet Union. Places SO wonderful you are shot or worse if you try to leave
It sounds crazy, because JoeTheFarmer, OWS IS crazy.
Yo! Joe! We get out of this mess by working our way out of it! Put people to work and make sure the fruits of our labor are distributed farily. They have not been. Have any reference for your numbers?
I did the research a few months ago. It is not easy to get the figures because of how different agencies (IRS, Treasury, Federal Reserve) measure income and wealth. They are all close to that number however. You can check each of their sites.
My goal was to find gross income as opposed to adjusted groos income since that includes deductions.
100% - 1% = negative 100% that don't make sense
[Removed]
That's only personal wealth.
O' organizers and leaders of OWS How much you want to stop your shit ? Be sure, there are people ready to pay well . Just say how much you want! http://occupywallst.org/forum/how-much-you-want-to-stop-your-shit-ows/
[Removed]
"Socialism works great until you run out of other people's money."
[Removed]
We forget the Debt outright. Birds have no Debt, neither do Dogs, Monkeys or Cows.
The world will not change its Axis and the Sun will Rise.
The only thing we won't have is this huge, made up Pyscho Bill to some unknown :Boogie Man in 1% Land
Free your Minds, Free the World, start a Fresh Tomorrow.
You do realize that a large portion of that debt is held by lower and middle class families in the form of:
So America owes foreigners about $4.5 trillion in debt. But America owes American Citizens $9.8 trillion.
You would default on your brothers and sisters?
the hippies are back ..
Where do we go? Well, the Badlands, of course. I mean, where else would ya go?
We'll build our own state, outlaw all banks and the private possession of money, and we'll impose direct democracy.
We'll organize an army to guard the money.
And on Jan 1st, we'll hold elections and you will all have the privilege of electing me King. And we will live in a world of perfect anarchy.
Once a year we will gather in the square, and in true ceremonial fashion, with much pomp and pageantry, you will pay homage, and grant me your first born daughter.
Cool. Well, keep me informed.
[Removed]
First of all it's not about taking anything... Other then taking our government back. 2nd, if we would seize the assets of the 1% it would amount to $100's of trillions.
I'm much like a rich person, with the exception of not being rich. lol On paper I'm f'ing loaded ! In reality, i didn't have enough money in my wallet this morning to buy a double sausage croissant from Burger King.
$100's of trillions is incorrect.
they accumulated all this through profit.. we need to place a CAP on their profits.. and let that wealth be left in the hands of the consumer..
BOA alone had $2.264 trillion in assets in 2010. Maybe my numbers are off, I'm not going to split hairs over it.. It's more then the $1.3 trillion stated in the original post.
Further more, BOA and JP Morgan / Chase will hold $159 trillion in derivatives since the Fed decided to back them $75 trillion and $79 trillion respectively.
Those bank "assests" and "derivatives" are not cash. You cannot seize a private jet, chop into bite-sized bits, and feed people. You cannot seize the land title to a private ranch, bottle it, distribute it, and call it healthcare.
Also, those assets are the mortgages of everyone's homes (those of us still paying them off and those not paying). Bank assets are not cash or food or medicine. You have to have a market to sell them to (liquidate) but there isn't one
I really have no idea what you are talking about ?
You said "BOA alone had $2.264 trillion in assets in 2010" - I explained that those assets are not cash to be seized. They are physical property.
Seizing physical property to solve debt and deficit problems doesn't work. We cannot pay for social programs, defense, infrastructure building, etc using the bank assets if we seized them because the bank assets are not cash - they are people's homes, they are businesses (land, stores, inventory, machinery), they are people's cars . . . whatever you and I and the company that employs you buy with a bank loan it is the bank's property (asset) until we have paid that loan off. Seizing the bank's assets would leave all our public Federal debt untouched unless we found someone to buy up everyone's mortgage/car loan/small business loan/ etc...
OK, but i never said we should seize their assets.
I know. I mean, you did say "2nd, if we would seize the assets of the 1% it would amount to $100's of trillions" . . . so while I know you say before and since that you don't condone seizing the assets - many that will read these comments do because they think our problem is as simply (and scarily) solved by taking the rich people's stuff and the bank's stuff.
I needs to be repeatedly said that there is a massive shortage that isn't solved by taking from group 1% on behalf of group 99%.
Many would not agree with seizing their assets. Only the loudest minority agrees with seizing bank assets. What you read on these forums is not a good representation of what most of the Occupy protesters want or are saying. What you hear in the media is not even close to what the protesters are saying.
The entire Occupy protests are about taking our government back and removing corporate influence. They are about refusing to allow corporations to exploit American citizens just to make a profit. They are about refusing to let the banks gamble all of our money away and leave us, tax payers, stuck with the bill. If any one tells you any different, they don't have the slightest clue what the Occupy Wall Street movement is about.
Everything group 1% have they took from group 99% . and since we cannot take any of it back .. can we at least prevent them from taking any more ? .. with a proposed sales profit CAP ?
They did not take everything they have. Most (if not all) they have by creating valuable items/services and trading them to you for money. You valued the item/service they provided more than you valued the dollar in your wallet. That isn't taking, that's exchange of value.
doesn't make it right neither.. the value exchanged was at an obvious unfair rate ..
Nope. If it was unfair, you shouldn't have paid it. If your iPhone isn't worth $200, don't buy an iPhone. I think it is worth that and more so I pay. There is nothing unfair about paying only what you willingly pay for things you freely want.
traffic laws need speed limits. without limits there would be catastrophy on our highways ..
economic laws need GREED limits. to prevent the economic catastrophy we find ourselves in.
"I have already offered you a piece of wisdom that you can not .. or simply refuse to compute .. price ceiling is not the same as profit cap .. got that ..?"
I really should put wisdom in quotations there...
A profit cap is like a price cap in that the end result on supply is the same. If a company cannot profit on a product beyond a certain point, they will sell a different product after that threshold creating a shortage of supply before custmer demand is met (driving up the blackmarket prices).
If the cap is on all profits irregardless of what is sold (Company ABC can only make $$$ whether they sell only microwaves, only airplane engines, or a mix) then a company is still disincentivized to sell after the cap as they cannot make money this year - may as well hold off and reap the reward next year leaving the demand unsatisfied until then.
If you are advocating a % profit (you never do clarify in the comments I read) the problem persists a little differently. Costs are not fixed, they change. As they change, so does the margin a company makes. Those evil profits buffer against catastrophic cost shifts (from supply-chain disruptions, to geo-political interferences, to lawsuit costs). When a new product is introduced, it often loses money until sales hit a critical mass. Last years' profits can help cope with this but a cap on that hurts and may reduce innovation because new products or new features come with the risk of flopping.
Shall I continue? THis thread has crowded out response...
I have started a new thread , " we need government regulation on capitalism." I basically copy paste my sales cap proposal.
just to comment , yes it would be a percentage cap .. for the very reasons you stated a set amount would not work.
also .. transportation costs will be excluded from the actual profit allowance.. there will be other amendments also .. many open to discussion .. but the basic idea . of the profit Cap is a winner it stays.
meet me on my thread .. I am still waiting for your list of support
I did elsewhere as a starting point - I'm pretty sure it was you - but here's the starting point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_ceiling
When you have that consumed, message me. The article is price ceiling and its effects on supply/demand but this is directly related and a good start.
no .. I am not going to read through an article searching for your point.. ......................
So my continuing dialog is "unwilling to think" but you are the great thinker who just shuts down because I refute the very premise of your arguement.
Dolt.
I've considered your point about a cap. Very familiar with how that plays out and can provide reasoned arguements against it - and quantifiable proof. Are you a capable enough thinker to read, ponder and discuss?
give me your list that supports the idea of a profit Cap .. and perhaps I will continue dialogue .. otherwise .. your just jerking me off
I am not wasing your time. You don't want to think critically about your preconceived thought experiments. It is a disease more rampant throughout OWS than Zuccotti Lung ...
For some reason the reply otion to the "wasting time" comment was missing.
it is you whom does not want to think and by that you are wasting my time ..
"traffic laws need speed limits. without limits there would be catastrophy on our highways " Really? maybe you should think about a roller-rink . . .
http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2006/Kleinorder.html
Greed limits on who; the politicians who wrote the rules that led to the collapse? Sure! Greed limits (ie: income caps) on me? On you? I will not stand for it!
ahh ..your wasting my time
Ah . . . study is a waste of your time. That's what you meant. Fair enough. I won't ask you to learn something on your own anymore. Reading it for yourself rather than reading my summation would enlightne you much further, but that seems too hard for you.
Perhaps you are used to just being told what to think and since I am telling you differently and to find out freely it won't compute.
When you are ready to think for yourself and question your own assumptions, let me know and I will point you to sources of knowledge that will broaden your thinking - even if they do not change your mind. Nothing I point you to would be a waste of your time unless wisdom is waste.
I have already offered you a piece of wisdom that you can not .. or simply refuse to compute .. price ceiling is not the same as profit cap .. got that ..?
You say it's not about taking and then say seize their assets. That is a contradiction.
So you want to take more than their income. Their income is not enough.
You want to take their personal property, savings, and businesses and give it to the government because the government is good. We should do this because politicians are wise and honest and want to spend that money wisely.
Call me when you wake up from your dream.
I specifically said it's not about taking anything other then our government back. If you had a shred of reading comprehension you would not have replied to me with such a dumb reply.
Now, go back to your grow room, hope you don't get busted and burn some more brain cells.
You said:
"if we would seize the assets of the 1% it would amount to $100's of trillions"
Perhaps I did not interpret that correctly. Am I to understand that you were not saying we should do that you were just pointing to it as a hypothetical.
No, i said "First of all it's not about taking anything... Other then taking our government back. 2nd, if we would seize the assets of the 1% it would amount to $100's of trillions."
This in no way implies that we should take anything from any one. It merely means that if we did it would amount to $100's of trillions in assets.
Seriously dude. Go smoke a bowl, stick with the things you know and understand. Reading is obviously not one of them.
Excuuuuuuusssssseee Meeeeeee
You don't have to get personal about it. You said it so I took it to mean that you thought we should do it. Forgive me for that misinterpretation. There are a lot of people here that think we should.
BTW, I don't smote pot.
Your original post was an obvious troll post and most people don't want to take anything from any one. Yes there are some extremists that come up with this radical B.S but they are the minority.
Maybe if you took a second to think about things logically and for yourself, Do a little research. You would figure out that you are part of the 99% and you support the real message of the Occupy protests. I have yet to find even 1 troll that doesn't want to take our government back and put it in the hands of the people... And for your information, that's what the Occupy protests are about.
When did I say anything against OWS?
I am not sure what your definition of a "troll post" is but the dictionary defines it as an inflammatory off topic post intended to provoke an emotional response.
I thought my post was directly related to a problem with our government. I was making a point that we need to address spending more than we need to address taxing. Taxing will not be enough. We spend over $600 Billion a year on the defense and that is just what is in the budget. When presidents execute these military actions, like shooting thousands of missiles and drones in to Libya, Yemen, Pakistan… at $500,000 a pop that is not included in the budget.
We are spending over a trillion a year on this crap that is only creating more enemies. For every drone that hits a target a half a dozen or more miss and hit civilians. The radicals tribal leaders can say “See they are bombing us” I think many are focusing on a problem that is in my humble opinion a smaller than this military spending and action. It does not in any way make us safer.
You know it's really sad when you feel the need to insult someone who is trying to have a decent conversation with you. You seem preoccupied with smoking weed,doing a little projection?
And you really think that the original post was not an obvious troll post ? Instead of coddling the trolls, maybe we should treat them how they deserve to be treated. There might be less of them if they keep making fools of them self and we call them out on it.
No it wasn't a troll post. Obviously with 44 comments it provoked some discussion. The biggest problem I see with OWS is the "we are right and you are wrong and that's it" attitude.
Don't believe this crap about the rich paying 37% of the taxes and the poor paying none. It's a trick. A spin on statistics to make it seem as if the rich are overtaxed. They aren't. But they damn well should be. We're in this mess because of them.
Be careful when you hear or read anything regarding the PERCENTAGE of OVERALL FEDERAL INCOME taxes paid by any particular group, it's a terribly misleading statistic. The rich pay a larger PERCENTAGE of OVERALL FEDERAL INCOME taxes now than 10 years ago because they have a larger PERCENTAGE of INCOME in America now than 10 years ago. That statistic regarding 37% of Federal Income Taxes is one of the most misleading in the history of propaganda.
When you account for all FEDERAL, STATE, and LOCAL taxes and fees, the middle class actually pay about the same rate (as a percentage of income) as the rich. The difference is within 5 percent. It shouldn't be that way. The rich should pay MUCH more simply because they are horribly over-paid. We aren't. They own 43% of all financial wealth in America. We share the rest. But it gets even more disgusting. The devil is in the details.
Corporate profits have been partially subsidized with federal, state, and local revenue. This benefit has been hoarded at the top. Business managers make up the largest group of one percent club pigs. Plus 40% of the market is owned by the top 1%. Their record territory dividends have been partially subsidized by federal, state, and local revenue. The benefits have not been shared proportionally with the little guy. The lopsided division of growth across quintiles proves it.
The highest percentile has grown more than 10 times faster than the middle percentile over the last 30 years. This is true EVEN AFTER taxes. When you account for inflation and the actual cost of living (tied to record high profits in energy, finance, and healthcare), the middle class have actually lost relative buying power while the top 1% have drastically increased their income and bottom line wealth.
In 1976 (when their taxes were much higher), the top one percent reaped 9 percent of all private income and held less than 20 percent of all private wealth in America. Now, they reap 21 percent of all private income and hold 40 percent of all private wealth. Meanwhile, the lower majority (those who are still employed) are working more hours and have less to show for it.
Just to make it crystal clear: The rich do not pay 37% of all taxes. They never have. They pay roughly 37% of all FEDERAL INCOME TAXES which account for less than 1/2 of total government revenue. The rest is drawn from a number of sources and across income levels. The rich harp on this 'Federal Income Tax' statistic because it leads people to believe that they pay 37% of ALL taxes. They don't. Their share as a group represents just over their share of income. The difference is within 5 percent.
If the rich want to pay a lower share of the taxes in America, then they should get themselves a lower share of the income in America. In other words, don't be so rich to begin with.
RAISE THOSE GOD DAMN TAXES ON THE RICH!
Bullshit. You are referring only to one year of reported income (your numbers are still low). The richest 1% hold more than $20,000,000,000,000 in private wealth. That's over 25% MORE than the entire national debt which took over 30 years to accumulate. Anyway, it's not that simple:
With a high concentration of income and bottom line wealth, more revenue is needed for financial aid. Also with record high charges (and profits) in health care, energy, and finance even more need for aid becomes necessary. I'm all for cutting waste but there is a strong relationship between 35 years of rising national debt and 35 years of concentrated income and wealth/capital. We don't need to pay off the national debt in 3 years or 5 or 10. After all, its been accumulating for decades. We only need to bend the curve and get on track to pay it off eventually. This will always be mathematically impossible until we address the concentration of income and wealth/capital. Most of which comes from the same damn pie anyway. The rest is legally held overseas or illegally hidden by rich pigs overseas.
Raise those damn taxes on the rich and close their corporate loopholes.
You are counting equity which includes any all personal property or businesses they own and that make no sense.
So now we want them to sell their personal property, houses, cars, businesses and hand over the money to the government who does such a great job spending it. (translation: great job wasting it)
And when you are done taking everything this year, in five years we will be back at a $15 trillion debt and no one to take the money from.
They never should have accumulated so much wealth to begin with. But I already stated my position. I wasn't calling for total confiscation. I was calling for higher taxes on the rich in order to 'bend the curve' and gradually get back on track to pay off the national debt eventually.
Much higher.
We need to make cuts in spending, real cuts. The fake politicians and the smoke and mirrors "super comittee" are not even talking about paying down the debt. They are talking about reducing the amount they plan to increase the debt over the next ten years. They are not even balancing the budget!
As much as I hate our leaders and their wasteful spending, it's virtually impossible to balance the budget immediately. Any real attempt to do so would be a disaster. There is no quick fix. That's what I meant by 'bend the curve'.
They are not even trying. There are so many opportunities. We are borrowing money from China to pay for troops in Germany. Why are we paying billions for the protection of Germany?
That is just one example.
I don't know. But I bet it's another trick.
[Deleted]
I never made such a proposal. But I have made my point.
Jealousy rears it's ugly head.
That's one powerful argument.
Next.
Private holdings -now you are on track. That is ours -it has been aggregated by fraud. History shows how -and we can only restore the mechanism of liberty if we understand how they fool the bulk of the public. A "tax" isn't going to sell it. Sorry. http://occupywallst.org/forum/interesting-read-about-the-constitution-and-corpor/#comment-404866
We don't have to take it from them. We need to make them realize the $ they possess is nothing more than paper given a value based on historical values. If any monetary system had been thoroughly thought through before being put into motion, it never would have began.
Money is a great invention and it works quite well. It allows us to transfer services and products to one another.
What would you replace money with?
Nothing. Is not a resource of the Earth which is why it can never "help". It was created to try and make things easier. Easier is what got us into this situation. Easier is what has held basic human needs in the hands of those that have the "non-resource". Once we truly understand what our basic human needs are and how to meet them, money just will stop existing.
So how do we exchange services and products? Throughout history money has proven to be the best way.
Figuring out how to exchange isn't the problem. Once basic human needs are met, the greatest resources on the Earth will emerge and the problem solves itself.
I don't understand how basic human needs are going to be met without money. I don't have to go to work anymore? The great magical unicorn will emerge from the earth and provide for my needs?
can i get a great magical unicorn for xmas this year :)
Basic humans needs exist on Earth without money. We need food, we plant. We need water, we drink. We need air, we breathe. We need shelter, we build.
So you want to go back to a hunter gatherer society?
Let's adress this with a concrete example. While we wre chatting my wife came home from the store. In one location she purchased bread, milk, toilet paper, shampoo, soup, brocolli, sweet potatoes, eggs, a box of cereal, toothpaste, apple cider, and a few dozen other things.
Without money she could not do that.
We can't go back to hunter and gatherers. You're absolutely right, your wife could not have brought food home FOR YOU without YOUR money. Now if you continue to gain all the money, how do the people who got everything to the store live. They can't because they don't have money. So now, YOUR money is doing nothing. You can't eat it, drink it or breath it. When you look at any monetary system, because money is not a renewable resources, there is a finite amount of it. And once that finite amount ends up the hands of the few who have made there way to the top, good or bad, there is a much bigger problem.
You make no sense at all. How can I possible “gain all the money” if I am giving it to the store? The people who “got everything to the store” earned money. The store does not get it for free? The farmer grows the broccoli and harvests it. He pays the trucking company to bring it to the store or he buys his own truck to bring it there. Whoever made the truck got paid for the truck. It is really a great system.
The valuation associated with these tasks, is where the problem lies. Why do entertainers make and disproportional amount to farmers? The farmers are working just as hard as them to achieve the same goal? Again, its not the money, its the system and our conditioned thinking.
Entertainers make more because people are willing to give them money for their product. That is the beauty of the system. No one is forced to give them $0,99 for a song.
I'll just make one more comment to get you thinking. Any current monetary system is based off of supply and demand being "variable". Is that concept 100% true?
And again, I 100% agree with your initial discussion topic; the problem IS NOT the money.
Thanks for having enough of an open mind to start a discussion. That is the beginning.
Supply and Demand....Well you can only charge what someone is willing to pay for something. If there is a large supply from many suppliers the price will go down. When there is a monopoly you can charge more for something than it is worth.
In the US this is the case with many government run programs. For example, my tax dollars are taken from me for education and I only get them back if I send my kids to public school. The average cost of a private school is about half the average public school spending per student in NJ. The problem is that if I send my kids to private school I still have to pay for them to attend public school even though they are not attending. This monopoly is a lack of competition in education which is hurting our education system.
:)
I put quotes around the "variable" for a reason. Focus on that; being variable and to what extent? You understand economics, clearly, so this is your key.
You can solve this and your own question that started the discussion.
True enough -We go back to HISTORY and learn who is "holding the bag". The "rich" class in our country isn't holding it, per se. This forum is truly enlightening. Turn off Niel Bortz and the like-review
http://occupywallst.org/forum/interesting-read-about-the-constitution-and-corpor/#comment-404866
HISTORY
[Deleted]
You've spent your way to oblivion and forgot that you needed money to pay for all this shit and at the same time you cut taxes (decreased your revenue)..Surprise you're in more debt....
Cut spending, Increase taxes on everyone who pays taxes now, or do both and get rid of the "Federal" "Reserve" while we are at it.
It's taken us a while to get to this place and the people who make the f*cked up decisions should be the first to pay for those decisions, the 535 idiots we have running this country into the ground.
Yea the rich need to have their taxes raised to pay and so will we all...But the money has to go to paying down the debt...We also must get away from our debt based monetary system and the Federal Reserve ..Without this reform nothing will matter, if all debts were payed their would be no money in the current system.
Indeed.
Taxes are not the solution .. to this problem
Of course not. They are only PART of the solution. Certainly, we need to begin, though, with getting the wealthy to start paying an equitable share of the tax load.
--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog
Go on...Obviously you have a solution..
It's hard to find someone willing to discuss change in the capitalist movement. And at least , consider the possibility something is broken ..
I have studied the inner workings and outcomes of capitalism a number of years.
Extreme wealth is attained through high sales profits.
There are two types of profits:
Profit made on manufacturing , this is profit on labor.
Profit made when buying and selling a product.
Both of these profits are found in a capitalist economy. and both create great wealth.
The idea is to place a percentage style "profit CAP" on the products bought and sold. example an item bought for one dollar with a profit CAP of 10% would resell for $1.10. [the actual percentage would be determined by federal interest rates ]
This profit CAP would :
It would prevent markets from making unfettered profits and wealth.
It would leave money in the hands of the consumer raising their standard of living.
It would lower prices at the retail end , creating an increase in sales and an increase in demand.
the increase in demand would create an increase in jobs.
All of this would create an increase in money flow which ultimately would lower debt.
So the solution is not a tax solution at all .. its more of a "cut it off at the pass" solution .. before it even gets into the hands of the rich.
you see raising taxes will only cause the rich to raise their prices ..
heres a little something that relates .
the inflation we see today is not caused by a raise in taxes nor is it caused by a raise in wages .. so why than is there inflation.. the simple answer .. retailers are selling less so they have raised their profit margin to make up for the shortage of sales ..
I think that what you have really pointed out, is that the real source of wealth is manufacturing. That is where real value is added. The "wealth created" by buying and selling is not really additional wealth, but must be extracted from the value of the product.
that has a lot of merit.. the price retailers charge in profit margin adds nothing to the original value of the product.
Exactly.
I like that ..I always look at it through the concept of a complex electrical circuit., where all parts need a certain amount of energy from the battery or power source..
If a part of the circuit becomes less resistive as compared to the rest of the circuit (A law is passed to ensure that that part of circuit gets more power) the other parts of the circuit which are also needed for proper overall system operation will suffer.
Anyway that's my little theory from a electrical perspective !
Some aspects of monetary systems and electricity are very interchangeable..
The cap would work at preventing different parts of the circuit from monopolizing the power source..
I know that may sound a bit weird!
I like your comparison ..it shows understanding ..if you don't mind my saying so.. the economy really is a mechanism designed to function within a civilization .. and be it man made , it needs occasional tuning and adjusting .. constant vigilance.. thank you
Yes, the "economy" is supposed to work for the whole of society. People are too stuck in ideology and their own perspective, instead of looking at what should be done for the good of all..
We need some big time tuning...or a new system altogether..
If they can't get money to flow to the bottom or inhibit it, the whole system starts to shut down..One little piece at a time..
Keynes would agree.
What about wages, rent, taxes, insurances, equipment, shipping costs, utilities, employee benefits, etc?
People who are born into poverty do not have the means to get out of poverty. If you were born in Ethopia would it be possible to become a millionaire? You are perpetuating the monetary 'American Dream' myth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
[Deleted]
There are a few anecdotal cases - an individual here and there blessed with natural talent (which is an advantage, no matter how you cut it), good fortune, whatever. But for most people it's BS and it doesn't matter how they think. If you're born in Ethiopia and dead from famine or AIDS before you turn 12, you never were and never would have been a millionaire. Those are the stone cold facts.
The whole rags to riches theme is a pretty old one, and in most cases it's completely untrue (though not all, it isn't entirely an urban legend, just mostly). The story has its origins in an English folk tale about a guy named Dick Whittington, who came to London as an orphan with a cat, had some business idea to rent his cat out to shipowners to kill rats, got rich and became the Mayor of London.
Dick Whittington was real, he actually was the Mayor of London, but he was no orphan: he was the second son of a well-to-do country nobleman. Because of primogeniture, all inheiritances went to the firstborn, so they had to find something else for future children to do. Dick was given a generous sum of money and sent to London to meet his father's associates and become a mercer (cloth merchant) and he became quite wealthy, as people in his position were wont to do.
And with a bit of digging, you will often find that these rags to riches stories turn out to be similar.
[Deleted]
Here's some of the difference between your stories and those faced by so many now:
Your family couldn't afford oil, but clearly owned your own house.
Alot of people live in the city, paying hundreds of dollars for small apartments because they can't afford to buy a house. On top of the apartment fees, they have to pay electricity because you can't move into an apartment until you do. The apartments won't let you.. Some live in hotels because they can't save up for a down payment for even an apartment on the salary they receive, and so pay weekly for hotel rooms - which don't require down payments to stay.
Your father got a chainsaw and got into lumbering.
All very good if you live in a rural area. Not many trees to cut in the city. Plus, you tend to get fined for it. A co-worker told me a story once about a car accident in which she knocked down a cactus. It cost her a 1K fine. Probably would get into trouble trying to do the same in modern times even in a rural area if you didn't own the land the trees came from. And land ownership is a luxury most modern people can't afford.
Military is currently cutting jobs, so many cannot choose enlistment as an income. And others simply are not capable of that sort of work, as much as they may admire those who are.
Your story is a fine one, and you are blessed with the life you have. But your posts also suggest that anyone who hasn't made the sort of success you have out of their life is simply incapable or lazy. What you fail to understand is how things have changed.
Remember the Alabama song 40 Hour Week? Full time is now 30 hours a week. Those ten hours can make alot of difference. I also know alot of part-time workers with families to support who work 20 hours for the same company for multiple years. They'd love to be full time and have even 30 hours, but the companies insist they can't hire them full time.
When I first started in the workforce, people worked 2-3 jobs to make up for it. Now, they try to work 2, and one of the jobs cuts their hours because they can hire someone else to work whenever they want. So the person who said - I can only work afternoons because I got a second job - suddenly sees their 15-20 hour weeks drop to 8. I myself was told by an employer that if I didn't offer "open availability", I would be dropped to part time from full time. This meant a constant change in hours from week to week, lowering my own ability to find a second job to make up for low hours.
The fact is, there have been alot of changes in the workforce in the last fifteen to twenty years that have made life that much harder for middle class and low income families. And it's made it that much harder for even those with the skill and dedication to make more of themselves to do anything other than survive.
[Deleted]
It's easy to say - change your circumstances. It's another to do them. Things have changed in recent years - I've watched them change in the years I've been working, and some of those changes aren't pretty.
I share an apartment, and a job, and am learning to be fluent in mandarin as well through language CDs. I graduated in the top two percent of my class, but had never had previous debt and was denied a student loan for lack of credit history.
Night classes require that I don't work nights - the jobs I've worked have always require I do. Nor do those nights have set times - most minimum wage jobs now require complete availability. They'll lower hours if you try to say you can't work certain nights or times.
Such classes also require money I don't have to spend or taking out a loan - which I am unwilling to do. I share living expenses with my sister, but we still struggle to make ends meet. Any time one of gets ill and needs even a week off work to recover, it's a struggle to survive on one of our salaries until the other gets a paycheck.
I've luckily never experienced unemployment, but I have come close to losing housing, and have had a car repossessed. (The money for the car payments were, ironically, being used to fix the car.) I earn more than minimum wage - but still lower than the living wage in my area. During recent years I have been aware that I've accepted jobs for less money than with my work experience I should be being paid, but I was too aware of the fact that so many others wanted the same job, I accepted the lower rates. I've also had my job applications been answered with the fact that they had no position for someone with my qualifications. My experience over-qualified me because they didn't want to pay for it.
My belief that hard work and perseverance pays off has been repeatedly shaken by what I've seen in the work force. I believe that hard work and perseverance should pay off, but I also feel some changes need to be made to the current system because it is against those doing just that.
Good for you, but your case is anecdotal, and you're obviously not born in Ethiopia or really that bad of a situation at all. Moreover you know as well as I do, that things were different if you grew up in the late 70s. And you're giving all the credit to some silly self-help gurus, and none to your hardworking father who obviously taught you a thing or two: practical skills, good work ethic, frugal habits. No offence but you speak about the guy like he was some sort of fool, I think maybe he was a hell of alot smarter than you think. How are your kids doing? You didn't even mention them, just talked about how much stuff you have. This is the yardstick by which you measure your success? Really? Like I say, I think your father was a good deal more clued in than you think, quite likely more than you in fact.
As far as the 12 yo - the point about the 12 year old isn't that he'd never grow up. The point was, shit happens, and we don't always have control of it. You can't just read some books by self-help gurus to get out of any situation, that's magical thinking at its finest.
[Deleted]
I'm not saying it doesn't work or there isn't useful advice in there, I'm saying its not a panacea and it's not universally applicable. If you're fit, healthy, above average intelligence, good social skills, and the sort of good work ethic and frugal behaviours we've talked about, then yes, it can be applied with results. If you lack any of those things ... then it's not necessarily going to get results.
Anyway, the problem isn't joining the top 5% or achieving great financial success or anything like that. It's quite a bit simpler. If you're a simple, hardworking person you should be able to make do as well as you would have 30 years ago, and that isn't the case. Never mind millions in assets or six figure salaries, that's a bit of a red herring here. We're not talking about the exceptionally ambitious and talented, we're just talking about average people and how they are doing.
If you think they are really that rare then you are hanging out with the wrong crowd.
It doesn't matter what crowd I hang out with. The world at large is what it is. If you think they're common then perhaps you're hanging out with a very lucky or particularly talented crowd, hmm? Because you can certainly look at the rest of the world and see that it isn't.
I was talking about the US, not the whole world.
"Being broke is a financial condition; poverty is a state of mind." The thing is, the poor are not suffering any more than they ever did; the retired (and probably key players in allowing this mess to develop) are not feeling any big consequence. It's all of those in the middle who are being squeezed, for whom the jobs are not there, who have received nothing from the government but empty promises -- I believe they are the ones who make up OWS.
[Deleted]
We all participated in the development of a society of people who spent more than they could afford on things they didn't need. We were warned over and over again that it would lead to collapse, but we were somewhat drunk on having all that stuff. The adjustment to reality can be difficult, but let's hope we all learn from this experience that possessions should not own us.
Sure, given the same corporate/banking system, the wealth will again be funneled from the many to the few, as it has been through the last 30 years.
The system we live under is the problem. The wealthy do not 'earn' any money, they take it using a system of corruption, and systematic wealth confiscation and multiplication. Money is debt (currently). Money has a built in interest or skimming function, the banksters take the free money of interest and use it to build the system that gets them more and more money.
This system is over, and revolutionary change is now. Get on board or get left in the dust of history.
The time for change is now for sure. Let's make certain all tax breaks for the wealthy are ended completely and make sure they start paying, in the very least, an equitable part of the tax burden. Right now, they average about 10% less than everyone else below them. They have higher tax brackets but so many write-offs that none of them pay anywhere close to what their tax bracket says. In fact, I believe the top tax brackets were never anything more than a smoke screen to convince people the rich pay more than the rest. The fact is they pay far less. The wealthiest people pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than anyone but the poor.
You want to start ending the Great Recession, turn the Bush Tax Cuts around that began this long bout of deficit spending that took us deep into a hole. Go back to the Clinton tax policies, which were the only time in the last fifty years that the U.S. ran a surplus economy.
--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog
That is actually a very true statement and proven time and time again in social experiments. If all of the money were to be taken from the 1%, in 5 years, they would be the 1% again...and possibly richer than before. Look at lottery winners from the less fortunate class. A huge majority of those winners are now broke. They don't have the discipline, knowledge base and are too vulnerable to scams, predators and con artists to hand on to their money...It's sad, but in real life, that's who the banks prey on as well.
It's a SPENDING problem.