Economy explained in less than 3 minutes

Class warfair :thdown
I'm not part of the very rich, one percent, but I would like to be. I'm working as hard as I can to be one. :D
The truth about the economy according to
Robert B. Rieccccccccccccccch
I wonder if he has ever held down an honest job.
 
omg!!! what bs.
rock -c , I know who you have been listening to and Iam proud of you buddy.

P.S. back to boats!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Question for you Tom. Who are you going to sell a house to if the middle class is gone? The top 1% don't need you. They don't pay real estate commissions. All of you who have your small business selling insurance, appliances, cars, or other consumer goods, who are you going to peddle your wares too? You don't do business with the top 1%. If the middle class vanishes, so do you. You are right, it is class warfare. It was started by the rich and they are winning. It will be a plutocracy where we have kings, queens and princes. Our forefathers left Europe to get away from the vary ideology that is taking over America. Capitalism is doomed because the super rich want more. For Capitalism to survive we need a vibrant middle class that supports small local businesses.
 
Robert Reich has always been right on point. With flat wages, there is no way to support a consumption based economy. And, to add to the hardship on every working family, as we reduce public services we erode the infrastructure that sustains our quality of life -- clean parks, clean water, public safety, successful schools, you name it. Whether or not we agree on the answer, it is likely that we all see the same indicators of the problem. California, Michigan, Illinois, and New York may be the first in, but Washington, Florida, Texas, and every other state are on a similar slippery slope. :|
 
If it's all B.S., what exactly did Reich say that isn't true? Please cite your data and sources of data. For example is there a widening gap between the rich and poor or rich and middle class in the U.S. or is that just left wing propaganda (again cite your sources of data)? If a larger fraction of wealth is being concentrated in few people, is this a good thing, bad thing or does it not matter and why?

While I agree that Reich's video is overly simplistic, I haven't seen any reply that has explained what is wrong with what was said and why. What I have seen is some attacking of the messenger (e.g. has he ever worked a day in his life), calls of B.S. and the right wing talking point that government spends too much. We as a country will never improve if our conversations continue to occur with this lack of depth - especially if we continue to allow politicians (on all sides) to do the same.
 
Let me provide evidence as to why my post is 100% accurate. e.g. Let's say I make $50K per yr. Yet, I spend $100K per year, every year. Yet my income remains @ $50K per year.

Now according to certain individuals, under this premise I will "spend" & "borrow" myself into prosperity? :roll: :roll: Riiiiiiiiight.
 
A few points: the top 1% that he refers to as "super rich" are those making $250,000 and up. Those families making $250,000 are super rich? Not in my mind.

That top 1% pay 90% of the taxes in this country. That's not enough?

Currently, 47% of the population is on some type of federal "entitlement" and well over 40% pay no income tax at all.

The inequity is where?

Nick
"Valkyrie"
 
Guess what season it is already! There must be an election coming up. Aren't there political websites for these type of discussions? I was under the impression this was a site for the discussion of boats and our mutual love/hate of the C-Dory line.

Maybe the site manager can open up a new section called "C-Dory politics-Enter at your own risk!" :love :smilep
 
Interesting discussion. Some facts from the IRS for tax year 2008:

"The top 1% of all U. S. income earners (those with income above $380,000) earned 20% of all income but paid 38.02% of all Federal income taxes in 2008, the most recent year with information available. The top 5% of income earners (those with income above $159,000) earned 34.73% of all income and paid 58.72% of all Federal income taxes. The top 50% of income earners (those with income above $33,000) earned 87.25% of all income and paid 97.3% of all Federal income taxes. The bottom 50% of income earners (those with income below $33,000) earned 12.75% of all income but paid only 2.7% of all Federal income taxes."

While it is true that the desparity between the top income earners and the so-called middle class has widended over the years it is not true that the most successful do not pay their share of Federal Income Taxes. Moreover, in my view the investments they make benefits the National economy more than if the Government took it and spent it.

It should be concerning when citizens who make no financial contribution to our overall wellbeing begin to outnumber those who do.

Harper
 
jhwilson":78d668i6 said:
<stuff clipped>

It should be concerning when citizens who make no financial contribution to our overall wellbeing begin to outnumber those who do.

Harper
Click to expand...
If one goes to the IRS data, what you'll find is that the returns in the lower 50% of income range are from those making <$35,000 per year, that the lower 25% are from those making <$15,000 per year and that the lower 17% make <$10,000 per year. Some of these are H.S. and college kids working part time, some are people just barely scraping by. At present, I don't have the data for how many fall into each category but I do know that even a single person will have a hard time living in the Seattle area on a wage in the lower 25% range.

So are you suggesting
1) That those who make very little income don't contribute to our overall well being because they don't pay taxes or much taxes? (tell THAT to say an E2 in the Army) and/or

2) That we should tax all wage earners equally? E.g. should the wage earner making only say $20,000/year be taxed at the same rate as those making much more?

I would suggest the following for consideration or comment:
1) Those making very low wages make a contribution to the well being of the rest of us by doing their jobs, paying rent, sales tax and purchasing items - even if they are not required to pay taxes on their paltry salaries. For example an E2 in the army makes very little and hence will pay a very small percentage of his or her income in taxes. I'd say they are making a contribution to the rest of us. Ditto for the fruit picker who picked the apple I just ate.
2) Rather than suggesting that we should be worried about why such a large percentage of the population is paying very little taxes, maybe we should be worried about why such a large percentage of the population is making so little that they fall into the low tax brackets and/or have very little taxable income after deductions.
 
jhwilson":3w4t4yns said:
It should be concerning when citizens who make no financial contribution to our overall wellbeing begin to outnumber those who do.

Harper
Click to expand...

I agree, but perhaps not for the same reason. As the percentage of wealth of the richest increases, the size of the middle class shrinks, thus an increase in the poor who make little or no financial contribution to our 'well being". As to Margaret Thatcher's fear that we might impoverish the wealthy with a social safety net, that's just not a high priority on my worry list.
I thank God everyday for my union , my pension, my Social Security, my Medicare and my VA benefits . But, I'm 75. Those youngsters who are against all those things may someday find that they get their wish and have nothing. When that day comes I hope they are not too hard on themselves.
 
That we should tax all wage earners equally? E.g. should the wage earner making only say $20,000/year be taxed at the same RATE as those making much more?
Click to expand...

Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! having spent the vast majority of my life earning less then 30k a year and having also been a E1,2,3,and 4( unlike some posters) the answer is yes, yes ,yes
 
Hi Roger,

I do taxes during the tax season and I agree with what you are saying. From my experience I think it goes further. I see taxpayers with incomes well above the 50% level (> $75k) that can also pay zero taxes. From the ones I have done they have large deductions for mortgage interest (>$20k) and more than 4 or 5 dependents. This can easily reduce income by approx. $40k.

I often see people in the $35k to $65k income range pay more taxes than some others with much higher income.

Obviously this is from a very limited sample ( I do about 200 returns) and a specific area. I did read an article that claimed about 40% of tax returns had no taxes paid.

Steve
 
Back
Top