#872907 - 12/02/13 08:23 PM
Re: Wealth distribution
[Re: Salmo g.]
|
Hippie
Registered: 01/31/02
Posts: 4450
Loc: B'ham
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#872929 - 12/02/13 10:23 PM
Re: Wealth distribution
[Re: AP a.k.a. Kaiser D]
|
Poodle Smolt
Registered: 05/03/01
Posts: 10878
Loc: McCleary, WA
|
Educate yourself. If you are not happy with your station in life, upgrade your skill set. While it might not allow you to break into the top 1-10%, it should move you up the scale. Plan #2, marry one of the 1%'s slutty daughters.
_________________________
"Give me the anger, fish! Give me the anger!"
They call me POODLE SMOLT!
The Discover Pass is brought to you by your friends at the CCA.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#872938 - 12/02/13 11:09 PM
Re: Wealth distribution
[Re: Salmo g.]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7748
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
I suspect that birthrate has a quite a bit to do with it. Having children you can't support puts you in hole now and them in a hole in the future.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#872959 - 12/02/13 11:55 PM
Re: Wealth distribution
[Re: Carcassman]
|
Repeat Spawner
Registered: 03/05/00
Posts: 1083
|
If we give enough tax breaks to the rich we will all be in the one percent soon.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#872963 - 12/02/13 11:59 PM
Re: Wealth distribution
[Re: Carcassman]
|
Poodle Smolt
Registered: 05/03/01
Posts: 10878
Loc: McCleary, WA
|
That was my shallow response.
We have a defacto royalty class in the US who control a number of industries and centers of production. Short of us taking it from them, what do you suggest to even it out. Really? I'm listening.
Their families have earned their wealth through shrewd investment and effort. Shall we just bitch about it because they could throw away a new jet sled daily without thinking, that most of us would take a few years to earn?
Show you work. Discuss the legal ramifications of taking their net worth away from them, and how you would protect those of us in the middle class. Where do we draw the line at who has too much? What do we do to keep that threshold from moving down to the level you and I are at?
Bitch about it, or do something about it.
Up the revolution!
_________________________
"Give me the anger, fish! Give me the anger!"
They call me POODLE SMOLT!
The Discover Pass is brought to you by your friends at the CCA.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#872973 - 12/03/13 12:32 AM
Re: Wealth distribution
[Re: Dogfish]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 3007
Loc: Browns Point,Wa. USA
|
Dogfish is a whack job. That is a new one. 
_________________________
In the legend of King Arthur, the Fisher King was a renowned angler whose errant ways caused him to be struck dumb in the presence of the sacred chalice. I am no great fisherman, and a steelhead is not the covenant of Christ, but with each of these fish I am rendered speechless.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#872997 - 12/03/13 03:28 AM
Re: Wealth distribution
[Re: Salmo g.]
|
Carcass
Registered: 09/26/06
Posts: 2269
Loc: Where ever Dogfish tells me to...
|
Dogfish,
It's not about personal education or whether one is happy in life or one's skill set. Do you seriously believe the shift in wealth distribution over the last couple decades is primarily a product of the education of Americans, their skills, or their personal satisfaction with their lives? Pretty shallow right wing whack job response; I'd expect something more thoughtful.
Sg It has always been about personal education and ones satisfaction (or lack of motivation) in their station in life. As well as personal responsibility/accountability. I believe the "redistribution" is directly related to the "education" of Americans, just not the "book learnin" kind. . .. . . I also believe it has come from the huge entitlement issue that has developed in this country. . .. "I am therefore I deserve", destroys the work ethic and spreads like a fungus. . ..
_________________________
Due to a minor mishap, I now have 15# balls. . . ...
Decisions are made by those who show up.
"Shallow men believe in luck. Strong men believe in cause and effect." Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#873011 - 12/03/13 11:22 AM
Re: Wealth distribution
[Re: ]
|
My Waders are Moist
Registered: 11/20/08
Posts: 3419
Loc: PNW
|
You guys are idiots if you think that the wealth inequality in this video has anything to do with lazy entitled Americans. Stop drinking the conservative radio Kool-aid.
There will always be lazy entitled Americans, but they aren't the majority by any means. And they are destroying themselves, but not this country.
There are a lot of people looking for work and opportunity in this country including me but it isn't out there like it used to be. It has all been carefully hoarded by a few powerful entities.
_________________________
Maybe he's born with it.
Maybe it's amphetamines.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#873015 - 12/03/13 11:29 AM
Re: Wealth distribution
[Re: ]
|
My Waders are Moist
Registered: 11/20/08
Posts: 3419
Loc: PNW
|
This hording has only been successful due to corporate welfare, the market has been trying to redistribute the wealth for some time, but the government steps in and stops this process in the name of "bailing out" those "too big to fail." I agree with you and I like you ideas for taxation listed above.
_________________________
Maybe he's born with it.
Maybe it's amphetamines.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#873034 - 12/03/13 12:54 PM
Re: Wealth distribution
[Re: ]
|
Poodle Smolt
Registered: 05/03/01
Posts: 10878
Loc: McCleary, WA
|
+1 on Dogfish being a whack job.
I'll take that as a compliment.
_________________________
"Give me the anger, fish! Give me the anger!"
They call me POODLE SMOLT!
The Discover Pass is brought to you by your friends at the CCA.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#873038 - 12/03/13 01:08 PM
Re: Wealth distribution
[Re: Jerry Garcia]
|
Poodle Smolt
Registered: 05/03/01
Posts: 10878
Loc: McCleary, WA
|
Pigs arrive in February. 127 yards from the gate to the front door, 100 yards to the "Y". No need for markers.
_________________________
"Give me the anger, fish! Give me the anger!"
They call me POODLE SMOLT!
The Discover Pass is brought to you by your friends at the CCA.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#873044 - 12/03/13 01:41 PM
Re: Wealth distribution
[Re: ]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13615
|
Dogfish,
Aha, second post much more interesting, especially since I know you're not a whackjob, Stam's allegation notwithstanding.
If I had the answers, I might already be the one in charge, or at least counted among the one-percenters. I don't and ain't. I tried to post the link because I thought it's a topic that could start two conversations, one interesting, and one consisting of drivel. And I was curious to see what the conversational distribution would be here.
I also think it's a subject of interest because it looks to be as if the super rich achieve their status through more than just hard work and shrewd investment. I think more of their hard work is expended in controlling the government and lawmaking and banking and financial systems to enhance their ability to shift the wealth distribution from what it was to what it is. And all that is independent of the education, skill sets, and ambition of the American work force. But that's just my personal conspiracy theory.
FP,
Nice to see you back, even though you pronounce me a technocrat and virtual communist. I otherwise enjoyed your post.
Since I don't have answers to the situation, I'm gonna' pull a Hankster and share a C&P of excerpts from a couple essays by writer/philosopher Sam Harris. Here goes:
Most Americans believe that a person should enjoy the full fruits of his or her labors, however abundant. In this light, taxation tends to be seen as an intrinsic evil. It is worth noting, however, that throughout the 1950’s—a decade for which American conservatives pretend to feel a harrowing sense of nostalgia—the marginal tax rate for the wealthy was over 90 percent. In fact, prior to the 1980’s it never dipped below 70 percent. Since 1982, however, it has come down by half. In the meantime, the average net worth of the richest 1 percent of Americans has doubled (to $18.5 million), while that of the poorest 40 percent has fallen by 63 percent (to $2,200). Thirty years ago, top U.S. executives made about 50 times the salary of their average employees. In 2007, the average worker would have had to toil for 1,100 years to earn what his CEO brought home between Christmas in Aspen and Christmas on St. Barthes.
We now live in a country in which the bottom 40 percent (120 million people) owns just 0.3 percent of the wealth. Data of this kind make one feel that one is participating in a vast psychological experiment: Just how much inequality can free people endure? Have you seen Ralph Lauren’s car collection? Yes, it is beautiful. It also cost hundreds of millions of dollars. “So what?” many people will say. “It’s his money. He earned it. He should be able to do whatever he wants with it.” In conservative circles, expressing any doubt on this point has long been synonymous with Marxism.
And yet over one million American children are now homeless. People on Medicare are being denied life-saving organ transplants that were routinely covered before the recession. Over one quarter of our nation’s bridges are structurally deficient. When might be a convenient time to ask the richest Americans to help solve problems of this kind? How about now?
It is easy to understand why even the most generous person might be averse to paying taxes: Our legislative process has been hostage to short-term political interests and other perverse incentives for as long as anyone can remember. Consequently, our government wastes an extraordinary amount of money. It also seems uncontroversial to say that whatever can be best accomplished in the private sector should be. Our tax code must also be reformed—and it might even be true that the income tax should be lowered on everyone, provided we find a better source of revenue to pay our bills. But I can’t imagine that anyone seriously believes that the current level of wealth inequality in the United States is good and worth maintaining, or that our government’s first priority should be to spare a privileged person like myself the slightest hardship as this once great nation falls into ruin.
And the ruination of the United States really does seem possible. It has been widely reported, for instance, that students in Shanghai far surpass our own in science, reading, and math. In fact, when compared to other countries, American students are now disconcertingly average (slightly below in math), where the average includes utopias like Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan, Albania, Kazakhstan, and Indonesia. President Obama was right to recognize this as a “Sputnik moment.” But it is worse than that. This story was immediately followed by a report about giddy Creationists in the state of Kentucky being offered $40 million in tax subsidies to produce a full-scale model of Noah’s ark. More horrible still, this ludicrous use of public money is probably a wise investment, given that such a monument to scientific ignorance will be guaranteed to attract an ovine influx of Christian tourists from neighboring states. Seeing facts of this kind, juxtaposed without irony or remedy at this dire moment in history, it is hard not to feel that one is witnessing America’s irreversible decline. Needless to say, most Americans have no choice but to send their children to terrible schools—where they will learn the lesser part of nothing and emerge already beggared by a national debt now on course to reach $20 trillion. And yet Republicans in every state can successfully campaign on a promise to spend less on luxuries like education, while delivering tax cuts to people who, if asked to guess their own net worth, could not come within $10 million of the correct figure if their lives depended on it.
American opposition to the “redistribution of wealth” has achieved the luster of a religious creed. And, as with all religions, one finds the faithful witlessly espousing doctrines that harm almost everyone, including their own children. For instance, while most Americans have no chance of earning or inheriting significant wealth, 68 percent want the estate tax eliminated (and 31 percent consider it to be the “worst” and “least fair” tax levied by the federal government). Most believe that limiting this tax, which affects only 0.2 percent of the population, should be the top priority of the current Congress. The truth, however, is that everyone must favor the “redistribution of wealth” at some point. This relates directly to the issue of education: as the necessity of doing boring and dangerous work disappears—whether because we have built better machines and infrastructure, or shipped our least desirable jobs overseas—people need to be better educated so that they can apply themselves to more interesting work. Who will pay for this? There is only one group of people who can pay for anything at this point: the wealthy.
To make matters more difficult, Americans have made a religious fetish of something called “self-reliance.” Most seem to think that while a person may not be responsible for the opportunities he gets in life, each is entirely responsible for what he makes of these opportunities. This is, without question, a false view of the human condition. Consider the biography of any “self-made” American, from Benjamin Franklin on down, and you will find that his success was entirely dependent on background conditions that he did not make, and of which he was a mere beneficiary. There is not a person on earth who chose his genome, or the country of his birth, or the political and economic conditions that prevailed at moments crucial to his progress.
Consequently, no one is responsible for his intelligence, range of talents, or ability to do productive work. If you have struggled to make the most of what Nature gave you, you must still admit that Nature also gave you the ability and inclination to struggle. How much credit do I deserve for not having Down syndrome or any other disorder that would make my current work impossible? None whatsoever. And yet devotees of self-reliance rail against those who would receive entitlements of various sorts—health care, education, etc.—while feeling unselfconsciously entitled to their relative good fortune. Yes, we must encourage people to work to the best of their abilities and discourage free riders wherever we can—but it seems only decent at this moment to admit how much luck is required to succeed at anything in this life. Those who have been especially lucky—the smart, well-connected, and rich—should count their blessings, and then share some of these blessings with the rest of society.
The wealthiest Americans often live as though they and their children had nothing to gain from investments in education, infrastructure, clean-energy, and scientific research. For instance, the billionaire Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft, recently helped kill a proposition that would have created an income tax for the richest 1 percent in Washington (one of seven states that has no personal income tax). All of these funds would have gone to improve his state’s failing schools. What kind of society does Ballmer want to live in—one that is teeming with poor, uneducated people? Who does he expect to buy his products? Where will he find his next batch of software engineers? Perhaps Ballmer is simply worried that the government will spend his money badly—after all, we currently spend more than almost every other country on education, with abysmal results. Well, then he should say so—and rather than devote hundreds of thousands of dollars to stoking anti-tax paranoia in his state, he should direct some of his vast wealth toward improving education, like his colleague Bill Gates has begun to do.
There are, in fact, some signs that a new age of heroic philanthropy might be dawning. For instance, the two wealthiest men in America, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, recently invited their fellow billionaires to pledge the majority of their wealth to the public good. This is a wonderfully sane and long overdue initiative about which it is unforgivable to be even slightly cynical. But it is not sufficient. Most of this money will stay parked in trusts and endowments for decades, and much of it will go toward projects that are less than crucial to the future of our society. It seems to me, however, that Gates and Buffett could easily expand and target this effort: asking those who have pledged, along with the rest of the wealthiest Americans, to immediately donate a percentage of their net worth to a larger fund. This group of benefactors would include not only the super-rich, but people of far more modest means. I do not have 1/1000 the wealth of Steve Ballmer, but I certainly count myself among the people who should be asked to sacrifice for the future of this country. The combined wealth of the men and women on the Forbes 400 list is $1.37 trillion. By some estimates, there are at least another 1,500 billionaires in the United States. Something tells me that anyone with a billion dollars could safely part with 25 percent of his or her wealth—without being forced to sell any boats, planes, vacation homes, or art. As of 2009, there were 980,000 families with a net worth exceeding $5 million (not including their primary residence). Would a one-time donation of 5 percent really be too much to ask to rescue our society from the maw of history?
Some readers will point out that I am free to donate to the treasury even now. But such solitary sacrifice would be utterly ineffectual, and I am no more eager than anyone else is to fill the pork barrels of corrupt politicians. However, if Gates and Buffett created a mechanism that bypassed the current dysfunction of government, earmarking the money for unambiguously worthy projects, I suspect that there are millions of people like myself who would not hesitate to invest in the future of America.
Imagine that Gates and Buffett raised a trillion dollars this way: what should we spend it on? The first thing to acknowledge is that almost any use of this money would be better than just letting it sit. Mindlessly repairing every bridge, tunnel, runway, harbor, reservoir, and recreation area in the United States would be an improvement over what we are currently doing. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conservatives view taxation as a species of theft—and to raise taxes, on anyone for any reason, is simply to steal more. Conservatives also believe that people become rich by creating value for others. Once rich, they cannot help but create more value by investing their wealth and spawning new jobs in the process. We should not punish our best and brightest for their success, and stealing their money is a form of punishment.
Of course, this is just an economic cartoon. Markets aren’t perfectly reflective of the value of goods and services, and many wealthy people don’t create much in the way of value for others. In fact, as our recent financial crisis has shown, it is possible for a few people to become extraordinarily rich by wrecking the global economy.
But even in the ideal case, where obvious value has been created, how much wealth can one person be allowed to keep? A trillion dollars? Ten trillion? (Fifty trillion is the current GDP of Earth.) Granted, there will be some limit to how fully wealth can concentrate in any society, for the richest possible person must still spend money on something, thereby spreading wealth to others.
In fact, there are people who rank far below Gates and Buffet in net worth, who still make several million dollars a day, every day of the year, and have throughout the current recession.
And there is no reason to think that we have reached the upper bound of wealth inequality, as not every breakthrough in technology creates new jobs. The ultimate labor saving device might be just that—the ultimate labor saving device. Imagine the future Google of robotics or nanotechnology: Its CEO could make Steve Jobs look like a sharecropper, and its products could put tens of millions of people out of work. What would it mean for one person to hold the most valuable patents compatible with the laws of physics and to amass more wealth than everyone else on the Forbes 400 list combined?
How many Republicans who have vowed not to raise taxes on billionaires would want to live in a country with a trillionaire and 30 percent unemployment? If the answer is “none”—and it really must be—then everyone is in favor of “wealth redistribution.” They just haven’t been forced to admit it.
Yes, we must cut spending and reduce inefficiencies in government—and yes, many things are best accomplished in the private sector. But this does not mean that we can ignore the astonishing gaps in wealth that have opened between the poor and the rich, and between the rich and the ultra rich. Some of your neighbors have no more than $2,000 in total assets (in fact, 40 percent of Americans fall into this category); some have around $2 million; and some have $2 billion (and a few have much more). Each of these gaps represents a thousandfold increase in wealth.
Some Americans have amassed more wealth than they or their descendants can possibly spend. Who do conservatives think is in a better position to help pull this country back from the brink? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So after looking at the graphs and charts and reading Sam's stuff, what do you think?
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#873047 - 12/03/13 02:15 PM
Re: Wealth distribution
[Re: Salmo g.]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/05/04
Posts: 2572
Loc: right place/wrong time
|
So after looking at the graphs and charts and reading Sam's stuff, what do you think?
I think that your copy and paste from 'Sam' was a House of Cards built on a Foundation of Sand in a Wind Storm.
_________________________
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill
"So it goes." Kurt Vonnegut jr.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#873056 - 12/03/13 03:18 PM
Re: Wealth distribution
[Re: Salmo g.]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/05/04
Posts: 2572
Loc: right place/wrong time
|
Yes it was succinct, entirely unlike the drivel that you c&p-ed.
As I have often said it is hard to respond to an argument where the logic is as scattered as a shotgun pattern.
_________________________
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill
"So it goes." Kurt Vonnegut jr.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#873057 - 12/03/13 03:27 PM
Re: Wealth distribution
[Re: blackmouth]
|
Poodle Smolt
Registered: 05/03/01
Posts: 10878
Loc: McCleary, WA
|
I don't disagree that the 1% use their power and influence to steer additional deals their way, an avenue unavailable to you and I. Even in Aberdeen I see this on a daily basis, based on the relative 1%'ers here in Grays Harbor County.
_________________________
"Give me the anger, fish! Give me the anger!"
They call me POODLE SMOLT!
The Discover Pass is brought to you by your friends at the CCA.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#873059 - 12/03/13 03:41 PM
Re: Wealth distribution
[Re: ]
|
Three Time Spawner
Registered: 12/29/99
Posts: 1604
Loc: Vancouver, Washington
|
Somebody more famous than I once said: "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention".
That quote would have been a great ending to the vid.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#873073 - 12/03/13 05:01 PM
Re: Wealth distribution
[Re: cohoangler]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 05/27/00
Posts: 2447
Loc: Stumpy Acres
|
Spread the wealth.....
I want a new boat......
_________________________
If ya can't run with the big dogs stay on the porch!
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#873078 - 12/03/13 05:19 PM
Re: Wealth distribution
[Re: Salmo g.]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/05/04
Posts: 2572
Loc: right place/wrong time
|
Consider the first paragraph. Sam seems to question the reason for conservatives to "pretend to feel a harrowing sense of nostalgia for the 50's", in spite of having higher income tax rates than we currently pay. Do conservatives 'pretend' to be nostalgic for the 50's? Could the reason for the hope and happiness that the populace may have been feeling be simple relief to be out of war? Do liberals also 'pretend' to feel a sense of nostalgia for the 50's, or are liberals above such feelings and or pretensions?
Sam ended his second paragraph with this gem, "In conservative circles, expressing any doubt on this point has long been synonymous with Marxism." Salmo, I'm sure that you recognize his statement as hyperbole.
In a latter paragraph Sam speaks of the possible ruination of the United States and the woeful state of our education system. I might just surprise you here because I believe that the state of our educational system is poor and that our country is in fact headed in the wrong direction, however our cures would surely be different. I believe that changes in our education system should be result driven. We have been constantly increasing funds spent on education but the results have been negative. Perhaps the answer is not as simple as just throw more money at the problem. And the simple thought that more money can cure all, is, well simple and untrue, and belief in such fallacies is why our country is headed in the wrong direction.
Sam's essay never does improve, it is a simple appeal to emotion using false cause, and straw men, liberally sprinkled with loaded words, phrases and yes hyperbole. I found very little logical order or reasoning in it, and little that I could relate to, let alone agree with.
_________________________
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill
"So it goes." Kurt Vonnegut jr.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#873089 - 12/03/13 06:01 PM
Re: Wealth distribution
[Re: ]
|
Repeat Spawner
Registered: 10/20/10
Posts: 1263
Loc: Seattle
|
You guys need to be nice to Salmo. He has told you for years he is the smartest guy in the room. Exposing him to be a non critical thinker acting on emotion with little logic puts him in the same class as most women. Harsh toke for such an ego.
Btw the new term being floated by the left is " genetic lottery" no one earns anything they just won the genetic lottery.
_________________________
Once you go black you never go back
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#873128 - 12/03/13 08:46 PM
Re: Wealth distribution
[Re: Dogfish]
|
Returning Adult
Registered: 04/28/10
Posts: 307
Loc: Adna
|
Hi Andy ... are you gettin' your little wieners from Stinky Steve, the Preimere Purveyour of Pure Pork Prefection here in Lewis County or are you getiing largers critters to start ? I'm no expert on pork chops but Stinky's are the real deal. It's been said in these parts that he cuts a real nice hog.
I guess if you can deal with the general disgusting nature of these beasts on a daily basis untill they are ready for the bullet to the head, and are able to just see the ribs, chops, and snausages, then hey, why not ?
Are you going to name them ? If so .... How about ....
Super Bowl Presidents Day MLK Day Easter Memorial Day Independence Day Veterans Day Thanksgiving Christmas
.... Oink ...
_________________________
Just lettin' it roll, lettin' the high times carry the low Love livin' my life, easy come easy go
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#873145 - 12/03/13 10:47 PM
Re: Wealth distribution
[Re: ]
|
BUCK NASTY!!
Registered: 01/26/00
Posts: 6312
Loc: Vancouver, WA
|
Raising the Fuktards up to average and lowering those who excel down to average is the primary goal of the Left.
Hit that one out of the park.... Keith 
_________________________
It's time to put the red rubber nose away, clown seasons over.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#873153 - 12/03/13 11:39 PM
Re: Wealth distribution
[Re: Black Bart]
|
Poodle Smolt
Registered: 05/03/01
Posts: 10878
Loc: McCleary, WA
|
Hi Andy ... are you gettin' your little wieners from Stinky Steve, the Premier Purveyor of Pure Pork Perfection here in Lewis County or are you getting larger critters to start ? I'm no expert on pork chops but Stinky's are the real deal. It's been said in these parts that he cuts a real nice hog.
Yup, Steve is our source for Ryan's FFA project pigs. We're getting two. I helped Steve out on one butcher session last year, taking the finishing shots on a few, and doing the throat slit. Dropped them at the shot and they were bleeding like "a stuck pig" after I hit them with the knife. Blood isn't an issue. Neither is killing.
_________________________
"Give me the anger, fish! Give me the anger!"
They call me POODLE SMOLT!
The Discover Pass is brought to you by your friends at the CCA.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#873186 - 12/04/13 09:44 AM
Re: Wealth distribution
[Re: ]
|
Dah Rivah Stinkah Pink Mastah
Registered: 08/23/06
Posts: 6216
Loc: zipper
|
Raising the Fuktards up to average and lowering those who excel down to average is the primary goal of the Left.
The left is working on raising the minimum wage to help with the wealth distribution problem as we speak. That should take care of it. Same with forcing people to pay for others' retirement via forced social security deductions.
_________________________
... Propping up an obsolete fishing industry at the expense of sound fisheries management is irresponsible. -Sg
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#873202 - 12/04/13 11:25 AM
Re: Wealth distribution
[Re: fish4brains]
|
Reverend Tarpones
Registered: 10/09/02
Posts: 8379
Loc: West Duvall
|
Damn right. In fact all taxes should be voluntary. If we really need anything the free market will step in and make sure we get it. Hoo ray for us!
All those old farts on Social Security should just send back that money. It's God damn shame they ever took free gubmint money from us taxpayers.
Edited by Dave Vedder (12/04/13 11:27 AM)
_________________________
No huevos no pollo.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#873234 - 12/04/13 01:33 PM
Re: Wealth distribution
[Re: ]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 05/22/05
Posts: 3771
|
I have a better idea. Give back all of the money paid in SS taxes and let everybody invest it. For those who would prefer to take the 1 1/2-3% return they get from the money they paid in taxes and want the safety net of SS, let them keep that. Or you could just calculate how many hours a day you spend on the computer at work, and then reimburse your employer.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#873235 - 12/04/13 01:37 PM
Re: Wealth distribution
[Re: ]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13615
|
Rev. B,
In my reading, yes, conservatives consistently extoll the virtues of the 1950s with more than nostalgia, and as a value and lifestyle set we ought to seek to restore, with never a mention that it immediately followed WWII. And similarly, any questioning of free market capitalism - as fixed to favor the super-rich - is consistently associated by conservatives with socialism at best, Marxism a bit worse, and outright theft as repeatedly asserted by our own FP. Just read some of the posts in this thread, and you'll find statements that appear consistent with that view. Therefore I didn't regard Harris' statement as hyperbole at all. I assume you read some conservative literature, so I'm surprised at your conclusion, and I find that interesting and worth the discussion. I'll read his stuff again because I didn't find his reasoning so lacking in logic or things I could relate to. We appear to have considerable agreement about public education, however. It's interesting that we can be so close on some things and so far apart on others.
FP,
Your question about why the disparity in wealth distribution is a problem is a valid one. The reason I think it's a problem is because the super-rich are using their gains, both legitimate and ill-gotten, to continuously reduce their tax burden. Meanwhile, as they outsource and otherwise eliminate middle class jobs, the American middle class shrinks. I don't think Harris engages straw men and hyperbole when he states that someone's gotta' fund the national infrastructure. How is that supposed to happen with a shrinking middle class and a continuously declining tax burden on the rich?
I think the middle class has supported the development of the massive American infrastructure due to its size and collective affluence. As that affluence declines, and there's plenty of studies indicating that outcome, then who is going to pay taxes if not the rich and super-rich? The gov't. can't get tax revenue from people who have little or no money. The only alternative becomes one of taxing the rich. And they would have to be taxed to support the infrastructure used by all, not just by the rich. They don't like it now; they sure aren't gonna' like it then.
So part of what I find interesting in this subject is whether the current trend is sustainable. Is it feasible for 1% of the population to own 99% of the wealth? How about 99.9%? Or 99.99%? As the somewhat technocrat that you label me as, I'm somewhat interested in numbers and math. I'm not certain that this trend works or sustains itself. Hence, it might be a problem. It might result in nothing less than "storming the Bastille."
BTW, I didn't post this because I agree with everything or find it all convincing, but I find it persuasive enough to be worthy of serious discussion. I like to see information from both sides of the street; well not too much of the extremist crap, I don't have that much time to waste.
TJ,
Just remember that I'm not the smartest guy in the room because I say that I am, but because that you keep saying I am. Of course, coming from you, that's not much of an endorsement. In the past you've exhibited the ability to engage in intelligent discourse; it's unfortunate that you choose to fling sh!t instead.
Sg
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#873238 - 12/04/13 01:45 PM
Re: Wealth distribution
[Re: Salmo g.]
|
Repeat Spawner
Registered: 10/20/10
Posts: 1263
Loc: Seattle
|
You talk like a fly fisherman SG , above everyone else , you may better suited for a wine bar. The dark side is for gut slingers and hardware apes and apes sling [Bleeeeep!].
_________________________
Once you go black you never go back
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#873522 - 12/05/13 12:56 PM
Re: Wealth distribution
[Re: ]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13615
|
TJ,
Thank you since it's well established by several statistics that fly fishermen, on average, are considerably more literate and articulate than gut slingers. Sadly perhaps, for some fly fishermen, gut slingers come somewhat closer to holding their own in several critical thinking and analytical skills. That, no doubt, explains why they catch more fish. As a pragmatist and one interested in human nature, not to mention a salmon snob, I enjoy walking both sides of the street.
2Many,
Could be, but as KK points out, their are other makers of high quality, high end gear besides Sage. However, I did recently purchase a Sage rod blank, a discontinued model that gets very high reviews and on sale, of course. Now I gotta' scrape up the cash for a decent reel seat and components. I remember when corks were a dime each. Now the really good stuff is $2.95 per cork! And it takes 38 of 'em for a Spey rod. And then there's the wood burl insert reel seat that's another $88. Crikey, that elitist fly fishing game can get spendy!
FP,
I don't have any standard by which to judge wealth distribution. The little video describing where the distribution is now, and how it has shifted so significantly in relatively few years grabbed my interest. National wealth distribution is different than your examples of the distribution of a few physical attributes because it is likely to have a greater and more profound affect on the standard of living and quality of life for a majority of the country's population. That's why.
Re: your comments on science, I pretty much agree. I'm not so much advocating here as looking for interesting and intelligent conversation about a topic that might be important - or not. Seems like it is, so I'm checking it out.
If the current distribution is unsustainable, then I agree it will change, but that isn't necessarily the same as self-correction. You say that we need to quit using the government to promote class warfare . . . However, I think it's equally reasonable to suggest that the super-rich, who own most of the gov'ts'. financial functions, have been using gov't. and law to promote their own economic class warfare against the lower and middle classes. If power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, then a self-correction of an unsustainable wealth distribution may be stalled, prevented, or otherwise put off, thereby instigating something like storming the Bastille. It seems like avoiding that would be in the mutual interest of all economic classes, but maybe not.
Let me tell you something. We may or may not perceive reality the same. I don't know. However, I can say with certainty that you routinely err when you purport to know what I think. I haven't said that I think the wealth needs to be redistributed. I find the subject of distribution interesting and think the trend might not be sustainable, and could cause a major social upheaval, so I threw the topic on here. I don't know that the gov't. has to be involved in the redistribution process, but the thought occurs to me that the gov'ts' doing so might result in a more peaceful process than full on class warfare. The reason I don't trust the market and society to necessarily do a better job is because the super-rich and the gov't they own already control key aspects of the market. The free market that you frequently allude to does not exist, and since such a market is not in the direct interest of the controlling movers and shakers, I think a bonafide free market is out of the question. The best we can hope for is a regulated market that rewards productivity and opportunity and penalizes monopoly, oligopoly, cheating, and other negative attributes.
Your Bill Gates example, while noteworthy, is unique in that his friend Warren Buffet recently revealed that he contacted a large number of other billionaires and a lot of them don't have the same feelings about sharing their massive wealth. Consequently the Gate's style of redistribution most likely can't be counted on to result in a strong American middle class.
And another reason I know this subject is worth discussing is that it brought you out of your self-imposed exile. I'm fairly sure you didn't return just so you could talk about snagging chum salmon.
Sg
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#873879 - 12/06/13 07:48 PM
Re: Wealth distribution
[Re: Salmo g.]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/05/04
Posts: 2572
Loc: right place/wrong time
|
I realize that this is but another view of Salmo's post, but I found it interesting that this author attaches some causation and possibly implied blame for the topic of our discussion. I found his claimed cause of "Technology and competition from abroad whittling away at blue collar jobs and pay" to be believable and of particular interest, especially in light of the time frame that is shown in the graph. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 60 Years of American Economic History, Told in 1 Graph Jordan Weissmann Aug 23 2012, 3:17 PM ET
In the 60 years after World War II, the United States built the world's greatest middle class economy, then unbuilt it. And if you want a single snapshot that captures the broad sweep of that transformation, you could do much worse than this graph from a new Pew report, which tracks how average family incomes have changed at each rung of the economic ladder from 1950 through 2010.
Here's the arc it captures: In the immediate postwar period, America's rapid growth favored the middle and lower classes. The poorest fifth of all households, in fact, fared best. Then, in the 1970s, amid two oil crises and awful inflation, things ground to a halt. The country backed off the postwar, center-left consensus -- captured by Richard Nixon's comment that "we're all Keynesians now" -- and tried Reaganism instead. We cut taxes. Technology and competition from abroad started whittling away at blue collar jobs and pay. The financial markets took off. And so when growth returned, it favored the investment class -- the top 20 percent, and especially the top 5 percent (and, though it's not on this chart, the top 1 percent more than anybody).
And then it all fell apart. The aughts were a lost decade for families, and it's not clear how much better they'll fare in the next.
None of this is new history.But it's helpful to have a crisp layout of what's changed.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please note that the big drop in mean family income starts in the 1970 to 1980 segment of the graph. Now have you ever heard of Malcom McLean? He invented the shipping container in 1956 and by the end of the 1960s, Sea-Land Industries had 27,000 trailer-type containers, 36 trailer ships and access to over 30 port cities. The ability to securely and cheaply move products anywhere in the world most certainly gave the technology and competition from abroad a chance to start whittling away at blue collar jobs and was surely a nail in the coffin of the blue collar worker. I realize that the adaptation of containerized shipping is but one part of a complex situation, however it is an important part. And we should all realize that all change brings displacement and opportunity.
Edited by Rev. blackmouth (12/06/13 10:07 PM) Edit Reason: I had a misplaced reference in the original post
_________________________
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill
"So it goes." Kurt Vonnegut jr.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#873890 - 12/06/13 08:29 PM
Re: Wealth distribution
[Re: blackmouth]
|
WINNER
Registered: 01/11/03
Posts: 10363
Loc: Olypen
|
And further, the reconstruction of the Panama Canal with assuredly damage the trucking industry, of which Washington plays (perhaps in the near future the term will change to "played") a huge part of import movement. Boeing leaves, Shipping leaves, and our main industry becomes what? Microsoft? and?
This damn fool State is about to go "government only" jobs, and the shoe-shiners for those jobs.
Good Luck.
_________________________
Agendas kill truth. If it's a crop, plant it.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#873911 - 12/06/13 09:45 PM
Re: Wealth distribution
[Re: ParaLeaks]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13615
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#874026 - 12/07/13 05:02 PM
Re: Wealth distribution
[Re: Salmo g.]
|
Repeat Spawner
Registered: 03/05/00
Posts: 1083
|
Not as good as the rat chasing cat vid.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#874028 - 12/07/13 05:35 PM
Re: Wealth distribution
[Re: ]
|
WINNER
Registered: 01/11/03
Posts: 10363
Loc: Olypen
|
The irony of this whole thing is.....take away the rich's money and give it to the poor....it's thievery, but do it. Guess who will regain the wealth?..........That's right.....same o, same o. And meanwhile the poor will regain their status as well because they don't know and/or don't have the ambition to learn how to make significant amounts of money.
Another case of "poor me".
Instead, maybe try doing it the old fashioned way........EARN IT!
(stolen slogan.....but appropriate)
_________________________
Agendas kill truth. If it's a crop, plant it.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#874126 - 12/08/13 01:04 PM
Re: Wealth distribution
[Re: ParaLeaks]
|
Juvenile at Sea
Registered: 03/03/07
Posts: 171
Loc: Seattle
|
The redistribution of wealth has recently taken another step. Our congress recently repealed many of the safeguards that were put in place after the economic meltdown. At that time laws were passed that forbid the government from bailing out TOO-BIG-TO-FAIL financial institutions that invested in risky derivative investments. ( Like many, I have no clue as to how these work). Now after considerable lobbying by these institutions, these laws have been repealed. So how long until the taxpayer is once again asked to line the pockets of the 1%? --JP
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#874384 - 12/09/13 03:17 PM
Re: Wealth distribution
[Re: ]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/05/04
Posts: 2572
Loc: right place/wrong time
|
That was quotable.
_________________________
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill
"So it goes." Kurt Vonnegut jr.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#874461 - 12/09/13 07:42 PM
Re: Wealth distribution
[Re: blackmouth]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13615
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
1 registered (1 invisible),
513
Guests and
3
Spiders online. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
11505 Members
17 Forums
73018 Topics
826028 Posts
Max Online: 3937 @ 07/19/24 03:28 AM
|
|
|