New research reveals truth about inequality: When the rich get richer, everyone loses

I'm 47 years old and work for one of the largest ad agencies in the world. I'm doing quite well, thank you. Quit making assumptions. What I do in the future is what I will choose to do, not you.

One more time- not everyone is an entrepreneur. That is reality and always has been. Why do you think everyone should be the same?

 

And what would balance look like to you? How do you achieve this balance? Was there an imbalance when Bill Gate made billions and thousands road the skirt tales of the Microsoft boom to become millionaires? What about those that invested in Amazon, Google, Facebook… ?

Sorry, I’m not seeing any imbalance except for the growing number of people that are choosing to become dependent on the government rather than get out there and get a skill and seize opportunities. If you're waiting for the government to fix this, you are going to be gravely disappointed.

- - - Updated - - -

Then tell me what this "lifting the middle-class" means to you? What does "spread the wealth" mean?

 

We had a pretty good wealth balance during the 50's/60's. And yes, the government was partially responsible.

The tax percentage needs to go back to what it was, keeping more money here in the US, instead of being exported to other countries.

And if you think people aren't out there getting educated, why the hell do you think we have so many young people with college degrees these days? Of course, it costs as much as a luxury car to get it, but they're doing it.

 

We had just come out of a war that brought us out of a depression. When the 50s hit, people were left alone. There were no massive welfare programs that we see today. Social Security was still in its infancy. Government was at a reasonably small size. Then the 50s saw a huge spike in economic growth in the housing and auto sectors (which set the stage for a booming steel market) that changed the dynamics of the economy. People started to prosper. It’s the natural course of capitalism, when government leaves you alone.

I agree too many of our businesses are going overseas; but they’re leaving because of the massive tax burdens the government places on corporations. You should know the US has the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Government sticking their nose into the economy always results in poor economic performance.

But in terms of the wealthy vs. the middle-class vs. the poor what does ‘balance’ look like to you? How do you achieve this balance between the economic classes?

 

Under Barack Obama the top 1% have gotten even richer.

 

On paper, we might have big corporate taxes, but YOU should know that most of those taxes are never paid. Come on, don't be disingenuous. And in the 50's/60's the income tax rate was far different than it is now.

I already told you how we get balance back. Put the income tax rates back where they were in the 50's/60's/70s. But don't take my word for it, check out Business Insider. We have decades of proof that show lower taxes do not equal prosperity, while high taxes do not hurt like the GOP like to claim. If you're truly interested in solving problems, then you should be looking at what works, not what you think conforms to your ideology. But why would I expect that?

http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates-2012-5?op=1

 

Do higher taxes = prosperity?

Maybe lower taxes don't hurt like the Democratic Party likes to claim.

 

Read the article from Business Insider and you tell me.

 

Lifted by sharing in the growth and proserity they've worked to create over the past 30 years, as they did the previous 30 years before the Reagan "trickle down" revolution.

 

From the article:

"Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy..."

What is the comment's assertion?

Since "super high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy";

Therefore "super high tax rates on rich people must help the economy".

Also from article:

"Super-low tax rates on rich people also appear to be correlated with unsustainable sugar highs in the economy--brief, enjoyable booms followed by protracted busts"

An admission that lower tax rates are "correlated" with "brief enjoyable booms"...followed by a protracted bust"

I would suggest the statement to read:

..."lower tax rates are correlated with protracted, enjoyable booms....followed by a brief bust"

Wouldn't it be nice if there was just booms and no busts......."rhetorical"

Do higher taxes = prosperity?

 

Sure looks that way. And we haven't had them for a long time. But we have had low taxes and a crappy economy for decades, haven't we?

- - - Updated - - -

As in, raises that suit the work. If the American worker is more productive, why are the wages not rising for them, but they are for the bigwigs?

 

"But we have had low taxes and a crappy economy for decades, haven't we?"

Agree with the latter...disagree with the former.

 

I don’t know where you get that corps aren’t paying their taxes. And some of our most prosperous years were during Reagan, when the GOP controlled congress starting in ’96, and during the Bush years (minus the collapse of course, which had nothing to do with taxes). These were years where taxes were lower.

But I will say that all you have to do is look at California. Reports are predicting them to be the first state to completely collapse. They have some of the highest taxes in the country. I live in MD. People and businesses are leaving this state in droves because of one thing – HIGH TAXES! We have a freaking rain tax. And they are getting ready to add on top of the gas tax a mileage tax. And the state remains an economic mess. The only thing that saves MDers is the fact that so much government is in this area that jobs are good. But many are leaving to Virginia.

Let me ask you a very simple question… You personally, would you prefer to pay higher or lower taxes? Would you be better off with more money in your bank account or less?

 

And this 'sharing' is accomplished how?

 

If the corporation isn't paying taxes, and it isn't sharing its profits with its employees, do we really care if it is prosperous?

 

and what is wealth may I ask everyone has the potential to create wealth
and one of the reason way you have to have wealth to create wealth is caused by government regulations before the massive amounts of government regulations if you had a product to sell you went out and sold it didn't take much to start a business now with all the government regulations rules and laws you are correct you need much wealth to start with to even go into business

 

that article is dishonest and misleading they purposely left out major information to boaster their liberal agenda

reason why we was prosperous even with the outrages high tax code in the 1950s because we was the only major economy left intact after WW2 it was like owning the only store in town so you was able to charge what ever you liked
in the 1960s Kennedy was forced to lower the tax rate because the other nations economies was rebuilt and were starting to be competitive and America was starting to lose its edge

we live in a world economy and we are competing against many other nations attracting businesses, and if you don't stay competitive with the business tax rate if you make it to expensive to set up shop in America business wont

 

I don't know what year you were earning $1.50 an hour. Let's assume it was 1967, when minimum wage wa $1.40 an hour. Adjusted for inflation, that would represent $9.43 today (http://www.dol.gov/minwage/chart1.htm). In 1967, unions were much stronger than they are today, so it was much easier for people who did not have a college education to find a livable wage. Also, in 1967, public colleges were subsidized by the government a lot more than they are today, so they were much more affordable. This means it was easier for someone to make it back then than it is today. Also, keep in mind that there was crime, drugs, alcohol and gambling back then as well and many fell victim to one or more of them. But the unemployment rate was lower then and the economy was much better, so life was easier and hope was greater.

 

Sharing some of the greater productivity with higher wages, principally.

 

Another 1% apologist propaganda claim I've seen over and over.

This one pretends that the reason middle class incomes have stagnated since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution is because we weren't prosperous like the 1950s is because it was post WWII.

The fallacy is that the economy overall has been plenty properous since 1981. Maybe not quite as the 30 years before, but we've had plenty of growth in real economic production and in the productivity of our workers.

The difference is, since 1981 and the Reagan "trickle down" revolution, that growth and productivity has not been shared with the people who produce it.

 

I thought it was higher taxes?

And these higher wages I assume are accomplished by the government forcing businesses to pay their employees more? This ignores the consequences of it resulting in layoffs and higher prices, which ends up evening everything out anyway. Pay them more so they have to pay more for what they need. Raising the MW has never solved the problem 'underpaid' workers or poverty. It never will because of the cascading economic effects.

But you never answered my question about whether you would prefer to pay lower taxes or higher taxes? Would you prefer to have more in your paycheck or less? You've already indicated more through increased wages; why not through lower taxes?

 

Another 1% apologist propaganda talking point.

"Massive regulation" has caused the huge wealth inequality.

This one is nonsense like their other talking points. We've had growth in regulations since the 1930s. It didn't prevent having good real economic growth in the last 30 years. It didn't prevent good worker productivity gains. It didn't prevent the middle class from sharing in our prosperity in the 1940s, 50s, 60s and 70s. And it didn't cause most all the gain in prosperity over the past 30 years going to the richest, and virtually none going to the middle and poorer classes.

We didn't start having a huge jump in "massive regulation" in 1981 that caused this huge income inequality increase. To the contrary, it was a time of deregulation.

No, something else happened in 1981.

 

Reversing the trickle down policies were taxes were raised on poorer and middle class workers and slashed for the uber wealthy would help address some of the income inequality imbalance we now have.

But primarily it is wages for workers that have stagnated, while corporate profits -- and income for their shareholders and owners and top management -- skyrocketed.

There are a number of ways we can help increase wages. One reverse the policies that have led to the decline of unions, and empower them to leverage higher wages. The middle class was built on union factory workers where unions helped them get wages that shared in the growth and prosperity of the nation.

Increase the minimum wage so it keeps up with inflation. That will help increase the wages of the poorest.

Expand overtime laws so that more and more aren't falling through exceptions and it covers more people.

Particularly when we have idle capacity like now, increase Govt work programs to sop up the excess and the decrease in labor supply will increase the price (wages) of labor.

Provide universal health care -- maked medicare for everyone -- so that middle class workers and businesses alike aren't burdened with these expenses.

Provide low cost loans and grants and public education to train and retrain our workforce.

Nobody likes paying taxes. And raising taxes on middle class and poorer workers like Reagan did is the opposite of the goal of empowering the middle class. We do need to raise taxes on those who have gained from "trickle down" economics and doubled their share of the nation's wealth and income since the Reagan "trickle down" revolutions to reduce our debt.

 

The rich get richer and 6 months later the poor want another $600 telephone because they are bored with the $600 telephone they got at Christmas. That is the nature of capitalism and consumerism. If you want the poor to stop getting poorer, stop spending so much money on crap that is cheap to produce.