Trickle Down?

[Little-Acorn]

The highest percentile increased almost by a factor of 2 from 1968 to 2003.

And the harm they did as a result of this was....?

(I've always wondered why the leftist fanatics are so unhappy with the idea that people make money)

 

[Openmind]

And the harm they did as a result of this was....?

(I've always wondered why the leftist fanatics are so unhappy with the idea that people make money)

The arm is that the top quintiles gets an ever increasing part of the country's wealth, whle the lowest quintiles see almost NO improvement in their standard of living.

The arm is that such trends are not sustainable in the long run, and that this type of large gap in wealth is one of the factors that is common in third world economy.

The arm is that the GOP wants to continue and increase that trend in order for the wealthy to keep more of their wealth while the middle class would be carrying the whole burden of "decreasing the deficit."

If we had a huge surplus instead of a huge deficit, I wouldn't mind what the top 10% makes. . .but we don't.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Absolutely!
But for some people, redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich is "okay," it's actually "the natural order of thing," something like: "survival of the fittest!

....Some would say.... "God's Plan".​

 

[Gipper]

You are right that the poor didn't get poorer, but as the following graph shows, the lowest percentile stayed fairly flat. The highest percentile increased almost by a factor of 2 from 1968 to 2003. The graph you show in an earlier post only goes to 1990. That is 20 years ago. Was the data you used normalized? It doesn't look like it was at all. In light of this the old saw should be replaced by "The poor don't get anywhere and the rich get richer.
This following graph is normalized data from the US census.

That is interesting...

After trillions upon trillions of dollars confiscated from tax payers and transferred to the poor, there still are lots of poor people. How can this be?

In a sane nation, one would think this horrendous costly failure would cause the people and their representatives to seek alternatives. But, NO!

 

[Openmind]

That is interesting...

After trillions upon trillions of dollars confiscated from tax payers and transferred to the poor, there still are lots of poor people. How can this be?

In a sane nation, one would think this horrendous costly failure would cause the people and their representatives to seek alternatives. But, NO!

Do you realize that a good portion of those "poor" people are made up of people with disabilities, elderly people, even many veterans, and people who just do not have the mental and/or physical ability to earn a proper living?

What do you want to do with those population? Euthanize them?

I guess, if you are in support of going back to the "founders time," we could consider sending them to the woods (or, these days, our national parks) to starve to death or be eaten by bears?

There will always be poor people, people who just can't take care of themselves in this society where EVERYTHING is for sale, and where greed is praised as a quality. Get used to it.

And those billions and trillions were not dedicated to raising the standard of living of the bottom 40% of the population, but at raising our level and quality of infrastructure, our airports, OUR MILITARY. Welfare subsidies to the poor were not the only welfare served by our tax dollars. ..Corporate welfare seems a lot less valuable to our society, and still seems at least as engrained as support for those who would die without that support.

Coldness of heart doesn't look good on anyone, especially one who pride himself/herself in being a "Christian!"

 

[Lagboltz]

That is interesting...

After trillions upon trillions of dollars confiscated from tax payers and transferred to the poor, there still are lots of poor people. How can this be?

In a sane nation, one would think this horrendous costly failure would cause the people and their representatives to seek alternatives. But, NO!

I would like to understand what alternatives you might think would work.

 

[Lagboltz]

And the harm they did as a result of this was....?

(I've always wondered why the leftist fanatics are so unhappy with the idea that people make money)

87% of Democrats support increased taxes,
66% of independents support increased taxes,
43% of Republicans support increased taxes.
Are you calling all of them fanatics? What makes you think they are unhappy??

Little Acorn, your posts often have a strong air of juvenile immaturity. Do you mind if I ask how old you are?

 

[Lagboltz]

Do you realize that a good portion of those "poor" people are made up of people with disabilities, elderly people, even many veterans, and people who just do not have the mental and/or physical ability to earn a proper living?

What do you want to do with those population? Euthanize them?

I guess, if you are in support of going back to the "founders time," we could consider sending them to the woods (or, these days, our national parks) to starve to death or be eaten by bears?

There will always be poor people, people who just can't take care of themselves in this society where EVERYTHING is for sale, and where greed is praised as a quality. Get used to it.

And those billions and trillions were not dedicated to raising the standard of living of the bottom 40% of the population, but at raising our level and quality of infrastructure, our airports, OUR MILITARY. Welfare subsidies to the poor were not the only welfare served by our tax dollars. ..Corporate welfare seems a lot less valuable to our society, and still seems at least as engrained as support for those who would die without that support.

Coldness of heart doesn't look good on anyone, especially one who pride himself/herself in being a "Christian!"

Well said.

It seems that many conservatives here have a compassion for individual rights, and in this thread it's compassion for the rich.

Liberals generally have more empathy for the poor. That seems like the Christian thing to do.

 

[BigRob]

87% of Democrats support increased taxes,
66% of independents support increased taxes,
43% of Republicans support increased taxes.
Are you calling all of them fanatics? What makes you think they are unhappy??

Little Acorn, your posts often have a strong air of juvenile immaturity. Do you mind if I ask how old you are?

Why wouldn't people support a tax increase that they don't have to pay? Especially if they are told (wrongly) that it will solve all their problems, and their government programs can continue?

How about we get a poll of those who would actually be effected by a tax increase, and see how the numbers break down?

 

[BigRob]

Well said.

It seems that many conservatives here have a compassion for individual rights, and in this thread it's compassion for the rich.

Liberals generally have more empathy for the poor. That seems like the Christian thing to do.

Liberals may have empathy for the poor, but they don't put that empathy into action...which conservatives apparently do.

A 2006 study by Arthur Brooks found that conservatives give 30% more to charity than liberals...a Google study found that conservatives gave 50% more to charity.

A few other highlights from that study:

- Conservatives are more likely to donate blood, and more likely to volunteer

- If liberals and moderates donated blood as often as conservatives, the U.S. blood supply would increase by 45 percent

- Conservative donations tend to support religious institutions, while liberal donations shade toward the arts and education (Kristof argues that the former is more likely to help the needy, citing research showing that donations to education disporportionately favor wealthy Americans)

- Conservatives give more to non-secular charities than liberals (when proportion of income is considered)

- The middle class gives less than the working poor

 

[Lagboltz]

Why wouldn't people support a tax increase that they don't have to pay? Especially if they are told (wrongly) that it will solve all their problems, and their government programs can continue?

How about we get a poll of those who would actually be effected by a tax increase, and see how the numbers break down?

I don't believe that would be necessary. In Obama's original proposal, the bottom 95% would have a decrease, or be about the same. The tax increases would affect only the top 5%. It would affect the top 1% even more. This data comes from a somewhat conservative site.

For more details see the graph in this link:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/23319.html

So according to these figures, 5% of the people would not see Obama's plan as in their best interests.

 

[BigRob]

I don't believe that would be necessary. In Obama's original proposal, the bottom 95% would have a decrease, or be about the same. The tax increases would affect only the top 5%. It would affect the top 1% even more. This data comes from a somewhat conservative site.

For more details see the graph in this link:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/23319.html

So according to these figures, 5% of the people would not see Obama's plan as in their best interests.

Exactly...so if someone is told, we need to be responsible and raise taxes (but certainly not your taxes), who wouldn't support that?

Holding up that a majority of people support such a measure, when they are totally unaffected by it, doesn't carry much weight in my opinion.

 

[Lagboltz]

Liberals may have empathy for the poor, but they don't put that empathy into action...which conservatives apparently do.

A 2006 study by Arthur Brooks found that conservatives give 30% more to charity than liberals...a Google study found that conservatives gave 50% more to charity.

A few other highlights from that study:

- Conservatives are more likely to donate blood, and more likely to volunteer

- If liberals and moderates donated blood as often as conservatives, the U.S. blood supply would increase by 45 percent

- Conservative donations tend to support religious institutions, while liberal donations shade toward the arts and education (Kristof argues that the former is more likely to help the needy, citing research showing that donations to education disporportionately favor wealthy Americans)

- Conservatives give more to non-secular charities than liberals (when proportion of income is considered)

- The middle class gives less than the working poor

I'm sorry but I don't see Arthur Brooks as an objective source of statistical information. He has the rightists view on tax policy. We all know that conservatives will cherry pick statistic sources that favor their views and liberals have a similar bias. The sources I try to cite are from government data which are hard numbers, and not from polls or blogs, etc.

 

[Lagboltz]

Exactly...so if someone is told, we need to be responsible and raise taxes (but certainly not your taxes), who wouldn't support that?

Holding up that a majority of people support such a measure, when they are totally unaffected by it, doesn't carry much weight in my opinion.

Of course it wouldn't carry much weight because they are clearly biased as to what is good for their friends and for themselves. However they are the voters and that does carry a lot of weight as far as the direction of the country.

 

[Openmind]

Why wouldn't people support a tax increase that they don't have to pay? Especially if they are told (wrongly) that it will solve all their problems, and their government programs can continue?

How about we get a poll of those who would actually be effected by a tax increase, and see how the numbers break down?

NO one is saying that a tax increase will solve ALL our problems! To solver our problems (not even all, and not in a blink of an eye!), it take a diversified approach.

And, I am willing to pay more taxes to help resolve this issue. Buffett is willing to pay more taxes to solve this issue. . .and among all the people who do believe we should increse taxes, there are many who would also be affected, probably not as much in numbers as the millionaires, but certainly just as much in the impact it would have on their monthly budget!

By the way, someplace you said that a study shows that Republicans are more "charitable" than Democrates.

I wonder IF this study took into account that "Church donations" and "Church tidings" fall under "charitable contributions, and that it is clear that Republicans are more likely to be overly religious than Democrats.

In the other hands, there are a LOT more Demcrats who forgoe making huge salaries in lucrative businesses, to care for the disenfranchised for much lower salaries (in social work, mental health, disabled care, nursing, non profit organizations, etc. . )

Once again, that study is biased, because it doesn't take the right element in consideration.