Bush/Obama Tax cuts

Quote from cgrady : Quote from Hawk2007 : I'm all for fighting for you, Mr.(s) Cgrady to keep as much of your paycheck as possible. I'd appreciate it if you would do the same for me. I appreciate the job you do for the SD community. Personally, I wouldn't mind slightly higher taxes if it killed the cuts that mostly helped the top 2% of earners. I don't agree with stiffing the country on a large amount of money to help the rich get richer.

On average the rich were going to get richer anyways. The only difference with the tax cuts is that the poor and middle class had an opportunity to get richer as well.

Quote from paperboy05 : On average the rich were going to get richer anyways. The only difference with the tax cuts is that the poor and middle class had an opportunity to get richer as well.

"The only difference...." compared to what?

The rich have not always gotten richer compared to the middle class. After WWII, the disparity was not nearly as great as it is now.

Much more progessive tax rates and unions did a lot to reduce the disparity of wealth.

Quote from 124nic8 : The rich have not always gotten richer compared to the middle class. After WWII, the disparity was not nearly as great as it is now.

I think one of the problems with comparing wealth simply in terms of dollar amounts is that people greatly overestimate the difference in the quality of life.

Post WWII maybe 2 or 3 people out over every 10 had a car, today there is more than 1 car for every household. Cable, cell phones, refrigerators, dishwashers, and air conditioning are all common goods among the lower classes in America.

Where it use to be the rich moved around in horse and buggy, while the poor walked (often shoeless), today it's simply a comparison of quality and features that seperates a rich person's luxury auto and the lower classes used car.

Quote from Danman114 : I think one of the problems with comparing wealth simply in terms of dollar amounts is that people greatly overestimate the difference in the quality of life. Post WWII maybe 2 or 3 people out over every 10 had a car, today there is more than 1 car for every household. Cable, cell phones, refrigerators, dishwashers, and air conditioning are all common goods among the lower classes in America. Where it use to be the rich moved around in horse and buggy, while the poor walked (often shoeless), today it's simply a comparison of quality and features that seperates a rich person's luxury auto and the lower classes used car.

It is the distribution of wealth/income that IMO is problematic.


Take the median income at any time in our history. Then multiple that by 10. Then calculate what per cent of people have income higher than that value. If that per cent has been increasing in the recent decade or so, it is a sign that the rich is getting richer and the poor is getting poorer.


Here is another: in what top X% is half of the total income consecrated? As that X becomes smaller, we are in a bigger problem, IMO.


Recently I started a thread that said that 6 Waltons have more wealth than 93 million Americans put together. That IMO is sick!


IMO the situation we are in right now is nit sustainable.

Quote from 124nic8 : "The only difference...." compared to what? The rich have not always gotten richer compared to the middle class. After WWII, the disparity was not nearly as great as it is now. Much more progessive tax rates and unions did a lot to reduce the disparity of wealth.

Who really cares about the Gap? The rich and the poor are both better off then ever. Why is the gap widening?If anyone is getting poorer, it's because of inflation and the cost to do business these days. But I would say the poors standard of living is much greater then any point in our history.

"When Western countries in the past were as poor as Third World countries are today, these Western countries nevertheless had one big advantage: There was no large and influential class of the intelligentsia to impede their progress with unsubstantiated theories and counterproductive propaganda." -- Dr. Thomas Sowell
"So many idealistic political movements for a better world have ended in mass-murdering dictatorships. Giving leaders enough power to create 'social justice' is giving them enough power to destroy all justice, all freedom, and all human dignity." -- Thomas Sowell

Quote from TRNT : It is the distribution of wealth/income that IMO is problematic.

So it's not enough that the poor in America have higher living standards than kings in Europe did just 100 years ago, but the fact that the rich today have a few more things available that must be focused upon?

Quote from TRNT : Take the median income at any time in our history. Then multiple that by 10. Then calculate what per cent of people have income higher than that value. If that per cent has been increasing in the recent decade or so, it is a sign that the rich is getting richer and the poor is getting poorer.

How excactly are the poor getting poorer if their living standards are ever increasing?

What would you say is more important?

Quote from TRNT : Here is another: in what top X% is half of the total income consecrated? As that X becomes smaller, we are in a bigger problem, IMO.

Why exactly?

Quote from TRNT : Recently I started a thread that said that 6 Waltons have more wealth than 93 million Americans put together. That IMO is sick!

Even if they got that way by increasing the living standard of 300+ million people? (you don't need to buy from Wal-Mart to reap its benefits)

Quote from sanfran22 : Who really cares about the Gap? The rich and the poor are both better off then ever.

Exactly.

Including during those liberal treasured 1950's 90% tax rate days.

Income disparity is something that flourishes in liberal areas due to liberal policies of taxing the middle class.

See Washington DC, San Francisco metro areas, compared to Houston and Dallas.

Quote from Danman114 : So it's not enough that the poor in America have higher living standards than kings in Europe did just 100 years ago, but the fact that the rich today have a few more things available that must be focused upon? How excactly are the poor getting poorer if their living standards are ever increasing?

Exactly. I guess poor by American standards doesn't quite equate with what most of us think of when we think of poverty. Those of us who have travelled out of our neighborhoods and into countries that have people living in real poverty understand what poverty really is.

Quote from Hurricane : Exactly. I guess poor by American standards doesn't quite equate with what most of us think of when we think of poverty. Those of us who have travelled out of our neighborhoods and into countries that have people living in real poverty understand what poverty really is.

Exxxxxxfukinactly!

The fact that roughly 2/3 of those impoverished in America have cable/satellite TV just goes to show how ridiculous our poverty guidelines are. Why not just keep raising the bar and say that everyone who doesn't own a new BMW or Mercedes is impoverished to help justify taking more and more from those who do make a really good income!

Had this view basically from a hotel I was staying in while travelling. Actually, many a time. This is poverty! Sitting on the couch in front of the TV watching Game of Thrones is not!

And I agree. Who really cares about the income gap? Oh ya, the majority on the bottom who feels entitled to the $$ those on the top made. Nevermind, answered my own question!

Quote from Danman114 : So it's not enough that the poor in America have higher living standards than kings in Europe did just 100 years ago, but the fact that the rich today have a few more things available that must be focused upon?

I was once given this argument: slavery was ok because slaves were having a higher standard of living than their counterparts in Africa.

Quote from Danman114 : How excactly are the poor getting poorer if their living standards are ever increasing? What would you say is more important?

Exactly how I explained it.

And I do not understand your second question above.

Quote from Danman114 : Why exactly?

For one thing income disparity often results in misery. And there is a lot of misery right now. But all else ok, income disparity gives at the very least the impression of unfairness. Here is one way: rich people buy out politicians who would then carry favor for them.

Quote from Danman114 : Even if they got that way by increasing the living standard of 300+ million people? (you don't need to buy from Wal-Mart to reap its benefits)

I am not sure if our standard of living would have been any lower if we had say tripled income tax on those 6 Waltons.

Quote from TRNT : I was once given this argument: slavery was ok because slaves were having a higher standard of living than their counterparts in Africa.

I'm inclined to disagree.

Quote from TRNT : Exactly how I explained it.And I do not understand your second question above.

What is more importan, increasing the standard of living of the poor, or ensuring that the gap between rich and poor remains small in dollar figures?

Quote from TRNT : For one thing income disparity often results in misery. And there is a lot of misery right now. But all else ok, income disparity gives at the very least the impression of unfairness. Here is one way: rich people buy out politicians who would then carry favor for them.

Aside from those who use gov't to enrich themselves, the 'misery' people have right now is aking to the misery one has when they're stuck using dial-up when they prefer high-speed.

Quote from TRNT : I am not sure if our standard of living would have been any lower if we had say tripled income tax on those 6 Waltons.

How do you know? What if Sam said, "F this" after making 3 Wal-Marts in Alabama, realizing he wasn't making enough money to justify the 100 hour work weeks, and gave up?

The billionaires who support these rising taxes on other b/millionaires are just that. BILLIONAIRES. This is like asking any company in the world with an established presense "Should we raise taxes on you and all your smaller competitors." They might not like more taxes, but the smart ones realize that it'll hurt the up and comers a heck of a lot more than the existing wealthy.

My main issue with the notion of a wealth gap is - why is it an issue? What are the suggested remedies? Take from the rich and give to the poor simply to "level" it out? What's the sense in that? What good will it really do for anyone?

This isn't a conservative/liberal thing, it's a - what's the root cause, why does it matter and how will anything that could be done about it address the root cause - kind of thing.

In other words, the gap has grown mostly because rich people make money on their money and poor(er) people generally tend to spend their money. So, one group invests and grows and the other spends and stagnates. Over time this will of course get worse and worse. There IS mobility between the groups, but it doesn't happen overnight and requires lots of hard work and sacrifice.

That said, if your issue is with the presence of a gap, what can be done about it? Take from the rich and (perhaps) give to the poor. OK fine. what will that do to address the root cause of the gap? The rich will do what rich do (or perhaps move because they don't like their money being taken from them) and the poor will continue to do what the poor do, but amplified now that they have more cash. In the end, no one is really better off.

So how does it make sense to make wealth gaps an issue?