What Do You Mean I Can't!

[Renegade]

I don't understand the anger directed at the rich.
Really it isn't that important because it will never change. It is how the economics of the world have always been. 95% of the population are poor and do the dieing, labor, and day to day grind that the 5% rich do not have to do.

I agree with that tax reform is needed and that those who make less pay more and that is not right.

[Cyrien]

Microsoft CEO Bill Gates has more wealth than the bottom 45 percent of American households combined.

My concern with the rich is exactly your statement and the false reasoning behind it. It hasn't always been like that. Sure the wealthy have always controled a greater percentage, but when you get to the really high percentages (like now) bad things tend to happen historically. Ever heard of the great depression? It wasn't a stock market crash that caused it. A leading cause was extreme unequal wealth distribution. Eventually people working can't afford to buy what they make the big wealthy cut back in production to save costs on reduced sells you get into a feed back loop and it crashes around your head. Most of the people with millions break under the strain the poor get poorer and the extreme rich... are mostly unaffected. Then something extreme has to come out to remedy the situation such as WW2. Causing large numbers of paychecks without the ability to spend it all right away and reduced supply until the end when big savings and new production enable purchasing which jump starts the production economy.

Now after the Last Great Depression most nations put in protections to help prevent it from recurring. But nothing is failsafe. Those just make it harder not impossible.

We need to becareful of emerging trends before the situation becomes entirely untenable.

Business Week reports that in 1999 top executives earned 419 times the average wage of a blue-collar worker, up from 326:1 in 1998. In 1980, the ratio was 42:1.

You telling me those exectuvies in 1999 are doing that much more work in comparison to 1980 counterparts? The people burned by Enron and friends would probably disagree.

In 1973, the income of the top 20 percent of American families was 7.5 times that of the bottom 20 percent. By 1996, it was 13 times.

In 1998, weekly wages were 12 percent lower than in 1973 on an inflation-adjusted basis. Productivity rose 33 percent over that period. Had pay kept pace with productivity, the average hourly wage would now be $18.10, rather than $12.77. That translates into a difference in annual pay of $11,000 for a full-time, year-round worker.

Many keep afloat with the credit game. That game doesn't Last forever and in the end you have to pay the piper. Heard of how Fords workers could afford to buy their own cars? Kinda misleading since they could only do it on credit. Few could afford a car on anything but credit. Sound familiar?

Between 1983 and 1995, the bottom 40 percent of households lost 80 percent of their net worth. The middle fifth lost 11 percent. By 1995, 18.5 percent of households had zero or negative net worth (an average -$5,600, down from -$3,000 in 1983).

By 1995, the middle quintile of income-earners had only enough savings to maintain their current standard of living for 1.2 months (i.e., if they lost their jobs). That's down from 3.6 months in 1989.

Household debt as a percentage of personal income rose from 58 percent in 1973 to an estimated 85 percent in 1997.

From 1983-1995 only the top five percent of households saw an increase in their net worth while only the top 20 percent experienced an increase in their income.


It isn't the wealthy being wealthier. I have no problem with those with millions or multi-millions of dollars. It is the people with billions who can afford to buy out whole countries and what they represent as a historical trend that concern me.

I am not in favor of taking from the rich and giving to the poor but I am in favor of a ballanced sustainable economy. I thing which I feel we do not possess today.

I believe in the equal opportunity for every individual to become unequal if they put in the effort and others don't.

At present, 3 billion people live on less than $2 per day while 1.3 billion get by on less than $1 per day. Seventy percent of those living on less than $1 per day are women. With global population expanding 80 million per year, World Bank President James D. Wolfensohn cautions that, unless we address "the challenge of inclusion," 30 years hence we will have 5 billion people living on less than $2 per day.

Two billion people worldwide now suffer from anemia, including 55 million in industrial countries. Given current trends in population growth and prosperity-hoarding, three decades from now we could have a world in which 3.7 billion people are anemic.

The combined net worth of the Forbes 400 was $738 billion on September 1, 1998. That's up from $624 billion in 1997. That's an average one-year increase of $285 million per person. That works out to $780,000 per day or $32,500 per hour ($541 per second).

[Atrocities]

These are frightening statistics to be sure.

The issue now is that most familys cannot aford the expense of today. They must spend more time working, and more of the money they earn is taken out in tax (Thank you Bill Clinton) than before.

Oh sure Bush reduced some tax, but he increased other taxes to compensate so really there was no tax cut.

The effect of parents working more hours directly reflects the growing problem we see in youth crime these days. And society, namely the rich, blame crime on the poor, well no duh...

When your poor, and both parents are both working two jobs each to support the house hold and stay in food, you can bet your sweet arse that the kids are going to be effected. This goes without saying.

The wealth bell curve is no longer a bell curve. It is now only a matter of time before people both here in the US as well as else where, begin to demand changes. However if history is any guide, nothing will ever come of it until someone starts blowing crap up. God help us all when that happens. In the mean time we will just have to endure the rising cost of comodities, the increase in crime, the decrease in free time, and the increased presure of a stagnate and suffocating economy that despite claims, is NOT improving.

Well not improving the job market that is unless you want to flip burgers for $7.13 an hour 80 hours a week.

[Atrocities]

Just for the record, when I worked a lot of OT it was actually counter productive as I paid the additional Tax on my wages. Thanks to Bill Clintons tax increase which taxed wages over your norm at a greater percentage, working OT became far more expensive for people like me to work and we saw far less profit for our work. I made less money in the later part of the 90's than I did in the on set of the 90's, and I worked more and was paid a higher wage. Figure that one out.

(On the plus side, the tax increase did help to improve the deficate and that is a small price to pay. But now all that money and work has gone to pot and I fear what Kerry will do to correct the problem.)

And for the record, this was not pulled out of my butt. I have the tax paper and check stubs to prove it.

[ April 27, 2004, 16:56: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[rextorres]

Actually it sounds like you simply went up to a higher tax bracket or you got hit with the AMT. Unless of course you made over $100,000 then you yes you should blame Clinton for your higher tax.

Anyway as far as taxes/revenues go:

- The government should not run outrageous deficits

it is simply a tax on the future because we and our children will have to pay back what is borrowed plus the interest

- Social Security taxes should not be used to pay for non-social security items.

I don't know why it was OK for Bush to give an income tax cut that went mostly to people making over $200,000 and use the money collected to pay for social security to pay for this tax cut.

[ April 27, 2004, 19:00: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Atrocities]

Yes and no.

Yes working OT will put you into a higher tax bracket at the end of the year but any money earned above your normal wage was taxed at something like 40%. I do not recall sepcifically, but it was a significant amount.

Add that to the higher tax bracket at the end of the year and the incentive for working OT was erased and working OT became a penalty rather than an assest.

[rextorres]

Umm . . . I'm not going to explain why your overtime was taxed at a higher rate.

The important thing, though, is when you sent in your tax return. On line 22 of the 1040 is your total gross income regardless of how you got it. Your tax rate is based on this income minus deductions which is line 39. On the EZ it would be line 4 and 6.

You may have have had money deducted at a higher rate throughout the year but the tax rate on your tax form is what you should be looking at. Not what was deducted from your pay check.

Anyway that's the whole point of filing tax returns. What's deducted from a paycheck is not necessarily what we should be paying in taxes.

[ April 27, 2004, 19:44: Message edited by: rextorres ]