Race to the bottom

[Hugh Conway]

 

You posted that to support prole's point, right?

 

Here's some "idiots" who disagree with you

[j_b]

Here we go again: JayB is still pretending that real wages haven't gone down for most people over the last 30 years.

 

That must be why it takes a 2 income family to make it today when one income family was sufficient in the post war period. Your interpretation of this graph doesn't even pass the smell test. AND no, people aren't more wealthy today nor do they spend more on unnecessary items: purchases of tv screen, running shoes, watches etc has actually gone down as a fraction of income.

[pink]

no people who flip hamburgers should get paid the same as ceo's, it's that simple

 

no one thinks that - there must be a "sweet spot" though where the burger flipper earns enough to keep the ceo's throat from being slit in the middle of the night by hopeless, busted-broke peons

 

 

we're all equal, right??? as long as you have a BOCSH anyway ur BOSCH is actually what brings u up to speed :) obviously ur "sweet spot" is TR's and and everytime i read one i want to "slit ur throat"

 

 

and yes, i drink PBR

 

 

i get my kicks on "route 56"

 

love ya like a brother

[glassgowkiss]

[

Government jobs for everyone! Who wouldn't want to be part of the government overlord class? We can keep borrowing from the Fed to pay for them.

Like what? teachers, police and firemen are overlords? like the guy who makes sure you have running water or didn't you just bitch about unplowed streets a while ago? guess what? these are the public employees. same goes when you apply for passport or renew drivers license. So to be frank, with your fuck the rest superior attitude maybe you should move somewhere. like most commie like republifux you are just part of the problem and not part of the solution.

[rob]

Why don't federal employees have collective bargaining, especially since Obama claims to support it?

[billcoe]

we're all equal, right??? as long as you have a BOCSH anyway ur BOSCH is actually what brings u up to speed :) obviously ur "sweet spot" is TR's and and everytime i read one i want to "slit ur throat"

 

 

and yes, i drink PBR

 

 

i get my kicks on "route 56"

 

love ya like a brother

 

Ya got to let that festering cancer sore on your ass and all that anger just go brother...let it go.

[Jim]

It's pretty clear that wages have gone down over the past 30 years or so and haven't kept pace with inflation, housing, education costs, etc. While the stressors have increased on the middle and lower classes, the upper (I mean top 5%) class has enjoyed more and more tax breaks.

 

I think most folks are ok with the rich getting richer - as long as there is some equity in investment in items important to the mass of people - general infrastructure, transit, schools, public safety, and a social safety net.

 

Unfortuantely the past 15 yrs or so, including the past two, have seen more and more benefits shoveled to the ubber-rich. So while I see the need to make some structual changes on the state and local levels (auto pay raises, pensions) opponents of these changes do have a valid point when they point to upper level and coporate tax breaks. It's very short-sighted policy.

[glassgowkiss]

The funniest thing is that the morons who are at the bottom of the barrel, so called republifuck base are destitute to a complete economic struggle, yet they blindly support system that keeps their lame loser ass there. Any attempt to actually change things to the system from 20 or 30 years ago is viewed as "anti-American". Looks to me that the main change that is happening is that everyone is equal, but some people are more equal.....

[rob]

The question is, do we get more money from the person that's going to serve me lunch today, or do we get it from me? I think we should get it from me. I have a lower tax rate, counting payroll taxes, than anybody in my office. And I don't have a tax shelter -- I just take the form and fill out the numbers. I think that's very wrong, and I think that if we're going to get money ... it shouldn't be [from] the bottom 98%. It should be more from people at the top.

...

I think that people at the high end, people like myself, should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it. The rich are always going to say that, you know, 'Just give us more money, and we'll go out and spend more, and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you.' But that has not worked the last... 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

It's pretty clear that wages have gone down over the past 30 years or so and haven't kept pace with inflation, housing, education costs, etc. While the stressors have increased on the middle and lower classes, the upper (I mean top 5%) class has enjoyed more and more tax breaks.

 

I think most folks are ok with the rich getting richer - as long as there is some equity in investment in items important to the mass of people - general infrastructure, transit, schools, public safety, and a social safety net.

 

Unfortuantely the past 15 yrs or so, including the past two, have seen more and more benefits shoveled to the ubber-rich. So while I see the need to make some structual changes on the state and local levels (auto pay raises, pensions) opponents of these changes do have a valid point when they point to upper level and coporate tax breaks. It's very short-sighted policy.

 

Yea, congress keeps giving themselves bigger and bigger salaries and sweeter benefits. f-ing rich f-s!

[tvashtarkatena]

It's pretty clear that wages have gone down over the past 30 years or so and haven't kept pace with inflation, housing, education costs, etc. While the stressors have increased on the middle and lower classes, the upper (I mean top 5%) class has enjoyed more and more tax breaks.

 

I think most folks are ok with the rich getting richer - as long as there is some equity in investment in items important to the mass of people - general infrastructure, transit, schools, public safety, and a social safety net.

 

Unfortuantely the past 15 yrs or so, including the past two, have seen more and more benefits shoveled to the ubber-rich. So while I see the need to make some structual changes on the state and local levels (auto pay raises, pensions) opponents of these changes do have a valid point when they point to upper level and coporate tax breaks. It's very short-sighted policy.

 

Yea, congress keeps giving themselves bigger and bigger salaries and sweeter benefits. f-ing rich f-s!

 

That's nice. How about a comment on Mr. Buffet's contention...you know, for a little less boring repetition on your part? Just this once....

[KaskadskyjKozak]

It's pretty clear that wages have gone down over the past 30 years or so and haven't kept pace with inflation, housing, education costs, etc. While the stressors have increased on the middle and lower classes, the upper (I mean top 5%) class has enjoyed more and more tax breaks.

 

I think most folks are ok with the rich getting richer - as long as there is some equity in investment in items important to the mass of people - general infrastructure, transit, schools, public safety, and a social safety net.

 

Unfortuantely the past 15 yrs or so, including the past two, have seen more and more benefits shoveled to the ubber-rich. So while I see the need to make some structual changes on the state and local levels (auto pay raises, pensions) opponents of these changes do have a valid point when they point to upper level and coporate tax breaks. It's very short-sighted policy.

 

Yea, congress keeps giving themselves bigger and bigger salaries and sweeter benefits. f-ing rich f-s!

 

That's nice. How about a comment on Mr. Buffet's contention...you know, for a little less boring repetition on your part? Just this once....

 

The broken record is "the rich don't pay enough, the rich don't pay enough". What is "enough"? Why don't you quantify. 35% top marginal goes back to 39.6 and suddenly that's 'enough'? It's just a left-wing talking point - you can always use the "rich" as political rhetoric and leverage people's emotions and jealousy to make the claim that it's just not fair. As for Buffet he is perfectly free to donate whatever money he feels he doesn't need right to the federal coffers - nothing is stopping him.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Um...cuz the rich don't pay enough, perhaps, as exhibited by now wildly skewed income demographics in the US?

 

Had dinner with a rich guy last weekend that said exactly the same thing as Buffet.

 

Intelligent response?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Um...cuz the rich don't pay enough, perhaps, as exhibited by now wildly skewed income demographics in the US?

 

 

Quantify "enough".

[tvashtarkatena]

 

I think gutting middle class jobs in a time of 9+% unemployment rather than taxing those with incomes north of 1/4 Mil is definitely a wiser long term policy and certainly more fair, doncha think?

[tvashtarkatena]

Would you accept a bump up to 39%?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Would you accept a bump up to 39%?

 

Just that or or cap gains and other taxes too?

 

How about tying the top marginal tax rate to the economy: 39% when a set of economic indicators falls below some threshold (below meaning a weak economy, like now), and 35% when it exceeds those threshold. I would like to know how much money this would net the gov't though before signing off. 50 billion? 100? 500?

[tvashtarkatena]

The deficit doesn't correlate at all well with the economy; it's a political decision primarily, so that policy wouldn't make sense from a policy/financial standpoint. Also, talk about a complicating the tax code even more....let's all argue about what numbers represent how the economy is doing.

 

Tax policy, and the goals it seeks to achieve (one of which is distribution of wealth and benefits, duh) should be longer term than that.

 

I'm for a national balanced budget amendment eventually, BTW...once we get the deficit under control. That means slashed military spending, yo.

Edited March 11, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[KaskadskyjKozak]

The deficit doesn't correlate at all well with the economy; it's a political decision primarily, so that policy wouldn't make sense from a policy/financial standpoint. Also, talk about a complicating the tax code even more....let's all argue about what numbers represent how the economy is doing.

 

Tax policy, and the goals it seeks to achieve (one of which is distribution of wealth and benefits, duh) should be longer term than that.

 

I'm for a national balanced budget amendment eventually, BTW...once we get the deficit under control. That means slashed military spending, yo.

 

What is your opinion on US bases and military pressence in places like Japan, Korea and Germany? How much could closing them save us per annum?

[tvashtarkatena]

Rather than dive down into specific base closings right away (which I can't speak to intelligently anyway from my not-so-lofty spraypit), I would look at the whole military budget pie, identify

 

1) An overall % reduction goal

1) the largest wedges and

2) cost of various programs like weapons systems

 

figure out what our strategic goals are for the military (does anyone know these days?)

 

See which expenditures don't align well with our goals(cold war weapons systems, bases in places we no longer really need them due to changes in the political landscape)

 

Account for the consequences of such cuts on the economy/deficit/social well being in terms of increased unemployment, and go from there.

 

Obviously a more involved exercise than this forum is appropriate for.

 

Considering that the military has enjoyed a blank check since Reagan, I'd say there's probably HUGE amounts of mis-alignment that could be slashed.

[rob]

Since reagan? longer than that.

[Lucky Larry]

Shit flies,--what the F do ceo's do besides, sell everything off, run a company into the ground, show a phony profit, and sell the phony profit making? turd off. Have you been into any of the auto parts stores that have been gutted by these practices?

[glassgowkiss]

The broken record is "the rich don't pay enough, the rich don't pay enough". What is "enough"? Why don't you quantify. 35% top marginal goes back to 39.6 and suddenly that's 'enough'?

More like 5%. where the fuck are you getting these numbers? fox news?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

The broken record is "the rich don't pay enough, the rich don't pay enough". What is "enough"? Why don't you quantify. 35% top marginal goes back to 39.6 and suddenly that's 'enough'?

More like 5%. where the fuck are you getting these numbers? fox news?

 

The IRS.

 

With the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts, this is how the 2011 federal income tax brackets will look:

Tax Bracket Married Filing Jointly Single

10% Bracket $0 – $17,000 $0 – $8,500

15% Bracket $17,001 – $69,000 $8,501 – $34,500

25% Bracket $69,001 – $139,350 $34,501 – $83,600

28% Bracket $139,351 – $212,300 $83,601 – $174,400

33% Bracket $212,301 – $379,150 $174,401 – $379,150

35% Bracket Over $379,150 Over $379,150

 

[glassgowkiss]

What is your opinion on US bases and military pressence in places like Japan, Korea and Germany? How much could closing them save us per annum?

with 30% (single biggest liability) going to Pentagon you can't be serious about cutting deficit without touching the defense spending. We spend as much as entire western europe and japan put together. we spend 4 times more (adjusted for inflation) then during the peak of cold war- i mean wtf? no wonder if there are no bid contracts and the same corporations which get all sort of tax brakes in form of loop holes bill the tax payers 150 bucks for a 10 dollar hammer. Oops, 10 billion in Iraq is unaccounted for- show me one fucking person going to prison for that. are you so fucking dumb, that you don't even see you are getting royally fucked without vaseline?