Anyone who ever wanted real time stock data knows there is no free market.

Free is time delayed.

Having the government redistibute the wealth is not the answer. Why do we want to penalize those that work hard. If a person makes extra money they should be entitled to spend as they see fit.

How about this example. I work hard and make a decent living. I'm conservative. I live in a small house and wlll have it paid off by age 50. I drive reasonable cars and don't waste money. I will save and pay for three kids to go through college. I will continue to save for retirement by spending wisely. Now with your belief because I have more assets then I should give some to the guy who didnt make the right decisions. Look I'm just a small guy but I believe the super wealth have the same right

Understand my belief is not helping people. Myself and my company make annual contributions to churches, hospitals, homeless shelter, mission projects, hospice, etc. We also serve locally in homeless shelter and some go aboard on missions. Those are my personal decisions and the government is not capable and shouldn't make those decisions.

By the way as you drive around this week look at all the hospitals that are named after some wealthy person. How much do you think those hospitals would have received if it had when through the government process

Hey it's America. We all have one vote. I use mine every election.

Brad

"It's just hard to comprehend how people can defend any of it. When so few have so much, cheaply taken in the back alleys, something just isn't right."

A bit of a conundrum, to be sure. Nobody's all right or all wrong. Brad makes some excellent points, as does Travis. Few people want any blame leveled at the class they defend/represent.

But the truth of the matter (my truth, probably someone else's falsehood, that's the way these things seem to work), is that there's plenty of blame for our current lopsided distribution of wealth, including those most hurt by it.

I agree with Brad when he asks why people who have made good decisions should pay for the bad decisions of others. I'm quite sure that each and every one of us sees this every day - from people who can barely afford to get by deciding to have a child they can ill afford, to the people scraping by spending $20-$50 a pop on the lottery, to the people going deeply into debt so they can have a big TV or a nice new car or a big ole house. And I don't believe these folks are some tiny minority. And while they do this, they either don't vote, or they continue to vote for the same people who pass laws to make it even more difficult for them to get out of their situations - while making it easier for big corporations to get out of their bad situations.

And every now and again some politician really overreaches and gets the population engaged and involved. But it's temporary, and it only happens when things are really bad. The population quickly goes back to 'sleep' however, and as an entity, its memory is short. This has played out time and time again.

Unfortunately, the other side of the coin is also true. Many wealthy people/businesses buy the legislation they want - which allows them to operate for the detriment of the many and the benefit of the few. Heck, many of them write the legislation they want, and their subservient congress critters get it passed for them. On both sides of the aisle.

Yup, plenty of blame to go around. You can't just point fingers at the top. The bottom is complicit in their circumstances. And the more people try to deflect any blame from them, the longer this sad situation will continue unabated.

I'm old enough now that I can look back at my cohort and see some that have succeeded or failed with good or bad decisions, and some that have had good or bad luck.

Most of us accept that there should be a safety net for bad luck types. But it gets tricky. Is the guy who gets a little paranoid about his bosses, and leaves his jobs, is he making bad decisions or having bad luck?

"Having the government redistibute the wealth is not the answer. Why do we want to penalize those that work hard. If a person makes extra money they should be entitled to spend as they see fit."

The government has already redistributed wealth - from the middle class to the upper class.

Like Warren Buffet said - there's a class warfare between the middle class and the upper class and my class won.

In Mexico there are a few super wealthy people and a huge mass of poor people. Is that what we want here?

We don't need to punish wealthy people, just make them pay their fair share. There should be a little higher taxes for super wealthy including the estate tax which will over time tend to equalize things a little.

Free education though the university level is another way to equalize things a little. The student should just pay room and board. No $40,000 loan burden.

The university education loan system had been captured by banks that made huge profits. Obama and the Deomocrats eliminated that "corporate welfare". The right wingers lost one small battle.

Now we need to eliminate loans for diploma mills like the University of Phoenix that hard sell young people into $40,000 government guaranteed loans, but the degree, if they get one, isn't worth very much.

"By the way as you drive around this week look at all the hospitals that are named after some wealthy person."

Oregon Health Sciences University was built based on "earmarks" that Senator Hatfield (R) got through congress. There's a nice little monument to him in the lobby.

It's nice how Bill Gates is spending all his wealth. But he's not the problem. He wants to give almost all his wealth away. He doesn't lobby congress for special breaks to preserve his wealth.

The Koch and Walton families on the other hand are doing everything they can to maximize their wealth and perpetuate it indefinitely. That is just un-American.

"Free education though the university level is another way to equalize things a little. The student should just pay room and board. No $40,000 loan burden."

As I understand it, the Nordic countries pay the full ride, but for a smaller share of students. They have trade-school tracks, etc. We think of college maybe too much as personal growth, and not as pragmatic vocational preparation.

"2. Well, I don't know exactly how many hours those guys work, but there still are only 24 hours in a day. I'm not saying the big guys don't necessarily work hard, but I can't see them working "harder." They just generate profit on an exponential level compared to the guy working 16 hours a day at two jobs an can still barely make ends meet"

A lot of people do work harder. Take the case of a radiologist for example. You see some 45 year old guy pulling in over 250k a year, maybe 500k if he is good. You say that he is making too much and should pay even more taxes?

This guy went to school until he was over 30 in all liklihood. He spent anywhere from 13-16 years in school after high school. That is at least 13 years of little to no income and probably a lot of debt. The guy that started working right out of high school was working his 40-50 hours a week for over a decade. The radiologist was in school, and busting his rear for a better outcome down the road.

Same with an economist. These guys did nothing but study while working on their PHD. Now they get nice jobs in banks earning very good money.

Same with lawyers. I know some classmates that logged 90 hours a week out of law school. This is after having little social life so they could make it into a law school. They needed a 4.0 GPA. Then they slaved away for 3 years to get their law degree.

The problem isn't the radiologist, economist, or lawyer. They deserve what they get. Well, maybe not the economist. and maybe not the lawyer... (just kidding)

The problem is the hedge fund manager that bribed the congress to eliminate financial regulations and make millions selling derivatives to unsuspecting marks.

Or the oil company executive that bribed the government to allow them to drill without safeguards to make a few extra bucks.

What Jerry said. It sums up my position perfectly.

As far as the tax issue? Fine. We'll keep taxes where they are, but it won't do a darn bit of good until the loopholes are closed, the corporations pay their taxes, and the tax revenue is actually used to pay for legitimate things, like education, health care, infrastructure... That, as I stated earlier, is the responsibility of both Democrats and Republicans, both of whom are failing at spending tax money the right way.

Who created those loopholes? The super wealthy and large corporations.

Getting rid of unions is a good start. :)


But did you just ignore my chart? I mean why are you attacking the super wealthy. As already shown, they pay more than their share as compared to the other developed countries.

Edited by mpl_35 on 03/29/2011 09:03:11 MDT.

No, I saw the chart. Other countries aren't my concern at the moment. It still comes down to the fact that the super wealthy can absorb the progressive tax like it's nobody's business, and still turn over record profits year after year. We're heading back into the days of the robber barons.

And, as Doug pointed out, I agree that there are some drags on our system that come from the lower class. There are some loopholes on that end of the spectrum that need to be closed as well.

Well nice to not worry about the fact that our wealthy already carry the bulk of the tax burden.

It has alredy been shown that taxing at higher rates will hurt more in the long run. The spending side is where we really have to focus. LIMITED GOVERNMENT!

I thought this was a good abstract of the challenges we face with future employment outcomes. It seems related. This being the internets, I only save a link to the whole paper and "intend" to read it later ;-)

Edited by JohnJ on 03/29/2011 09:24:44 MDT.

Yeah, ignored chart : )

CBO data

http://www.slideshare.net/cbo/trends-in-federal-tax-revenues-and-rates

Since 1999, tax rates on upper decile went from about 28% to 25%. The 1990s were pretty good, maybe we should go back up to 28%.

What that doesn't show is the upper 1% and corporations.

Then the other thing is wealth.

I forget where I got this:


Since Reagan, the wealthiest 1% have gone from about 20% to 35% of the total wealth. They had a bit of a reversal during Clinton administration but have been going back up during Bush Jr.

"In Mexico there are a few super wealthy people and a huge mass of poor people. Is that what we want here?"

You really want to compare the Mexican social classes to the US social classes.

"We don't need to punish wealthy people, just make them pay their fair share. There should be a little higher taxes for super wealthy including the estate tax which will over time tend to equalize things a little."

The proposed 2012 federal budget projects 2.1 trillion in tax revenue, 3.8 trillion in spending for an annual deficit of 1.7 trillion. This is on top of the current 14 trillion dollar deficit. If nothing is done to entitlement programs the spending is projected to grow from 3.8 billion to 5.8 billion by 2021. So where do we start:

- 5% surtax on all people making more than a million a year. That will raise 42 billion
- Eliminate 12 oil and gas tax breaks (Obama suggestion) that will save 5 billion

Everybody has be saying tax rich more and penalize O&G to solve the problem. Well they represent 2.7% of the short fall this year. Where do we come up with the remaining 1.653 trillion? I guess we could raise another 798 billion if we put a 100% surtax on the millionaires.

My issue with ALL politicians is they don't understand the magnitude of the problem. They just want to blame someone else as opposed to fix the problem. Reps suggested 60 billion dollar cut (which is too small) and the Democratic leadership said that was a "scorched earth" approach. They wanted to trim 6 billion. Seriously. If the democrats are all about serving the people, then why do they continue to throw this debt on the taxpayers back.

I think the American taxpayer has a better handle on the seriousness of the problem and that is why in the last election you saw the results. I think you are going to see more turnover from both parties until somebody steps up and starts taking this seriously. If not you better start figuring out how many yen that new cuben tarp is going to cost you.

"Oregon Health Sciences University was built based on "earmarks" that Senator Hatfield (R) got through congress. There's a nice little monument to him in the lobby. "

Must be different in NC. I can look out my office window and see the massive hospital complex that was largely built by the Cannon Foundation (Cannon Mills family), they also have build most of the libraries in the area, significant contributions to building projects at United Methodist Churches, etc. We also have the Duke Foundation (Duke tobacco, power, real estate, etc) that gives away billions of dollars. The Levine Foundation (Family Dollar stores) built Childrens Hospital in Charlotte, Jeff Gordon Foundation built Childrens hospital in Concord, Cone Foundation (Cone Mills)..... Obviously you don't know much about the world of rich families giving away money. I'm not saying they all do, but to just totally discount the work they do is just silly.

Jerry, I think we agree on a lot more than you think. Our disagreements just get air on this thread.

Brad

Yeah baby. Let's go back to the glory days of the late 1970's. Prime rate of 15% which grew to 20%. Inflation was 11% in 1979. We would all become renters and use public transportation. Couldn't afford to finance anything. The govt debt financing would also become a little pricey. Might need to add another trillion to cover that.

"It has alredy been shown that taxing at higher rates will hurt more in the long run. The spending side is where we really have to focus. LIMITED GOVERNMENT!"

That is just right wing propoganda used to justify cutting social programs.

Computers, integrated circuits, medicine,... All of that was heavily subsidized by government spending including educating masses of people, building highways, building dams,...

Jerry it does show the upper 1%. They are obviously included in the upper quintile.

Your first graph illustrates a large part of the tax problem. Since the late 80s, 60% of the tax base has had declining tax rates.

And the focus shouldn't be on what others have. It should be on yourself. Do you have enough to live on and more importantly do you have the opportunity to improve your conditions?

"That is just right wing propoganda used to justify cutting social programs."

As opposed to the left wing propaganda that wants to ensure we never take responsibility for our actions - it's always somebody else's fault, and everybody has to pay for it.

My take, simplified:

1. Government has gotten too big and too instrusive - the sooner we realize that the better off we'll be.

2. Defense has gotten too big and too inefficient - the sooner we realize that the better off we'll be.

3. Social programs should not replace personal responsibility - the sooner .. yadda yadda yadda.

4. Important regulations have been so gutted as to become useless. TSWRTTBOWB.

5. Number 1, assisted by number 3, is what makes number 4 so easy to do - too many unnecessary regulations, in the guise of protecting us from ourselves, make it too easy to gut the really important ones, since we're seemingly too often not able to discern the difference.

6. Lastly, regulation should protect us from others, not protect us from ourselves. Long live Darwin.