Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > Debt


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 18th, 2010, 04:44 AM   #31
Fayt Storm ON [OFF]
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 15,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
My point is that our divorce rate fuels poverty. And nothing predicts poverty like poverty.

You can't just make more out of thin air.. And you can't legislate it like you are trying to convince us to do.



Besides, arbitrary increases in wage are what spells the end for capitalism. If your market is flat, no business can afford to just give raises, yet our entire mindset is built on getting yearly raises. That unsustainable. Every increase in wage has to be offset by an increase in business revenue. When you figure that reality for every business, you end up with a near inevitable point where things become too expensive. That's why we have the situation now where a family needs two moderate incomes to be barely middle class.



And you have the situation where in a vast majority of the time, when there's a divorce with kids, the parent with the kids often ends up in poverty.

how-to-gauge-your-middle-class-status: Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance

For the 50 percent of families in the middle of the scale, household income ranges from $51,000 to $123,000 for a typical four-person, two-parent family. The median is about $81,000. Those numbers are from 2008, and have probably fallen 5 to 7 percent since then, on account of the recession. Median income for a single-parent, two-child family is about $25,000.




You can't just wish disparities like that away. Nor can you social engineer it away without violating someone's "rights". Even your income distribution plans would be severely taxed to try and rectify that situation.


If your trying to tell me that devoice is bad then, yeah I agree. Putting money back into people pockets and how we do that is where you and me disagree. I think you know my position on how we do that.
Fayt is offline  
Old October 18th, 2010, 05:59 AM   #32
Fayt Storm ON [OFF]
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 15,796
Look you two, right now we live in a country where 30 years ago, of the 35 members of the OECD countries (aka industrialize, developed) if you were a young man or woman going into the labor force in America, you had a higher probability than in any other county in ending your life in a better social class then you started it. Today in America we are one of last four in the developed countries, we are one of the countries where it's lest likely that you can have social mobility. And that's a direct consequence of multi generational wealth grabbing hold of basically all the assets in America because of the Reagan tax cuts. In the late 1970s, the richest 1 percent of the country took in less than 9% of the nation's total income. After that, income concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. By 2007, the riches 1% took in over 23% of total national income.



It's is no mere coincidence that the last time income was this concentrated was in 1928. When the distribution of income gets too far out of whack, the economy needs to be reorganized so that broad middle class has enough buying power and put money aside or gain wealth (both income and saving). The wages of the typical American hardly increased in the three decades leading up to the Crash of 2008, considering inflation. In the 2000s, the actually dropped. According the the Census Bureau, in 2007 a male worker earning the median male wage (that is, smack in the middle, with as many men earning more than he did as earning less) took home just over $45,000. Considering inflation, this was less than the typical male worker earned thirty years before. Middle class family incomes were only slightly higher.



But the American economy was much larger in 2007 than it was thirty years before. If those gains had been divided equally among Americans, the typical person would be more than 60% better off than he actually was by 2007. Most people wonder where did the gains go? As in the years preceding the Great Depression, a growing share went to the top.







Average Income in 2006 up $60,000 for Top 1 Percent of Households, Just $430 for Bottom 90 Percent: Income Concentration at Highest Level Since 1928, New Analysis Shows — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities



Between the two peaks is a long, deep valley. The share of total income going to the riches 1% of Americans peaked in both 1928 and in 2007, at over 23% (I posted best figure I could find above). The same pattern heal for the richest one-tenth of 1% (representing about thirteen thousand households in 2007). Their share of total income also peaked in 1928 and 2007, at over 11%. And the same patter applies for the richest 10%, who in each of these peak year received almost half the total income (over 50%).



After 1928, the share of national income going to the top 1% steadily declined, form more than 23% to 16-17% in the 1930s, and 1960s, finally reaching the valley floor of 8-9% in the 1970s. After this, the share going to the richest 1% percent began to climb again, 10-14% of national income in the 1080s 15-19% in the late 1990s and over 21% in 2005, reaching its next peak of more than 23% in 2007. If you look at the share going to the top 10%, or even the top one tenth of 1% you'll see the same long valley in between the two peaks.
Fayt is offline  
Old October 18th, 2010, 06:48 AM   #33
Your Own Moderator
 
pensacola_niceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Pensacola, FL
Posts: 31,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by garysher
I used to live in Australia, great country and great people.



It's like a combination of Britain and America but without all the stress. No worries mate!
It is a country I would definitely like to visit. Unfortunately, I've been spending most of my time in shitholes as of late.
pensacola_niceman is online now  
Old October 18th, 2010, 08:58 AM   #34
Nomad
 
fxashun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ga
Posts: 23,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by fayt87linegod
If your trying to tell me that devoice is bad then, yeah I agree. Putting money back into people pockets and how we do that is where you and me disagree. I think you know my position on how we do that.
I'm trying to tell you that divorce is bad not only for the two spouses, but also for the kids and the economy as a whole. If your point is "look at how we've dropped in wealth", you can't take such a myopic view of the situation. It's a much larger issue than "everybody needs better jobs and higher income".
fxashun is offline  
Old October 18th, 2010, 09:01 AM   #35
Nomad
 
fxashun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ga
Posts: 23,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by fayt87linegod
Look you two, right now we live in a country where 30 years ago, of the 35 members of the OECD countries (aka industrialize, developed) if you were a young man or woman going into the labor force in America, you had a higher probability than in any other county in ending your life in a better social class then you started it. Today in America we are one of last four in the developed countries, we are one of the countries where it's lest likely that you can have social mobility. And that's a direct consequence of multi generational wealth grabbing hold of basically all the assets in America because of the Reagan tax cuts. In the late 1970s, the richest 1 percent of the country took in less than 9% of the nation's total income. After that, income concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. By 2007, the riches 1% took in over 23% of total national income.



It's is no mere coincidence that the last time income was this concentrated was in 1928. When the distribution of income gets too far out of whack, the economy needs to be reorganized so that broad middle class has enough buying power and put money aside or gain wealth (both income and saving). The wages of the typical American hardly increased in the three decades leading up to the Crash of 2008, considering inflation. In the 2000s, the actually dropped. According the the Census Bureau, in 2007 a male worker earning the median male wage (that is, smack in the middle, with as many men earning more than he did as earning less) took home just over $45,000. Considering inflation, this was less than the typical male worker earned thirty years before. Middle class family incomes were only slightly higher.



But the American economy was much larger in 2007 than it was thirty years before. If those gains had been divided equally among Americans, the typical person would be more than 60% better off than he actually was by 2007. Most people wonder where did the gains go? As in the years preceding the Great Depression, a growing share went to the top.







Average Income in 2006 up $60,000 for Top 1 Percent of Households, Just $430 for Bottom 90 Percent: Income Concentration at Highest Level Since 1928, New Analysis Shows — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities



Between the two peaks is a long, deep valley. The share of total income going to the riches 1% of Americans peaked in both 1928 and in 2007, at over 23% (I posted best figure I could find above). The same pattern heal for the richest one-tenth of 1% (representing about thirteen thousand households in 2007). Their share of total income also peaked in 1928 and 2007, at over 11%. And the same patter applies for the richest 10%, who in each of these peak year received almost half the total income (over 50%).



After 1928, the share of national income going to the top 1% steadily declined, form more than 23% to 16-17% in the 1930s, and 1960s, finally reaching the valley floor of 8-9% in the 1970s. After this, the share going to the richest 1% percent began to climb again, 10-14% of national income in the 1080s 15-19% in the late 1990s and over 21% in 2005, reaching its next peak of more than 23% in 2007. If you look at the share going to the top 10%, or even the top one tenth of 1% you'll see the same long valley in between the two peaks.
How many times are you going to restate your argument about how jealous you are of successful people? Unless it can be proven that every rich person is doing something illegal or nefarious, then they deserve every dolar they earn, and the idea that they should be taxed more simply because they earn more is jealousy.
fxashun is offline  
Old October 18th, 2010, 10:43 AM   #36
Senior Member
 
Zack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by fayt87linegod
The only thing you wrote that made sense is going after corporations that hire illegal immigrants. Ironic that Obama have done more on that issue than the whole eight years of bush lol. Look Zack, conservatism never work.



The best thing to do is raise taxes, fix our trade policies, and increase unionization by passing the Employee Free Choice Act so on and so forth. You and me both know that.
Speak for yourself! Low taxes, less bureaucracy, a total legal workforce, abundant inexpensive energy and a strong dollar with the total absence of unions to falsely shake down employers is the only way businesses will return to the US to do business.







Quote:
Just going after Illegal immigrants won't fix the problem Zack. Remember most average workers income fell about $24 thousand dollars over the eight year of George Bush because if cut taxes. Also unionization in this country is less then 10%. And you also add the millions of millions of well paying jobs going to counties like China and stuff. You add all that Zack... there you go, productivity increase and wages stayed flat. FACT. Common knowledge my friend. To fix the problem simply rewind time. That what makes wealth in a family and for people period lol.
Do you have a link to prove the $24K drop? If that were true almost everyone in Puerto Rico would be working for free now.



Your facts seem very suspect other than union levels which is a good thing, wish they would drop to zero. It seems in your make believe world if only we would raise taxes to 75% on everyone the head of household could work three or four days a week and wallow in benefits that the employer could hardly wait to offer him?
Zack is offline  
Old October 18th, 2010, 11:09 AM   #37
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 730
Quote:
Originally Posted by pensacola_niceman
I knew it! It's those damn bitch ex-wives that are making us all poor. To think that gays are fighting for their right to be in the same boat.


Actually its the PROGRESSIVE Plan of redistribution that is making the US poor, as per the plan of a Global redistribution of wealth. What? Did you really expect the world to be brought up to US levels? The progressives demand that we ship our wealth overseas to 3rd world shitholes to purchase energy when we are sitting on enough natural resources to fuel our economy for the next 200 years...but, our natural resources are placed behind the supposed locked door of GREEN EARTH legislations. Everything the progressives engage has but one end, the redistribution of our WEALTH as the United States represents less than 7% of the Worlds population but consumes over half the world's energy.



Does that fact represent POVERTY? Of course not....the NUMBERS game is nothing but an allusion presented by the Progressives of the world to make it appear that the COLLECTIVE social societies are BETTER OFF than the peoples of the United States. To be enlightened simply look at the actual figures in relation to poverty and the Middle class of this nation. The progressives have consumed (wasted) 16 trillion dollars over the past few decades, with a demand for 10.3 trillion more be spent on WELFARE alone over the next decade, Why? Look at the Poverty Level....over the last two years, from the time the PROGRESSIVES have had a MAJORITY and complete control of this nations central government More of our Middle Class wage earning citizens have been placed unto the rolls of welfare than any other time in US HISTORY as the poverty level has grown from 12.3% to 15% during that time ranging from 06 when the progressives assumed control in congress TO DATE 4 years later.



The facts point in only one direction, the US is being steered by stupidity or DESIGN toward moving our wealth around the world. If anyone wanted the US to be impoverished what would be the plan? Take as many people as you can and place them on WELFARE and stop them from PRODUCING and relegate them into CONSUMING without replacing. Money is not the tool to measure success, WORK and LABOR are the only things that people actually own, as all the money in the world belongs to world governments not to the people. Its simple, STOP the US from WORKING and PRODUCING...and you rob the ACTUAL WEALTH of this nation.



Crunch the numbers in the actual data. At any given time in history the US has a standing rate of poverty represented in its population as ranging from 10 to 15%......why then is it a necessity as the PROGRESSIVES claim to have 47% of the total US POPULATION receiving FEDERAL and STATE assistance in one form or another, of course MEANS TESTED. The numbers do not add up. A 15% poverty level, yet we are expected to believe that almost 1/2 of the population within one of the world's wealthiest nations DEPENDS upon the other 1/2 who actually WORK and EARN to support their livelihood? ENRON was a saint when compared to book keeping such as this.



And the kicker? All this data that was presented is a matter of PUBLIC RECORD and objectively testable by anyone that wants to look at it, not subjective in the least to the spin that comes from the left who want and demand the capitalistic system we now enjoy be replaced by a SOCIAL COLLECTIVE.



What the progressives did not present to you is the fact of these Scandinavian nations having a GREATER LEVEL of CHILD POVERTY than the United States, because their Welfare System cannot handle the open border policies of IMMIGRATION which is adding daily to a system that does not produce as much as the United States, as their policies have produced a standing rate of CHILD POVERTY in these IMMIGRANTS ranging from 38% to over 50%. If this trend continues these nations will REDISTRIBUTE themselves into total bankruptcy. And its already began with the PIIGS of EUROPE (who were mandated to go GREEN in their labor forces) who have been noted as Rioting in the Streets when they were informed BIG BROTHER no longer has the MEANS to support the political promises that were made.



The facts are simple to comprehend. No matter how much PAPER WEALTH you claim, if you do not have a production and labor force standing behind that imagined wealth, INFLATION will make that paper wealth useful only as outhouse paper.



http://ftp.iza.org/dp4232.pdf
Ralph is offline  
Old October 18th, 2010, 03:08 PM   #38
Fayt Storm ON [OFF]
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 15,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
How many times are you going to restate your argument about how jealous you are of successful people? Unless it can be proven that every rich person is doing something illegal or nefarious, then they deserve every dolar they earn, and the idea that they should be taxed more simply because they earn more is jealousy.


Really, is that your argument fxashun? It's not jealousy faxshun that a childish argument and don't make sense at all. That an argument some one would say when they don't know what the hell their talking about. You obviously don't know anything about economics. The most deaf person is the one who refuse to hear.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma5npcaY8]YouTube - White House White Board: CEA Chair Austan Goolsbee Explains the Tax Cut Fight[/ame]
Fayt is offline  
Old October 18th, 2010, 05:28 PM   #39
Nomad
 
fxashun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ga
Posts: 23,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by fayt87linegod
Really, is that your argument fxashun? It's not jealousy faxshun that a childish argument and don't make sense at all. That an argument some one would say when they don't know what the hell their talking about. You obviously don't know anything about economics. The most deaf person is the one who refuse to hear.



YouTube - White House White Board: CEA Chair Austan Goolsbee Explains the Tax Cut Fight
It's not an argument it's an observation. You seem to think there's enough income in the top tier of our economy to just make everything totally honky dory.



Too bad "the rich" isn't a segment of the population worthy of constitutional protection from "hate".



Funny you would be the one claiming someone doesn't know anything about "economics". Cause what you are proposing is less about "economics" and more about "social engineering".
fxashun is offline  
Old October 18th, 2010, 06:39 PM   #40
Senior Member
 
Zack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
It's not an argument it's an observation. You seem to think there's enough income in the top tier of our economy to just make everything totally honky dory.



Too bad "the rich" isn't a segment of the population worthy of constitutional protection from "hate".



Funny you would be the one claiming someone doesn't know anything about "economics". Cause what you are proposing is less about "economics" and more about "social engineering".
Funny the Whitehouse white board video looks like a copy cat of Glenn Becks black board? The terms the guy uses are like "expensive and cost" when referring to tax rates while expensive and costs actually refer to operating government programs.
Zack is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > Debt

Tags
america, dropping, ranking



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why Are Cows Tails Dropping Off? imaginethat Current Events 0 December 2nd, 2012 11:09 PM
Levin open to dropping 'don't ask' from defense bill CNN Current Events 94 November 30th, 2010 08:26 AM
Biden Dropping Out? Rumor Thrives on Internet Cubbie Politicians 9 September 25th, 2008 01:48 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.