Social Security Expected to Dip Into Its Reserves This Year

Got it. Thanks for explaining.

So people voluntarily chose to give the top 1% too much money, in your opinion? How do you propose to convince them to give less money to the top 1%?

 

Scores of millions are not. But as a self employed person you get lots of benefits they don't.

We were doing much worse. That is why they (and every other civilized nation on earth) developed SS.

 

It depends on many factors.

Do I think from a macro economic view that folks like Walmart shareholders and executives are getting too much while their many thousands or employees are getting too little? Yes I do.

We know that working Americans have not been sharing in the growth and prosperity of our economy over the past 35 years or so. We know that virtually all the growth has gone to the richest.



So yes, I think that since the Reagan "tickle down" revenue, too much of the fruits of the labors of working people have been distributed to the owners and top management and not enough to the workers themselves who have actually contributed towards producing it.

 

So you think that people are giving too much these top 1.5 million families. First, how do you know that people are giving the wrong amount to these families, and how do you suggest convincing people to stop doing this?

 

I did noting it would be the result of taking all that capital out of the markets.............but then you knew that.

So

And you would prefer to wreck the economy taking SS with it just to get back at the more successful. What an odd plan.

 

Too much what?

 

More accurately, our policies are distributed to much to the richest as opposed to the bottom 90% of Americans.

Because incomes of working people have largely stagnated over the past 35 years, and they have not shared in the growth and prosperity they have helped produce, while incomes of the richest have skyrocketed.

 

You noted falsely again.

 

Read the thread before you butt in.

 

The fruits of your labor are what you get paid and the owners are paying you those fruits. If there is anything left they might get something. If the company doesn't make a profit this month do the workers still get paid? Do the stockholders? If the value of the company goes down do the workers have to make up for that? Do the shareholders? If the company goes out of business and there are debts do the shareholders suffer those losses? Do the workers? Your incomprehension the differences between wages and salaries and income, being an expense to the company, from investments and ownership never ceases to amaze.

 

What policies cause everyone to voluntarily give so much money to such a small group of people?

 

No I don't think so you are advocating policies that will hurt economic growth and expansion which helps all workers because you can't stand the fact that people who invest pay capital gains tax rates instead of income tax rates which would be higher. At their peaks the Bush43 15% rate produced twice the revenue of the Clinton 29% rate. Four times the realizations reflecting economic activity and growth. But you would prefer the higher rate to stick it to those who invest. What a pitiful plan.

 

The fruits of workers labor is what they produce.

What they get paid is (now more than ever) based on what the market values their labor, which is a function of supply and demand, and can have little resemblance to what they contribute to production.

Since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution, workers wages have been based more on market factors and less on the value of their contribution to what they produce.

Hence, we've seen their incomes largely stagnate, while more and more of the nation's gross income and wealth has been distributed to the richest.

It was supposed to "trickle down". It didn't.

 

I've spelled them out many times, and I'm sure for you as well.

+++

Reagan increase FICA taxes the working middle/poorer folks pay, and had massive cuts to top income tax rates the higher income folks pay. Which allowed the wealthier to collect more wealth (which they invest and get more income) while decreasing the wealth of middle class workers.

Investment tax rates were cut from 28% to just 15% (bumped up to 20% a couple years ago). That has both incentivized and benefited investors. Why earn a living and pay tax rates up to 40% if you can speculate in the stock market and pay just 15% on your income? So is it any surprise we've had two major investment bubbles since then? The people who get hurt the most were often middle class or poorer.

Union participation has decreased dramatically over the past few decades. Some of it is self inflicted, but there has also been a conservative campaign to demonize unions that has had an effect. So have things like "right to work" laws. People lament about the loss of good paying manufacturing jobs, but a big reason a lot of those jobs were good paying is because of union representation. Unions can bargain for wages based upon the value added by workers, not just whatever supply and demand provides. Our economy has moved from a primary manufacturing economy to primary service based. Union representation has not followed. Today, when unions make in-road to unionize a service based company like Wal-mart, it just closes the stores and gets away with it. Hence, workers at a place like Wal-mart are not getting wages anywhere near manufacturing workers were getting.

Thing like MW and overtime laws have also diminished. MW is nowhere near what it used to be when you account for inflation, and especially relative to GDP growth. Overtime laws have languished as well. For example, the incomes at which a person could be deemed a manager had not changed for decades, meaning millions who would have been eligible for overtime are paid salaries where they are worked more hours for less pay. Conservative courts have whittled down penalties for violations and enforcement has been lax.

Middle class folks have been hammered by health care and education costs. The greatest generation got government health care, education reimbursement, and housing assistance through the VA. That has largely diminished even as costs have skyrocketed.

These are some of the examples. You can go into more detail on each, but this has been the result of a trend, largely driven by the "Reagan revolution" where the shift in belief has been that things will be better if we pamper the richest and businesses as opposed to workers, and somehow the benefit will "trickle down" on everyone else.

But it didn't trickle down. So today we have a scenario where the bottom 90% are getting about 50% of the gross income, down from about 65% in 1980. In an economy with grow personal income of about $16 trillion, that represents about $2.2 trillion every year that is going to the top 10% (and much of that to the top 1%) instead of the bottom 90%. That is $2.2 trillion every year the middle classes have less to spend in the economy.

And we've seen the result. Growth has declined from 3-4% real to around 2% now. Spending is 70% of the economy. The middle class is the great engine of spending. Our policies have gutted the middle classes, and we've seen the economy strangled as a result.

The answer is not to put more money into the hands of the m/billionaires. We need to get more money back to the middle classes.

We need to reverse trickle down.

 

Prove it. You're making **** up based on your ideology.

 

This is a taxation issue. It has nothing to do with what everyone gives any person.

This is a taxation issue. It has nothing to do with what everyone gives any person.

What government policy changes do you attribute this to?

Has the MW been reduced lately?

I asked you what policies cause everyone to voluntarily give so much money to such a small group of people? These costs have nothing to do with that.

So how do you propose to convince everyone to give less money to the top 10%, since you think they're giving the top 10% too much money?

 

It has a lot to do with how much income they retain, and how much wealth they require.

There have been a number of policies that have effectively weakened union participation.

Relative to inflation or GDP, absolutely.

I am telling you what policies have caused the redistribution of income and wealth from the middle classes to the richest since the Reagan trickle down revolution.

These things have suppressed the wages and incomes of middle class workers, but increased the profits companies have to "voluntarily" give money to top management and owners.

See above. When companies have to pay their workers a better wage that more accurately reflects what they contribute to what is produced, companies will have less money to voluntarily give to top management and owners.

 

That's a bogus manufactured "analysis".

 

It does in a recession situation where there is a deficit of demand and idle or declining production.

 

Well rather than speculating offensively about what I understand or don't understand, why don't you debate the facts. We can start with the great positive experience Greece had with austerity.

 

Or our own recovery, which was stunted by austerity forced by the Republicans.

 

So I'm trying to figure out how you're going to accomplish your goal. Right now, everyone gives certain 1.5 million families more money than you would like them to do. How are you going to accomplish your goal of having everyone give these people less money?

 

I've explained it already.

Reverse "trickle down" policies. Increase the wages and salaries of the bottom 90%. That will decrease the monies available for companies to "give" to top management and owners, which make up the richest. Cut taxes middle class folk pay, and increase taxes on the wealthiest. That will increase the after tax income and wealth of the working folk and decrease the after tax income of the richest.

While the richest might see the portion of the nation's income and wealth they receive decrease, the increased puchasing power of the middle classes will drive a stonger economy, which will increase profits that enure to the rich.

It's a win win. Ford understood this. By paying his workers a better wage, they could afford to buy his cars.

Too bad so few are forward thinking like this today.

 

It is the ONLY justification of your stated positions! That BY GOD they should be paying higher rates period it's just not FAIR. Well your fair is based on your envy and jealousy of them.

Well you are griping that investment income, you know not EARNED income, is not subject to FICA taxes. Well it doesn't count towards SS benefits either. And if some EXTREMELY rare person who had absolutely no earned income in their life tried to collect SS they would be told sorry you don't get to collect anything. So what is your HUGE gripe about this .0001% of the population that you believe it should be remedied by taxing EVERYONE'S investment growth and income?

Again it is based on your bias'd emotions towards them not any sound economic reasoning.

Who is is removing and how would a President do such a thing?

I said it, it would be the result of your plan so why would you want to implement it?

Because it's not earned income and it the person doesn't collect benefits on it either so what's your gripe?

And you are so upset about this .0001% of the taxpayers that you want to tax everyone's investment income to get back at them..........a pretty pitiful tax policy.

 

Got it. So, certain people are given more than you think they deserve. Your solution is wage/salary controls and taxation not to fund government operations but to take the income of those you think everyone has given too much to.