That's like saying we should be trying to figure out why everyone isn't a star forward in the NBA.

The United States became the richest country in the world without an Income Tax or Federal Reserve.

Prices used to be stable and there was hardly any inflation. In fact, prices tended to fall more during the industrial revolution.

Poor people never starved until the depression era, with income tax, federal reserve and progressive FDR policies hurting the economy.

There is no need for wealth distribution, it does more harm than good and hurts the poor people more by limiting job opportunities and prospects. For every tax, law and regulations there is a cost to business and to productive people so they hire less people.

reaching NBA in basketball is similar to becoming a Billionaire in the game of life, while it's not likely we can help people to reach that level, it's quite possible to teach people enough skills so they are able to play some pick up basketball at a local park ... :2 cents:
(which in real life terms would mean they are able to earn enough for them to lead a comfortable life without any government subsidies)

It's called Mobocracy.

51% voting to steal from the other 49%

America used to be a Republic - the founders made it that way for a reason - with separation of powers and senators appointed by the states.

But things are very different now.

You have a party called the Democrats promising free stuff to certain interest groups and whipping up class envy so the moochers will vote for them every time and want to steal more money from the 49% .

it's like the tax debate in the Soviet Republic of California. They just voted for the highest tax in America believing that the rich will pay. People will always vote to raise someone elses taxes. Thatcher once said socialism works until you run out of people to tax. Sooner or later those making 50k will be deemed rich enough for higher taxes because the current high income folk have left the state. Surprise, surprise the rich people like Mickelson are leaving in droves to low tax states like Texas.

What do people need to taught? No one knows to get up, go to work an strive for something more as well as self improvement?

This is what bothers me about today's society. Your response (though more reasonable) like others is predicated on the idea of "it's not your fault" and that's where our economic problems start and end. Success used to be the goal. Now the successful are vilified. They are the enemy. So where do you go from there? No where. You raise taxes until you've drove the economy into the ground an blame the so-called "haves" for causing "have nots" and call it a day. California is a great example of this.

Losers don't want others to be successful. Losers hate success in others because it also shames them. We are creating a nation of selfish, self centered, narcissistic losers who's never going to think "I need to rise up", "I need to do better", "I need to better myself" Those thoughts never enter the narcissistic mind. Only blame does.

people dont like anything thats better than them. be it looks, success, the car they own. it all comes down to those neanderthal instincts, and being neanderthals themselves they cant see past it

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I agree, but I don't know what the solution is... I'm not sure if there is any specific skill or idea that needs to be taught... but we need to strive towards less government subsidies, not more... we need to let people understand that government is not a cow that we can milk, that people need to be self-sufficient... we need to stop vilification of success, and start praising it instead... let people value success, and strive towards it, etc...

how to accomplish that is not clear... but good start is probably to move towards eliminating various subsidies, forcing people to become self sufficient....

I know... it all sounds like a pipe dream, realistically we are fucked, "loser-ness" is so ingrained into our society now, that any politician trying to make any positive change will surely fail...

On a more serious note, Fact: Among all Western democracies, the US now has the lowest level of mobility between social classes. In this country more than any other in the West, where you are born largely predetermines where you die. The American ideal of upward mobility and the reward of hard work is ever more a lie, STATISTCALLY. Recounting myths about "acres of diamonds" in ignorance of actual facts can’t make them any more true.

Anyway, I thought this thread was about fucking France.

source? ..

If you consult google by typing in the keywords "upward mobility in the United States", you will get no less than 1,630,000 sources. Here's one:

http://business.time.com/2012/01/05/...ty-in-the-u-s/

ok, so it may be true, but so what? what's the significance of this? what do you think is causing this low level of mobility? what do you think the solution is?

"Most studies back up the idea that the U.S. has lost the upper hand for upward mobility to Europe and Canada over the last several decades. According to the Times story, 16% of Canadian men raised in the bottom tenth percentile of incomes were still there as adults. In the U.S., 22% remained in the bottom tenth."

the stats you presented sound alarming, but this means that vast majority ( 78%) achieved upward mobility? where is the problem exactly?

the whole statistic seems pointless, cause for every person moving up out of the lowest 10th percentile, someone had to drop down to it, so higher upward mobility implies higher downward mobility...

Lots of reasons: Deindustrialization, the decline of labor unions, globalization, one-way free trade policies, foreign takeovers of corporations, out sourcing of jobs and massive debts, family breakdown, unfettered capitalism/vulture capitalism, etc.

I think it would do well to address those issues before parroting some bullshit about "makers" and "takers", "winners" and "losers", in some kind of twisted attempt to validate your own achievements, like some people do. Not saying any names.

Your logic is correct... which is why it is a fallacy to suggest this should be about taking from one group to give to another group. Someone who inherits millions of dollars is not the same as someone who earns millions of dollars. Someone who is poor because they prefer to get drunk and lay on the couch is not the same as someone who goes bankrupt trying to pay insurmountable medical bills. Over time the people in each group change and the groups should not be defined merely by their present income levels. A very small fraction of the population is wealthy enough that they have no ties to community, country or any governing structure. What the US does will leave someone like Buffet pretty much entirely unaffected. However, for 98+% of the country, how the rest of the country does has a major impact in how you do.

When some poor person without medical coverage gets sick and doesn't get treated, the chance of them infecting other people increases. When a poor person drives a beat up car from 1972 on a snow covered road, the chance of them crashing into you increases. It benefits everyone to allow poor people (who abide by our laws) to live a simple mostly painless life of subsistence. As we need less and less people, the number of people displaced (who are unable to 'earn their keep') will continue to increase. No tax increase or spending cut will change that fact. The central question of the next 50-100 years will be what do we do with them? So far we have been putting plenty of them in prison for nonviolent crimes like marijuana possession and whipsawing many of them by providing credit they never should have had access to and then repossessing whatever they bought.

It's a simple question with no good answer yet. What do we do with the rapidly increasing number of people who are somewhat educated, willing to work, nonviolent but unable to become a useful part of the economy?

use of "loser" / "winner" / "maker" / "taker" was probably a poor word choice, I don't think anyone (except maybe 12clicks :1orglaugh) meant to be offensive or used it to validate their achievements, it was just meant to contrast those that achieve more vs those that achieve less in life... :2 cents:

From my phone so that's why there are typos...

Here is my take based on what I've witnessed in my lifetime. We used to worship success. It was part of being American since the founding of the nation. People came from all over the world to find either some form of freedom or opportunity for success. As we transitioned put of an industrial economy to a more tech based economy Wall St went nuts buying up companies that were weak and dying and breaking them up and selling the pieces. As the nation endured the pain of transition, wall st. (Like tube sites today) gave an entire nation a bad guy to blame and suddenly "success" became synonymous with "greed".

At the same time, we headed down the insane path of political correctness. All of the sudden, you couldn't call a midget a midget, you couldn't call an Asian person "oriental".... In fact, you could do or say anything that might offend anyone. Then taking that further, we started all this bullshit about raisin the self esteem of kids. We started grading on the curve, we started dumbing down schools, we started giving everyone a participation trophy.

So what happened? Now we have a whole he generation of narcissistic fuckwits who think "success" = "greed" and have a very poor concept of hard work, sacrifice, determination and what it means to work 80hrs a week for success. They have a poor sense of personal accountability because they've been brought up to believe they're awesome and deserve a trophy no matter what. The problem is these notions don't easily reconcile with reality. So then the frustration builds and of course, someone needs to be blamed.

You can tell in these discussions who's been successful (mid 6 figure income to 7 or 8) and who hasn't (mid 5 figure and down). You can always tell because those who have never sweat 100hrs a week into something to make it succeed can't understand why that person doesn't just want to hand it over to them. They're angry, frustrated and confused by that fact - left to their final refuge of shame, being forced to label everyone more successful than them as greedy and then compare them to the 1:100,000 occurrences of wholesale corruption.

I agree with you. We're fucked. The problems are not economic, they're cultural and that is not likely to change in our lifetimes. This nation is doomed to a France-like existence in the near future. Marginalized, irrelevant and bitching day in and day out about what's "fair" while enjoying their 30hr work week and two months paid vacation, simultaneously blaming politicians for their ever decreasing productivity and failing economy.

In 1900, it was being discussed if the US or Argentina was going to be the leader in the new world. I don't think we were the richest country at that point. Our greatest strides were in the middle of the century and the wealth distribution was more even. I think you have this exactly backwards if you look up the facts. A thriving middle class is the answer to a strong US.

I just googled "history of U.S. middle class"

When you look at this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class
it appears that there is not even a set DEFINITION of who is in the middle class.

As for "wealth distribution"...I just don't go for that kind of talk. I know it's all the rage in the media and amongst politicians.
But to me...you EARN money. Either you earn a lot, a decent amount, not much, or none at all.

You don't "distribute" it. You earn it.

And the United States is still the land of opportunity. ANYBODY with the drive, intelligence and skills can make it to the top.

And yes...people who are not at the top of their game in intelligence, skill, and drive will NOT make it to the top.

You can keep leading the horses to water...but only a select few have what it takes to actually drink.

I used it as an example to respond to you.

Example of someone I know. Bought a rental house with a second loan on their house. Tax free money to invest. Then through 1031 exchanges etc worked that into 3 million when they cashed out in 2001. This was long term capital gains at 20%. This is the stuff that makes America great, and no one would disagree with that. Also no need to fib about the figures to get agreement.

Again, the money he earned was taxed, he then used his already taxed money to invest in property. When he cashed out, he was taxed at a lower rate on what his previously taxed money earned.
You should spend more time trying to emulate him and less time trying to denegrate him.

The further away from Darwinism we get, the worse of society as a whole gets

I was him.

Sure, jackass.

Brazil had one of the worst distributions in the world. Once they solved that and made it possible to move up in the world, the country boomed. Japan and Korea are examples of this.

A certain percentage will drink but you maybe have not travelled much. There are situations that are pretty hard to climb out of. The % that can is smaller as the mountain is higher. So making it a little harder can still change the opportunity level for some. Subsidized housing and pell grants can make a difference to some people. It is not productive for the rich to pay less then others just so we have role models.

Not sure if we have met but I know we know some of the same people.

I've traveled a bit over the years outside the U.S.

But again...I wasn't talking about other countries. I was talking about the U.S.A. in my reply.

Trying to "redistribute wealth" in the U.S. is a recipe for disaster.

I want to EARN my way.

I don't really care one bit if a handful of people are somehow making billions of dollars. All I care about is what I did today to move myself forward.

The U.S. still has ample opportunity for people from all walks of life to make it.
Problem is for most folks...they squander any and every opportunity when they are young. Then they find themselves middle aged with no options left.

It the U.S. has a problem with upward mobility, it's NOT the fault of the ones who are at the top. It's the society we live in that is teaching them to be slackers.

When I'm hungry for something is when I bust ass and really achieve. That is what's lacking in our society today. And it's getting worse as our politicians hand out more and more govt. aid to everyone.

Here's a fun fact for you.

Henry Ford used to pay his workers $5 a day, that was 1 and a quarter of an ounce of gold, the equivalent of $2500/week.

So Ford's entry level factory workers were making the equivalent of $2500/week, they paid no income taxes and there was no union.

America paid the highest wages in the world but made the best quality, least expensive products.

How is that possible? Because the government was small, there was low taxation and no regulations.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-cont...DP-History.gif

Between 1800 and 1913 an independent America became the richest country in the world and there was a civil war in the middle of that when the Confederacy split which ravaged the country and left a good chunk of working men dead or injured.

No Income tax, no Federal Reserve and no stinking unions.

when i look at someone like bill gates, who could easily give me a million bucks and make my life perfect. i dont think this is some greedy scumbag as a lot of people have. I think, i should have put more effort into making his kind of money. I dont have the passion to do it, so i wont do it and i accept that.

I understand that i may not even have the ability, the genes, the intellectual ability to do what he did. I also look at the impact this guys product has had on society which I would think is worth more money than he actually has.

regular people are just a bunch of cave men, out for their own. if youre not making money, youre not doing whats needed. youre not doing whats good, or wanted by society. its as simple as that. I just dont understand how most people think theyre owed something just for existing

"In order to succeed, your desire for success should be greater than your fear of failure."

Agreed.

True dat.

There is endless opportunity out there. You simply have to want it bad enough, and willing to put your balls on the line to get it. However, that takes some level of drive, ambition, and working every day to get it. Which is something most do not have. The stench of entitlement is everywhere in society now-a-days.

Correct. Some people are just not cut out to be a business owner. There are plenty of examples on GFY daily.

:2 cents:

That is a false narrative propped up by Fox News. I don't know a single person who feels Bill Gates or Steve Jobs were overpaid. I don't know anyone who feels they are 'entitled' to be wealthy. I don't know anyone who expects to be handed a private jet or a luxury box at a football game.

Now let's look at the much more realistic narrative. A kid born to a couple poor parents is likely raised by one or neither of them while they both work full time jobs. He goes to a subpar public school in a poor community and puts up with gang violence and a culture of educational apathy. If he wants to work hard and get a job, there likely are few or none available for him anywhere within his potential commuting distance. If he has the grades to get into college he has no life experience to prepare him for it, no support system to help him through it, no financial cushion and is immediately saddled with more student debt than he can possibly repay. Now he graduates into the worst job market in decades and finds he is unable to get a job that pays more than his basic living expenses cost. His chances of eventually climbing slightly out of that are very small... his chances of climbing far out of that are even smaller. Conversely, there are plenty of people in this country who have never worked a single day in their lives. They are living on trust fund accounts and pay 0 taxes on their income because it is 'invested' in tax free assets or schemes designed to utilize loopholes. 100 Million dollars in US Treasury bonds goes quite a long way... generation after generation.

The idea that all people who are poor are the same or that all people who are wealthy are the same is ridiculous. Hard working rich people and hard working poor people have much more in common with each other than they have in common with the small fraction of people who are idle rich or idle poor. Now, does that mean the hard working poor kid should be given a luxury condo for nothing, or that the wealthy trustfunder should have their luxury condo taken away? No. And I don't know a single person who believes that would make any sense. However, it does mean we ought to provide *basic* subsistence level services for poor people and we should have a minimum tax (the Warren Buffet rule) for people who have been opting out of the tax system for generations already or using loopholes like carried interest to avoid their tax liabilities.

Put simply, not a single person in the United States should be hungry. We subsidize the food industry and they rake in billions of dollars in profits while many people are unable to get access to nutritious food. It would cost virtually zero to make canned vegetables available for free to poor people. Nobody should be saddled with so much student debt that they can't climb out of the hole in a world where most are told without a college degree they don't qualify to be interviewed. Nobody should be without basic healthcare including wellness visits, prenatal care and similarly vital but non-emergent care.

We live in a country that produces much more than it requires. We ought to make the bare minimums free for people who earn no more than that. And we ought to be happy when a wealthy person does something stupendous or when a poor person has a roof over their head. Poor people need wealthy people and contrary to some views, wealthy people need poor people. When that symbiosis is working well the middle class expands, when it is broken the middle class contracts.

Bill Gates should be able to make a Trillion dollars and Larry Elison should continue being able to buy entire Hawaiian islands. Nobody I know is against that and nobody I know thinks they are 'entitled' to anything more than basic subsistence for free. Whether society benefits more from a trustfunder getting another $6,000 handbag with tax free 'investment income' or by feeding a few thousand kids fresh vegetables is more along the lines of what needs to be addressed.

The simple answer is a National Sales Tax. Cut the income tax significantly (down to 10 or 12%) and make it a flat rate on all income earned over $50,000 - paid exactly the same by everyone. Then add a 2-3% sales tax on all purchases with a short list of excluded items (basic food, basic clothing, heating oil, etc etc). It makes much more sense to tax what people buy than what they earn. The tax would also hit those who are in a position to spend, rather than those trying to save. :2 cents:

And??????

Is this person's fingers broken? Can they not read the internet and make money the same as many mainstream and adult webmasters? Not everything online requires you have hundreds or thousands of dollars to get started. Sure, you're going to trade off your hours in free labor for the cash you do not have. But it can be done.

I am sure he can be just as unhappy peddling porn as he would working at McDonalds or working a paper route. The point is, there IS OPPORTUNITY. Many simply see it as "beneath them" or assume because they have government hand outs, they have a "choice" on whether they would like to contribute to their own well being and society.

Right here is where you run off the rails champ. He is getting government hand outs in guaranteed financial aid. At what point does the gravy train end, and it fall on to them as an individual to carry their own weight??

The government is supposed to give them guaranteed financial aid, and the opportunity to better themselves, plus give them a well paying job, pension, health benefits, etc.? All at the compliments of the tax payer? When does YOUR RESPONSIBILITY in life actually kick in?

When I was in college, I was taking 18 credit hours a semester, working at the mall 30 hours/week, as well as station manager at the college radio and all of the responsibilities that came with it, plus holding down two DJ shifts. Which looking back, I have no idea how I managed it all and remained sane, but I had to do it as it was not a choice. No thinking involved. I wanted to make sure I did not have to ever work manual labor, and would have a better opportunity after college.

He can self teach himself design, html, and shit of that nature just like I did when getting started. You have to WANT to learn, and spend the time doing it. Trial and error, refining, and so forth. Again.... at what point does the responsibility to CARRY YOUR OWN WEIGHT start exactly? Once you have your cushy job, pension, health benefits? Or at that point, you will still want some additional hand outs before paying back into the system. It is never ending.

Wrong again toots. However the money was made the FIRST TIME it was taxed. Meaning, if their father made it, or they made it, whatever took place to make the "trust fund" in the first place. The money was taxed at the time of creation. The government shouldn't be able to tax, and tax, and tax some more that same exact money 10 different times just because it was passed down.

As for the tax rate, you said everything over $50,000.00 taxed and it would be everyone paying. Sorry sport.... That is not everyone paying into the system. That is once again only 'some' paying into the system. When I say a flat tax and EVERYONE is paying their FAIR SHARE, that means whether you're at $25,000.00 or 25 million you're taxed at the same 15%.

:disgust

I bought windows 3.1 it didnt work properly
I bought windows 95, 98, XP they didn't work properly

They could have been made better but it would have cost money.

They could have been sold cheaper.

Bill Gates got far too much money for a substandard product and monopoly control of the market.

Additionally all government jobs should be capped at $50,000.00 a year (allowing for cost of living adjustment for New York, L.A., or higher income cities as most major corporations do) if they still want their life time pensions, union, job security, benefits, etc..

The government sector should not be getting lifetime benefits for 20 years of service at some menial civil service job like the post office, secretary of state, or alike when the private sector jobs do not offer this any longer. Working for the government gives you a lot of things that most private sector jobs would LOVE to have, but do not any longer.

I do not see most of these jobs as any more complicated (often times less, with better working conditions) than working on a factory line at Ford, or G.M.. If people are all gung ho about no union, cutting their salaries, healthcare, pensions and taking away benefits in the private sector. They should have no compunction about taking them away from the government workers as well.

:2 cents:

who would be gung ho about that besides those who would profit from it?

its not perfect. but i run bsd server, ran linux many times, and still stick with windows. it works fine. 95, 98, xp, for their time worked fine. FOR THEIR TIME. how many jobs has the guy provided and how many does it still provide. hospitals run on his shit

o but you didnt know how to open mspaint. it sucks! it was like $100 thats bullshit. you paid $100 and made how much doing what ever you do in the industry

The fallacy perpetuated by politicians that the middle class is suffering is laughable.

The main reason we see people willing to tax the rich is that they have had their tax rates lowered for the past 40 years. Then add in the banking fiasco and people are more willing to bun the rich at the stake. I don't see where anyone suggested taxing unrealized capital gains.
The US is piling up huge debts. You can't keep cutting tax rates and spending more. We need to spend less and tax more. There is no other way. Interest payments are lower then they were in 2001 thanks to lower rates and we had a surplus then. Since then we have lowered rates on the rich(Bush temporary cuts) and spending is out of control.

You're deluded. Everyone's tax rates have gone down and 47% pay zero income tax.
The rabble should be kissing the ass of every so called rich person they can find. The rich are overpaying so the poor can live income tax free.

I disagree and apparently so does the current administration. They offered next to nothing in spending cuts. I do hope that Obama and his group are a whole lot smarter than I am. If they aren't the country is in for a serious crash.

I don't see how anyone can think you can continue to spend more than you earn. But again, there might be some secret formula that I am not aware of.

theres no excuse for being taxed as much as we already are being taxed. this comparison between the middle class and the rich means nothing. just look at where the moneys going, its being thrown around by people who havent worked for it. thats easy.

The military needs to be cut to the bone.

Common sense is not so common.

It must be the best kept secret in Washington.

It's easy to spend frivolously when it's not YOUR MONEY in the first place.

People continue to focus 99% of their attention on the expiration of the temporary bush tax cuts and 1% of their attention on where the money is being spent, how it can be spent more efficiently, where it can be cut, and where significant problems in the tax code exist.

The guy working to earn millions of dollars by producing things that benefit society while employing people at a living wage is overtaxed. The guy living off a trust fund with the identical income level or using carried interest to bring his rate down to 12-15% is not being overtaxed. The exact same can be said of working poor people living in destitute conditions as compared to lazy freeloaders. Their income level is not a sufficient data point all on its own to tell you much of anything.

The only solutions to that problem are a flat tax and a national sales tax. Any discussion of 'what the percentage rates should be' is meaningless when so few people pay the actual rate being stated... and even 100% tax on everyone wouldn't be sufficient revenue if spending is left out of the equation.

We ought to be discussing the measures needed to get everyone playing by the same rules, what those rules should be, and how we can provide what is needed in the most cost efficient way possible. Changing a few rates in the tax code fixes nothing, whether you raise them or lower them. It ought to be a 3 page document.

Instead the dialogue is all about suggesting that 'poor people could just become wealthy by working to the limit of their capabilities' - when we all know if they had the capacity to do that, they already would have.

Quick Question...

Anyone here opposed to a National Sales Tax and significantly lower Income Tax rates?

If there is a valid reason against it, I'd like to know...

i kinda sorta agree with what youre proposing, but its based on the idea that the government is competent in managing this money. ideally it makes sense, but it doesnt make sense realistically. the government cant do this, which has been proven to be the case as long as this country has been alive, and is pretty much the reason this country was born. we're now back to our old (failing) ways

Everyone can't become wealthy. The world needs ditch-diggers too.
However, when you travel around the world and see how many/most of the population lives it becomes obvious that US citizens on the bottom of the ladder live significantly better than most everyone on earth.

I am sure I will regret typing this, but even western Europe. The majority of people live stacked up in tiny apartments. They drive tiny cars on tiny roads. They eat good..
But it takes large amounts of cash there to live in homes the middle class here have.

uh huh. everything is black and white, light and dark. there are no in-betweens. if you actually believe that BS, i would have to assume you severely lack friends and don't know many kinds of people outside of your little circle.

The primary difference between yourself and many others here and myself, is that I don't lay blame elsewhere for any failure or mediocrity on my part. My successes and failures are my own. I own them. Most here do not. Their income and loud complaints, and blame reflect that fact.

I understand the language is something you can't relate to.

As the guy said in Rounders "If you can't spot the sucker in your first half-hour at the table, then its you". But its ok, as was pointed out, the world needs ditch diggers, taxi drivers and dog walkers. Not everyone can be an astronaut... although, we live in a nation where everyone at least has the right to try.