Video on Wealth Distribution.

[RSparky]

I already knew this. And I'm no socialist. I know this is the goal of capitalism. But I just don't know what I think should be done for those who are trying so hard, and simply not able to provide food on the table. My mom was way over on the left side. It wasn't always a good dinner, but she kept something on the table. And I cried with her more nights than I could count over her finances.

VIDEO

Thoughts?

[ScubaCinci]

They are already taking from the wealthy and giving it to the poor. It's called welfare. The top 20% of the country is paying 95% of the taxes which gets handed to you know who.

Frankly, I'm tired of paying 40% (or more) of my income so they can hand out Obama phones and the like to the lazy fvcks who do nothing but stand with their hands out waiting for "their share". Granted, there's a segment of the population that has very little and works their ass of to try to make ends meet. Unfortunately, those folks that need the help are usually too proud to ask for it or accept it.

I grew up poor (my dad grew up in a house with dirt floors) and I worked hard to reach where I'm at despite some poor choices early in life. I sacrificed for many years which is something this latest generation seems to have no concept of which isn't surprising given the example set by our government.

Do I think the wealth distribution is inequitable? Yep. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor isn't the solution as evidenced by the trend shown in the video.

Edited March 5, 2013 by ScubaCinci

[Bubba]

Nice post. And kudos to your Mom and your family for working thru hard times. Something is definitely wrong with "the system" but not any easy answers as to how to fix it. Pretty sure that neither socialism nor our modern version of capitalism are the answer, tho. I worked for nearly 40 years for a large "Blue Chip-Fortune 500" company and made what is considered a middle-class 5-figure salary. I'm pretty OK with where I was and where I am now, and am grateful for many things. Yet my total pot of accumulated wealth over the entire 40 years is WAY LESS than what Joe Flacco just signed for as pay for one game! And he ain't even part of the 1% rich in the overall picture. (And please, let's not get into a semantic discussion of the relative worth/merit of being an elite athlete, OK...I was simply using a topical comparison.)

I was always a "blue bird of happiness on your shoulder" kind of guy, but I admit that I'm afraid of what may happen just 5-10 years in the future, and even more fearful for my kids and grandkids future. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer, 'cause when the SHTF sometime down the road, it ain't gonna be pretty.

[bigd]

How American Income Inequality Hit Levels Not Seen Since The Depression

Cool video, I always find it interesting the parallel's between now and the times just prior to the depression. Kind of freaks me out a little if I have to say so - especially having little ones I need to provide for.

[baptizo]

I got a pop-up about Congress challenging the NRA - Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

I lost interest after that and IDGAF.

[twowheelsnake]

They are already taking from the wealthy and giving it to the poor. It's called welfare. The top 20% of the country is paying 95% of the taxes which gets handed to you know who.

Frankly, I'm tired of paying 40% (or more) of my income so they can hand out Obama phones and the like to the lazy fvcks who do nothing but stand with their hands out waiting for "their share". Granted, there's a segment of the population that has very little and works their ass of to try to make ends meet. Unfortunately, those folks that need the help are usually too proud to ask for it or accept it.

I grew up poor (my dad grew up in a house with dirt floors) and I worked hard to reach where I'm at despite some poor choices early in life. I sacrificed for many years which is something this latest generation seems to have no concept of which isn't surprising given the example set by our government.

Do I think the wealth distribution is inequitable? Yep. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor isn't the solution as evidenced by the trend shown in the video.

What the fuck are you smoking? Get you mouth off Fox News teet and look the fuck around. The rich don't pay for shit! WE do! And you want a real eye opener? Look up corporate welfare. The money that goes to that eclipses ANY money that goes to social programs. I don't agree with either end of it but Jesus man you can't seriously believe the shit you're spewing.

[ScubaCinci]

Show me my error? No one said anything about corporations.

For the record, I don't watch Fox News.

[twowheelsnake]

Show me my error? No one said anything about corporations.

For the record, I don't watch Fox News.

You did! You said the top 20% pay most of the taxes. That couldn't be further from the truth! That would be us that pay it. Regular guys that go to work every day while the wealthy get all the kickbacks and write-offs. This should help you understand what corporate welfare means

http://www.ehow.com/info_7769432_corporate-welfare.html

[robdot]

First,when clinton left office the budget was running surpluses. The first thing clinton did when he took office was to raise taxes, on rich people. interest, dividends, capital gains, estates. Every republican voted against this act. Every one. (The Deficit Reduction Act of 1993. ) Clinton balanced the budget his last 3 years. he created more jobs than any president in history. Yet they called him a socialist. and they called his tax plan "class warfare". They said it would destroy jobs abd ruin the economy. Boy were they wrong.

Rich people dont get wages. they get "dividends" ,or "capitol gains".which are taxed at much lower rates. They also dont pay payrolls taxes. The ceo of wal mart makes over 18 million a year. But thats not "wages". Wal mart will pay out about 1.5 BILLION dollars in dividends. Mostly to themselves. The first thing bush and the republicans did was to try to ELIMINATE taxes on dividends.. In the end they cut some entirely, and lowered capitol gains and dividends taxes by around 60%.

The 'bush tax cuts" drastically reduced the taxes on capital gains, interest, dividends, and estates. the top 4 rates were all reduced to 15%. So, people who make wages are in fact taxed at much higher rates than those who get paid in dividends and capital gains.or interest.

[Strictly Street]

So we devolve into a class warfare scenario.

The man behind the curtain just laughs and laughs!

First,when clinton left office the budget was running surpluses. The first thing clinton did when he took office was to raise taxes, on rich people. interest, dividends, capital gains, estates. Every republican voted against this act. Every one. (The Deficit Reduction Act of 1993. ) Clinton balanced the budget his last 3 years. he created more jobs than any president in history. Yet they called him a socialist. and they called his tax plan "class warfare". They said it would destroy jobs abd ruin the economy. Boy were they wrong.

Wrong!

Newt Gingrich balanced the budget with his "Contract with America" as speaker of the House Majority, Congress rammed it down his (Clinton's) throat with a republican majority in the 104th congress.

Clinton could not have balanced the budget, he didn't write it, Congress does.

Clearly you didn't pay much attention to what was going on and prefer to speak on Democratic talking points of failed arguments.

Yawn, your lack of information is made up for by your eagerness to show it.

he created more jobs than any president in history

I give you Reagan, 97 months of economic growth and he did it by lowering taxes not increasing the government payroll.

Again, YAWN.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Strictly Street

[ReconRat]

Data from 2009:

• Top 1% (income above $343,927) paid 36.73%
  
• Top 5% (income above $154,643) paid 58.66%
  
• Top 10% (income above $112,124) paid 70.47%
  
• Top 25% (income above $66,193) paid 87.30%
  
• Top 50% (income above $32,396) paid 97.75%
  
• Bottom 50% (income below $32,396) paid 2.25%
  

Source IRS via National Taxpayers Union

why would anyone think that those that earn more don't pay more

answer: only the greedy

edit: yes, the upper half supports the bottom half.

Edited March 5, 2013 by ReconRat

[jblosser]

nvm.

[ScubaCinci]

You did! You said the top 20% pay most of the taxes. That couldn't be further from the truth! That would be us that pay it. Regular guys that go to work every day while the wealthy get all the kickbacks and write-offs. This should help you understand what corporate welfare means

http://www.ehow.com/info_7769432_corporate-welfare.html

Wealthy people != corporations. That's a whole different discussion.

[robdot]

The largest users of welfare in the country are wal mart employees. Wal mart simply uses welfare to provide food and healthcare to its employees. But welfare uses very little of our taxes and its not true or fair in any sense to say anyone wants to tax rich people so they can give it to the poor. Welfare is not responsible for the federal deficit. Its also important to remember welfare is children, who not fault of their own have no health insurance. Medicare for all would fix that, but republicans are against that too.

[twowheelsnake]

Data from 2009:

• Top 1% (income above $343,927) paid 36.73%
  
• Top 5% (income above $154,643) paid 58.66%
  
• Top 10% (income above $112,124) paid 70.47%
  
• Top 25% (income above $66,193) paid 87.30%
  
• Top 50% (income above $32,396) paid 97.75%
  
• Bottom 50% (income below $32,396) paid 2.25%
  

Source IRS via National Taxpayers Union

why would anyone think that those that earn more don't pay more

answer: only the greedy

edit: yes, the upper half supports the bottom half.

Nope! And I can use google too!

http://www.salon.com/2012/08/28/who_really_pays_taxes/

[twowheelsnake]

The middle class gets hit hard' date=' but we don't pay what they'd like you to think we pay. However, "eat the rich" is not an intelligent solution. It's tired and boring, honestly.[/quote']

Yeah, it kinda is. When there actually were high taxes on the rich we were a prosperous nation. Now look at us after they get all their tax breaks and subsidies all in the name of "job growth".

[ReconRat]

I think Bubba has a point worth thinking about. The bottom half can continue to ask for whatever they want, but unless they increase their tangible income, this house of cards is going to fold up. The result won't be pretty, the bottom half risks having very little or nothing at all.

It's time to wake up.

[robdot]

So we devolve into a class warfare scenario.

The man behind the curtain just laughs and laughs!

Wrong!

Newt Gingrich balanced the budget with his "Contract with America" as speaker of the House Majority, Congress rammed it down his (Clinton's) throat with a republican majority.

Clinton could not have balanced the budget, he didn't write it, Congress does.

Clearly you didn't pay much attention to what was going on and prefer to speak on Democratic talking points of failed arguments.

Yawn, your lack of information is made up for by your eagerness to show it.

I give you Reagan, 97 months of economic growth and he did it by lowering taxes not increasing the government payroll.

Again, YAWN.

Clintons tax bill passed in 1993. Tom foley was speaker then. Newts contract wasnt until 1994. so, your wrong. and once again. every republican voted against it. Clintons economy created 20 million jobs and balanced the budget. reagan tripled the deficit. TRIPLED. Every aspect of the reagan presidency was a disaster. the savings and loans crashed, had to be bailed out. iran/contra. etc. Reagan was senile and bearly knew where he was. he regularly confused real life with movies he had been in. And that how we got star wars. Reagan saw it in one of his movies. star wars is the single greatest boondoggle in history. Everyone told him it wouldnt work. it never worked and not one missile was ever successfully shot down. Those are just facts, and i dont understand your rudeness.

[ReconRat]

Nope! And I can use google too!

http://www.salon.com/2012/08/28/who_really_pays_taxes/

So you're choosing to not believe the IRS? In favor of ... a magazine article? I don't get it.

[robdot]

theres also no such thing as an obamaphone. Both of those phone programs were started by bush and reagan

[twowheelsnake]

So you're choosing to not believe the IRS? In favor of ... a magazine article? I don't get it.

It's not the IRS, do a little research and you'll see the organization that links to isn't the IRS. They are just pulling out IRS data in a manipulation of data to get it to say what they want.

[jblosser]

It's not the IRS, do a little research and you'll see the organization that links to isn't the IRS. They are just pulling out IRS data in a manipulation of data to get it to say what they want.

click the link in post 13.

[ScubaCinci]

theres also no such thing as an obamaphone. Both of those phone programs were started by bush and reagan

Who cares who started it? It's just an example of wasted taxpayer $. Cell phones are a non-essential luxury...one which most of us did fine without for a good part of our lives.

[twowheelsnake]

click the link in post 13.

I did, it's still not the IRS

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/national-taxpayers-union

More rich people trying to convince you that they are actually paying taxes.

[robdot]

So you're choosing to not believe the IRS? In favor of ... a magazine article? I don't get it.

That article merely points out that those statistics, presented in that format, are wildly misleading, and leave out much information. I dont understand those numbers. Does that represent just federal taxes? Because that would make sense. Assuming those numbers are real we can say This. The bottom people dont pay federal taxes because they dont make enough money to qualify, as the video shows. Many couples who work two full time jobs, and have children, dont qualify. But EVERYONE pays payroll taxes, state taxes, local taxes. sales taxes , government fees, gas taxes ,etc, The video just demonstrates that the wealth in america is all moving up.