[Saladin]

You guys are taking this way too personally. Why can't people just talk about politics without taking it personally?

[worldwidetraveler]

(10-28-2011 12:17 AM)torontokid Wrote:  

You guys are taking this way too personally. Why can't people just talk about politics without taking it personally?

There are only a minority of people that feel the need to attack others. It just makes them look weak when they need to say things like "bow down to your masters" or call people "boot lickers".

Someone can be against wealth redistribution and it doesn't matter if they are in the 1%. I am pro choice but haven't been pregnant. According to some, in this thread, I shouldn't be able to take a stance on things like that unless I am in that situation. I guess I need to get pregnant so I can be pro choice. It isn't debating any longer but putting others down for different belief systems.

[The_CEO]

(10-28-2011 04:44 AM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(10-28-2011 12:17 AM)torontokid Wrote:  

You guys are taking this way too personally. Why can't people just talk about politics without taking it personally?

Someone can be against wealth redistribution and it doesn't matter if they are in the 1%.

Well you need to be against it more then.

What a lot of people don't seem to grasp in spite of the data being obvious, is that the wealth has already been re-distributed upwards and has been for the last 20 years or so. E.g. Clinton's 2.4 trillion $ surplus, given to the 1% as a tax giveaway.

[PDX]

(10-28-2011 10:47 AM)The_CEO Wrote:  

Well you need to be against it more then.

What a lot of people don't seem to grasp in spite of the data being obvious, is that the wealth has already been re-distributed upwards and has been for the last 20 years or so. E.g. Clinton's 2.4 trillion $ surplus, given to the 1% as a tax giveaway.

Exactly. Wealth redistribution from the poor to the wealthy is seen as healthy capitalism. Wealth redistribution from the wealthy to the poor is seen as socialism.

And the public is so brainwashed they'll argue in favor of the former, and vilify the latter.

[Smitty]

(10-28-2011 11:04 AM)PDX Wrote:  

(10-28-2011 10:47 AM)The_CEO Wrote:  

Well you need to be against it more then.

What a lot of people don't seem to grasp in spite of the data being obvious, is that the wealth has already been re-distributed upwards and has been for the last 20 years or so. E.g. Clinton's 2.4 trillion $ surplus, given to the 1% as a tax giveaway.

Exactly. Wealth redistribution from the poor to the wealthy is seen as healthy capitalism. Wealth redistribution from the wealthy to the poor is seen as socialism.

And the public is so brainwashed they'll argue in favor of the former, and vilify the latter.

How is it redistribution from the poor to the wealthy?
If tax rates on the wealthy are lowered, then you are taking less of what they earn. That less revenue means you must stop spending somewhere else to make up the difference. I assume you're saying the poor received fewer entitlements due to the decrease in tax income (i.e. lower tax rates) coming from the wealthy.
So when tax rates are lowered, the wealthy keep more of what they earn and the poor receive less of what they have not earned.

I fail to see how is it transferring wealth from the poor to the rich?
Why is it that the rich have to pay more than they already do? Why not just keep tax rates where they are but cut gov't spending? Defense spending, entitlements, operating budgets for the many, many lazy government workers who are not held accountable for one deliverable and impossible to fire for poor performance (or anything else, short of criminal activity). It's all a drain on the economy. Why should taxpayers keep funding this unproductive activity?

[The_CEO]

(10-28-2011 12:41 PM)Smitty Wrote:  

(10-28-2011 11:04 AM)PDX Wrote:  

(10-28-2011 10:47 AM)The_CEO Wrote:  

Well you need to be against it more then.

What a lot of people don't seem to grasp in spite of the data being obvious, is that the wealth has already been re-distributed upwards and has been for the last 20 years or so. E.g. Clinton's 2.4 trillion $ surplus, given to the 1% as a tax giveaway.

Exactly. Wealth redistribution from the poor to the wealthy is seen as healthy capitalism. Wealth redistribution from the wealthy to the poor is seen as socialism.

And the public is so brainwashed they'll argue in favor of the former, and vilify the latter.

So when tax rates are lowered, the wealthy keep more of what they earn and the poor receive less of what they have not earned.

Try facts some time.

"If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.

To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation."
Warren Buffet

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinio...-rich.html

[PDX]

(10-28-2011 12:41 PM)Smitty Wrote:  

(10-28-2011 11:04 AM)PDX Wrote:  

(10-28-2011 10:47 AM)The_CEO Wrote:  

Well you need to be against it more then.

What a lot of people don't seem to grasp in spite of the data being obvious, is that the wealth has already been re-distributed upwards and has been for the last 20 years or so. E.g. Clinton's 2.4 trillion $ surplus, given to the 1% as a tax giveaway.

Exactly. Wealth redistribution from the poor to the wealthy is seen as healthy capitalism. Wealth redistribution from the wealthy to the poor is seen as socialism.

And the public is so brainwashed they'll argue in favor of the former, and vilify the latter.

How is it redistribution from the poor to the wealthy?
If tax rates on the wealthy are lowered, then you are taking less of what they earn. That less revenue means you must stop spending somewhere else to make up the difference. I assume you're saying the poor received fewer entitlements due to the decrease in tax income (i.e. lower tax rates) coming from the wealthy.
So when tax rates are lowered, the wealthy keep more of what they earn and the poor receive less of what they have not earned.

I fail to see how is it transferring wealth from the poor to the rich?
Why is it that the rich have to pay more than they already do? Why not just keep tax rates where they are but cut gov't spending? Defense spending, entitlements, operating budgets for the many, many lazy government workers who are not held accountable for one deliverable and impossible to fire for poor performance (or anything else, short of criminal activity). It's all a drain on the economy. Why should taxpayers keep funding this unproductive activity?

Is this not indicative of wealth re-distribution from the middle and lower classes to the wealthiest, since well, Reagan (shocking!) was in office?

Or do you interpret it otherwise?

[Smitty]

PDX, I do not view that as wealth redistribution -- it is lopsided growth.
It would be redistribution if we had a fixed number of "dollars" and transferred it from one class to another. That is not the case because over the years our nation has increased the dollar supply (and wealth) but the upper 1%, according to your chart, has been growing bigger, faster. That is not a redistribution of wealth from poor to rich, it is lopsided growth.

So, bottom line is yes, I do interpret it otherwise.

[The_CEO]

(10-28-2011 01:49 PM)Smitty Wrote:  

PDX, I do not view that as wealth redistribution
So, bottom line is yes, I do interpret it otherwise.

You can "view" or "interpret" the color of the sky however you want as well. But guess what, it's still blue.

[PDX]

(10-28-2011 01:49 PM)Smitty Wrote:  

PDX, I do not view that as wealth redistribution -- it is lopsided growth.

So how do you account for the lopsided growth since 1980?

[Smitty]

(10-28-2011 01:43 PM)The_CEO Wrote:  

(10-28-2011 12:41 PM)Smitty Wrote:  

(10-28-2011 11:04 AM)PDX Wrote:  

(10-28-2011 10:47 AM)The_CEO Wrote:  

Well you need to be against it more then.

What a lot of people don't seem to grasp in spite of the data being obvious, is that the wealth has already been re-distributed upwards and has been for the last 20 years or so. E.g. Clinton's 2.4 trillion $ surplus, given to the 1% as a tax giveaway.

Exactly. Wealth redistribution from the poor to the wealthy is seen as healthy capitalism. Wealth redistribution from the wealthy to the poor is seen as socialism.

And the public is so brainwashed they'll argue in favor of the former, and vilify the latter.

So when tax rates are lowered, the wealthy keep more of what they earn and the poor receive less of what they have not earned.

Try facts some time.

"If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.

To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation."
Warren Buffet

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinio...-rich.html

You tell me to try facts and then quote Buffet giving his opinion based on his experiences? Come on now.
If you want to call bullshit on facts, then show me where we ever had a $2.4 trillion surplus under Clinton. Never happened. Let alone being "given away" to the rich.

[Smitty]

(10-28-2011 01:58 PM)PDX Wrote:  

(10-28-2011 01:49 PM)Smitty Wrote:  

PDX, I do not view that as wealth redistribution -- it is lopsided growth.

So how do you account for the lopsided growth since 1980?

I don't. We were talking about wealth redistribution. Entirely different topic. I don't argue against the fact that we've had lopsided growth.

[PDX]

(10-28-2011 02:09 PM)Smitty Wrote:  

(10-28-2011 01:58 PM)PDX Wrote:  

(10-28-2011 01:49 PM)Smitty Wrote:  

PDX, I do not view that as wealth redistribution -- it is lopsided growth.

So how do you account for the lopsided growth since 1980?

I don't. We were talking about wealth redistribution. Entirely different topic. I don't argue against the fact that we've had lopsided growth.

I'm not asking for an argument against the fact of lopsided growth, I just want to know how you account for it.

It will clarify your position in this conversation.

[The_CEO]

(10-28-2011 02:07 PM)Smitty Wrote:  

(10-28-2011 01:43 PM)The_CEO Wrote:  

(10-28-2011 12:41 PM)Smitty Wrote:  

(10-28-2011 11:04 AM)PDX Wrote:  

(10-28-2011 10:47 AM)The_CEO Wrote:  

Well you need to be against it more then.

What a lot of people don't seem to grasp in spite of the data being obvious, is that the wealth has already been re-distributed upwards and has been for the last 20 years or so. E.g. Clinton's 2.4 trillion $ surplus, given to the 1% as a tax giveaway.

Exactly. Wealth redistribution from the poor to the wealthy is seen as healthy capitalism. Wealth redistribution from the wealthy to the poor is seen as socialism.

And the public is so brainwashed they'll argue in favor of the former, and vilify the latter.

So when tax rates are lowered, the wealthy keep more of what they earn and the poor receive less of what they have not earned.

Try facts some time.

"If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.

To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation."
Warren Buffet

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinio...-rich.html

You tell me to try facts and then quote Buffet giving his opinion based on his experiences? Come on now.
If you want to call bullshit on facts, then show me where we ever had a $2.4 trillion surplus under Clinton. Never happened. Let alone being "given away" to the rich.

Nice...
Please say hello to your pet unicorn for me.

[Smitty]

(10-28-2011 01:53 PM)The_CEO Wrote:  

(10-28-2011 01:49 PM)Smitty Wrote:  

PDX, I do not view that as wealth redistribution
So, bottom line is yes, I do interpret it otherwise.

You can "view" or "interpret" the color of the sky however you want as well. But guess what, it's still blue.

The prove me wrong in my comment to PDX about his chart and his comment regarding that chart.
Or you can just type cute little comments that make absolutely no sense.

[Smitty]

(10-28-2011 02:13 PM)The_CEO Wrote:  

Nice...
Please say hello to your pet unicorn for me.

Exactly what i expect from you. I'll back out of this thread now...here to talk about chasing pussy more than I am to enter a friendly debate and get these ridiculous responses.

[The_CEO]

(10-28-2011 02:16 PM)Smitty Wrote:  

(10-28-2011 01:53 PM)The_CEO Wrote:  

(10-28-2011 01:49 PM)Smitty Wrote:  

PDX, I do not view that as wealth redistribution
So, bottom line is yes, I do interpret it otherwise.

You can "view" or "interpret" the color of the sky however you want as well. But guess what, it's still blue.

Or you can just type cute little comments that make absolutely no sense.

Such as that there was never a surplus?
What's the point when you just make up whatever you want to believe.

[worldwidetraveler]

(10-28-2011 01:58 PM)PDX Wrote:  

(10-28-2011 01:49 PM)Smitty Wrote:  

PDX, I do not view that as wealth redistribution -- it is lopsided growth.

So how do you account for the lopsided growth since 1980?

Technology and the internet would have added greatly to that lopsided growth.

We are able to reach global markets easier now than ever before. Look at companies like Amazon, Google and Facebook. The shear amount of user data those companies have is mind blowing.

[Aliblahba]

[joehoya]

I am going to go back to the original question: Why would members of the 99% argue on behalf of the 1%?

The answer is so simple that I am surprised no-one has mentioned it yet (unless I missed it in an earlier post):

The real reason why some members of the 99% argue on behalf of (and even fight for) the top 1% so vigorously is that many BELIEVE OR HOPE that they will be in the 1% one day too. Hell, I believe that I will one day be in the 1%. I bet if you did a poll, a lot of other members of this forum believe the same about themselves. Of course, the VAST majority of folks who believe this will never actually get it (it is 1%, after all). But that doesn't stop people from hoping and believing.

It's the American dream to be rich, and one of the most powerful things that American Culture has been able to perpetuate amongst its citizens is that ONE DAY they might become rich if they work hard enough. The power of this belief cannot be underestimated. If you believe that you will be in the 1% one day, why would you vote to increase their taxes? That is like voting for a tax increase on yourself in the future.

Another (perhaps even more powerful) aspect of this belief in future success is the implication if you do support the tax increase. For many of the 99% who back the 1%, supporting a tax increase on them is basically admitting that they will NEVER be wealthy (or else why would you support a tax on yourself?). Since wealth is often seen as the primary symbol of success in life, one could extrapolate that such support of a tax on the wealthy is not only an admission that you will never be wealthy. It is an admission that you have FAILED in life. All of those hopes and dreams about a big mansion and a gorgeous car are shattered. The crap you have now is as good as it will get for the rest of your life.

Now, do I believe that your life is a failure if you are not in the top 1%? Of course not. But I am willing to bet that a lot of folks have that subconscious belief system in the back of their heads.