Are You One of the 85?
#1
Last I checked, I have $47.15 in savings.
Since the car is running good, I have a 20# sack of beans put away, and my shoes are in good shape I was feeing mighty secure.

Then I read this:http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-20/the-worlds-85-richest-now-worth-as-much-as-3-dot-5-billion-poorest

Says that 85 PEOPLE have as MUCH AS HALF THE GLOBE'S POPULATION.

Now I'm not felling all that flush.

I've always thought of myself as supporting capitalism (compared to all the other systems) but holy cow, this looks like it's run amuck.

Somethin' has gotta change.

You can bet Ponder with explain it.
Reply
#2
Liberals think we should be equal at the finish line. Conservatives think we should be equal at the starting line. So who's fault is it that your bank account is all but empty, yours or the system?
Reply
#3
(01-21-2014, 09:27 AM)Wonky Wrote: Somethin' has gotta change.

You can bet Ponder with explain it.

Kill 85 people and take all their money comes to mind as at least one possible solution. Smiling
Reply
#4
This is copied from the pdf included with your link. I think the 1% will only deviate from the current plan when it's in their best interest to do so. Even then it will be as little as necessary.

• Almost half of the world’s wealth is now owned by just one percent of the population.2
• The wealth of the one percent richest people in the world amounts to $110 trillion.
That’s 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population.3
• The bottom half of the world’s population owns the same as the richest 85 people in
the world.4
• Seven out of ten people live in countries where economic inequality has increased in
the last 30 years.5
• The richest one percent increased their share of income in 24 out of 26 countries for
which we have data between 1980 and 2012.6
• In the US, the wealthiest one percent captured 95 percent of post-financial crisis
growth since 2009, while the bottom 90 percent became poorer.7

http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org...umm-en.pdf
Reply
#5
(01-21-2014, 09:37 AM)PonderThis Wrote:
(01-21-2014, 09:27 AM)Wonky Wrote: Somethin' has gotta change.

You can bet Ponder with explain it.

Kill 85 people and take all their money comes to mind as at least one possible solution. Smiling

Why am I not shocked that you would suggest this? Sad
Reply
#6
(01-21-2014, 09:46 AM)SFLiberal Wrote:
(01-21-2014, 09:37 AM)PonderThis Wrote:
(01-21-2014, 09:27 AM)Wonky Wrote: Somethin' has gotta change.

You can bet Ponder with explain it.

Kill 85 people and take all their money comes to mind as at least one possible solution. Smiling

Why am I not shocked that you would suggest this? Sad

Lighten up SF. Ponder may be many things, but if you have been even half awake here you know he is non-violent to a fault.

By the way, your earlier comment, "Liberals think we should be equal at the finish line. Conservatives think we should be equal at the starting line. So who's fault is it that your bank account is all but empty, yours or the system?"" says more about you and your rather simplistic view of the world than most volumes could express.
It's an example of our good wisdom that we don't take you seriously. But keep on posting….we need the entertainment.
Reply
#7
(01-21-2014, 09:46 AM)SFLiberal Wrote:
(01-21-2014, 09:37 AM)PonderThis Wrote:
(01-21-2014, 09:27 AM)Wonky Wrote: Somethin' has gotta change.

You can bet Ponder with explain it.

Kill 85 people and take all their money comes to mind as at least one possible solution. Smiling

Why am I not shocked that you would suggest this? Sad

Because you know they most likely gained this money by unfair advantage on the backs of others somehow and they probably deserve it? Smiling

Besides, I only said it was one possible answer. I'm more in favor of scheduling them for tax audits and then taxing them at 90% from here on out.
Reply
#8
(01-21-2014, 09:56 AM)Wonky Wrote:
(01-21-2014, 09:46 AM)SFLiberal Wrote:
(01-21-2014, 09:37 AM)PonderThis Wrote:
(01-21-2014, 09:27 AM)Wonky Wrote: Somethin' has gotta change.

You can bet Ponder with explain it.

Kill 85 people and take all their money comes to mind as at least one possible solution. Smiling

Why am I not shocked that you would suggest this? Sad

Lighten up SF. Ponder may be many things, but if you have been even half awake here you know he is non-violent to a fault.

By the way, your earlier comment, "[i]Liberals think we should be equal at the finish line. Conservatives think we should be equal at the starting line. So who's fault is it that your bank account is all but empty, yours or the system?" says more about you and your rather simplistic view of the world than most volumes could express.
It's an example of our good wisdom that we don't take you seriously. But keep on posting….we need the entertainment.

You're right, I was only toying with him. But it's no lie that when the differences between the haves and the have nots reach a certain point, the people will rise up and rebel, and the results are often not pretty. Historically it's happened every time, and we're either overdue for it here now or else we've placated the masses with enough entitlements they're still happy - I'm not really sure which.
Reply
#9
(01-21-2014, 09:43 AM)Valuesize Wrote: This is copied from the pdf included with your link. I think the 1% will only deviate from the current plan when it's in their best interest to do so. Even then it will be as little as necessary.

• Almost half of the world’s wealth is now owned by just one percent of the population.2
• The wealth of the one percent richest people in the world amounts to $110 trillion.
That’s 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population.3
• The bottom half of the world’s population owns the same as the richest 85 people in
the world.4
• Seven out of ten people live in countries where economic inequality has increased in
the last 30 years.5
• The richest one percent increased their share of income in 24 out of 26 countries for
which we have data between 1980 and 2012.6
• In the US, the wealthiest one percent captured 95 percent of post-financial crisis
growth since 2009, while the bottom 90 percent became poorer.7

http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org...umm-en.pdf

See Ponders post (#8) and hope the streets and not bloody.
we can only hope we have have learned to revolt in ways better than the French when they were advised "let them eat cake".
Reply
#10
One of my favorite fantasies though is to make all that money worthless by just giving everything away, and switching to a benevolent society without money instead. We could make them eat that gold.
Reply
#11
(01-21-2014, 10:13 AM)PonderThis Wrote: One of my favorite fantasies though is to make all that money worthless by just giving everything away, and switching to a benevolent society without money instead. We could make them eat that gold.

I guess you are allowed to dream Comrade. LaughingLaughingLaughingLaughingLaughing
Reply
#12
I suppose I'm supposed to bitter at the way life works? I'm not. I don't see that anyone in this country is suffering just because there are the uber rich.

As a matter of fact I see quite the opposite. I see poor people who do VERY well without making much effort.
Reply
#13
(01-21-2014, 09:35 AM)SFLiberal Wrote: Liberals think we should be equal at the finish line. Conservatives think we should be equal at the starting line. So who's fault is it that your bank account is all but empty, yours or the system?

Conservatives think that what you have at the finish line is most important.

Conservatives think that passing on everything you have at the finish line to your progeny is your absolute right, so they can have it to start their competition.

Conservatives don't give a crap about starting fair. Fair to them just means "I've got mine, you get yours."

Conservatives think it's a competition.



Liberals think that getting everyone to the finish line in good shape is most important.

Liberals think that making sure everyone has at least a certain underlying basic level of equality and that having people who are better able to reach the finish line support those who aren't as able to reach the finish line helps everyone make it to the finish line in decent shape, even if some are still in better shape and some are still in worse shape.

Fair to them means "I've got mine, let me help you to your feet so you're able to go get yours."

Liberals think it's a team effort.
Reply
#14
(01-21-2014, 11:41 AM)csrowan Wrote:
(01-21-2014, 09:35 AM)SFLiberal Wrote: Liberals think we should be equal at the finish line. Conservatives think we should be equal at the starting line. So who's fault is it that your bank account is all but empty, yours or the system?

Conservatives think that what you have at the finish line is most important.

Conservatives think that passing on everything you have at the finish line to your progeny is your absolute right, so they can have it to start their competition.

Conservatives don't give a crap about starting fair. Fair to them just means "I've got mine, you get yours."

Conservatives think it's a competition.



Liberals think that getting everyone to the finish line in good shape is most important.

Liberals think that making sure everyone has at least a certain underlying basic level of equality and that having people who are better able to reach the finish line support those who aren't as able to reach the finish line helps everyone make it to the finish line in decent shape, even if some are still in better shape and some are still in worse shape.

Fair to them means "I've got mine, let me help you to your feet so you're able to go get yours."

Liberals think it's a team effort.

Your stereotyping is hardly objective.

A conservative could make a bunch of claims just as biased and yours and some would be true. like this

Liberals think the lazy should have everything that those who actually work for have.

Liberals can't win the game because they don't have the skills so their solution is to change the rules.
Reply
#15
Well, conservatives certainly don't think we should be equal at the starting line, as SFL claims, otherwise they'd support 100% inheritance tax, welfare for all children, no private schools, equal public education regardless of where you lived and what your parent's income was, and basically complete and total equality until you reached the age of reason and could make your own decisions. That includes keeping your parents from brainwashing you with liberal, conservative, religious, or even godless propeganda.


And liberals certainly don't think we should all be equal at the finish line, as SFL says. That's Christian Communism. We just want those who have gained the most from our society to give back and help support it.
Reply
#16
(01-21-2014, 12:10 PM)csrowan Wrote: Well, conservatives certainly don't think we should be equal at the starting line, as SFL claims, otherwise they'd support 100% inheritance tax, welfare for all children, no private schools, equal public education regardless of where you lived and what your parent's income was, and basically complete and total equality until you reached the age of reason and could make your own decisions. That includes keeping your parents from brainwashing you with liberal, conservative, religious, or even godless propeganda.


And liberals certainly don't think we should all be equal at the finish line, as SFL says. That's Christian Communism. We just want those who have gained the most from our society to give back and help support it.

You mean like maybe those who have gained the most from our society should pay like FOUR times as much taxes? They already do! That's compared to the billionaires secretary in the article.
Never mind the millions who work and get benefits like earned income tax credits who at the end of the year get checks for thousands of dollars , MORE than they paid in taxes.


The Facts On Tax Rates: Who Pays What

The current discussion led by President Obama that[b] top earners are not paying “their fair share” of taxes is not supported by the facts.
His claim could result from an unfortunate reliance on anecdotal information or (as is more likely) a political strategy to gain support for tax increases from an unwitting public and media.
So what is rhetoric and what is fact? The most common way this issue is presented by the president and his supporters is that millionaires and billionaires don’t pay as much in taxes as their secretaries. To quote directly from the recent State of the Union address, “Now you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.” Most Americans should know (but unfortunately do not) that millionaires and billionaires pay a whopping amount in federal taxes and disproportionately much more than their secretaries.
Tax Rates, Tax Revenues And The GDP Harry Jacobson Harry Jacobson Contributor
The Obama Tax Plan: Who's In The Crosshairs? Roberton Williams Roberton Williams Contributor

Let’s look at the numbers. Using data from the Internal Revenue Service in 2009, the top 1% of earners, including individuals with incomes of $343,927 or greater, represented 16.9% of all income and paid 36.7% of all federal taxes. Their average tax rate was 24.01%. The top 0.1% who had incomes of $1,432,890 or greater represented 7.8% of all income and paid 17.11% of all taxes. Their average rate was 24.3%. If we assume that a secretary’s adjusted gross income falls between $32,396 and $66,193 in 2009, the average tax rate for that income group (which represents individuals in the top 25%-50% of all earners) was 5.56%. (The entire group of earners between the top 25%-top 50% earned 20.7% of all income and paid 11.0% of all Federal income taxes.)
If we take a closer look at the top 0.1% of earners, their average adjusted gross income in 2009 was $4.4 million and their average tax bill was $1.07 million. Included in this group were 137,982 tax returns. Their total tax bill was $147.6 billion. Several sources indicate that the average income range for Secretary III’s and Administrative Assistants is between $38,000 and $43,000, and that there are 4.3 million secretaries and administrative assistants in the U.S. (www.bis.gov). Using the average 5.6% tax rate for the tax payors in the top 25%-50% of earners, each secretary on the average pays between $2,128 and $2,408 in taxes.

So what do the facts tell us? First, the average tax payor in the top 0.1% of all earners (the group which includes the vast majority of millionaires and billionaires) pays a tax rate over four (4) times that of an average secretary. Second, the average tax payor in the top 0.1% of all earners pays as much in taxes as 444 secretaries (the income of these top 0.1% earners is about 102 times the income of the average secretary). Third, if one raised the tax rate paid by these 137,982 tax payors to 30% (as is being proposed in the so-called Buffet rule), it would take over 43 years of collecting this additional tax revenue to just equal the Federal budget deficit for one year, 2011. (We have a huge spending problem.)

[/b]







http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012...-pays-what
Reply
#17
And we used to have income tax rates that were much, much higher for those on the tippy top, and our economy was doing fine. And what's with the capital gains tax? Why is it so low?

And what's with these big corporations that we're handing money to who aren't actually paying any taxes to us?
Reply
#18
(01-21-2014, 09:57 AM)PonderThis Wrote:
(01-21-2014, 09:46 AM)SFLiberal Wrote:
(01-21-2014, 09:37 AM)PonderThis Wrote:
(01-21-2014, 09:27 AM)Wonky Wrote: Somethin' has gotta change.

You can bet Ponder with explain it.

Kill 85 people and take all their money comes to mind as at least one possible solution. Smiling

Why am I not shocked that you would suggest this? Sad

Because you know they most likely gained this money by unfair advantage on the backs of others somehow and they probably deserve it? Smiling

Besides, I only said it was one possible answer. I'm more in favor of scheduling them for tax audits and then taxing them at 90% from here on out.

You have to find them first. There's lots of places where 85 people could hide. If you could lure them all to one of those low-lying Pacific Islands, in a few years they'd all drown, due to the rising sea level. The hard part after that would be dealing with their lawyers. This would make a good novel, and I wish Richard Condon were still around to write it.
Reply
#19
A tax free island might serve as some pretty good bait. Maybe the whole island could be supported by giant hydraulic cylinders, and at the right time they all lower. Smiling
Reply
#20
(01-21-2014, 12:21 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(01-21-2014, 12:10 PM)csrowan Wrote: Well, conservatives certainly don't think we should be equal at the starting line, as SFL claims, otherwise they'd support 100% inheritance tax, welfare for all children, no private schools, equal public education regardless of where you lived and what your parent's income was, and basically complete and total equality until you reached the age of reason and could make your own decisions. That includes keeping your parents from brainwashing you with liberal, conservative, religious, or even godless propeganda.


And liberals certainly don't think we should all be equal at the finish line, as SFL says. That's Christian Communism. We just want those who have gained the most from our society to give back and help support it.

You mean like maybe those who have gained the most from our society should pay like FOUR times as much taxes? They already do! That's compared to the billionaires secretary in the article.
Never mind the millions who work and get benefits like earned income tax credits who at the end of the year get checks for thousands of dollars , MORE than they paid in taxes.


The Facts On Tax Rates: Who Pays What

The current discussion led by President Obama that[b] top earners are not paying “their fair share” of taxes is not supported by the facts.
His claim could result from an unfortunate reliance on anecdotal information or (as is more likely) a political strategy to gain support for tax increases from an unwitting public and media.
So what is rhetoric and what is fact? The most common way this issue is presented by the president and his supporters is that millionaires and billionaires don’t pay as much in taxes as their secretaries. To quote directly from the recent State of the Union address, “Now you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.” Most Americans should know (but unfortunately do not) that millionaires and billionaires pay a whopping amount in federal taxes and disproportionately much more than their secretaries.
Tax Rates, Tax Revenues And The GDP Harry Jacobson Harry Jacobson Contributor
The Obama Tax Plan: Who's In The Crosshairs? Roberton Williams Roberton Williams Contributor

Let’s look at the numbers. Using data from the Internal Revenue Service in 2009, the top 1% of earners, including individuals with incomes of $343,927 or greater, represented 16.9% of all income and paid 36.7% of all federal taxes. Their average tax rate was 24.01%. The top 0.1% who had incomes of $1,432,890 or greater represented 7.8% of all income and paid 17.11% of all taxes. Their average rate was 24.3%. If we assume that a secretary’s adjusted gross income falls between $32,396 and $66,193 in 2009, the average tax rate for that income group (which represents individuals in the top 25%-50% of all earners) was 5.56%. (The entire group of earners between the top 25%-top 50% earned 20.7% of all income and paid 11.0% of all Federal income taxes.)
If we take a closer look at the top 0.1% of earners, their average adjusted gross income in 2009 was $4.4 million and their average tax bill was $1.07 million. Included in this group were 137,982 tax returns. Their total tax bill was $147.6 billion. Several sources indicate that the average income range for Secretary III’s and Administrative Assistants is between $38,000 and $43,000, and that there are 4.3 million secretaries and administrative assistants in the U.S. (www.bis.gov). Using the average 5.6% tax rate for the tax payors in the top 25%-50% of earners, each secretary on the average pays between $2,128 and $2,408 in taxes.

So what do the facts tell us? First, the average tax payor in the top 0.1% of all earners (the group which includes the vast majority of millionaires and billionaires) pays a tax rate over four (4) times that of an average secretary. Second, the average tax payor in the top 0.1% of all earners pays as much in taxes as 444 secretaries (the income of these top 0.1% earners is about 102 times the income of the average secretary). Third, if one raised the tax rate paid by these 137,982 tax payors to 30% (as is being proposed in the so-called Buffet rule), it would take over 43 years of collecting this additional tax revenue to just equal the Federal budget deficit for one year, 2011. (We have a huge spending problem.)

[/b]







http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012...-pays-what

So what. They should pay even more. And don't you ever claim to be a liberal on this forum again Mitt.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)