To Get Into the 1%, You Need Adjusted Gross Income of $480,930

[Ghostpanther]

That's a bullshit implication.

The argument against high wealth inequality has nothing to do with envy. It has to do with having a healthy and functional economy, which serves those who compose it. In a situation with high (and growing) wealth inequality, and stagnating wealth levels for better than the lowest 90%, you have an economic system that is not healthy and functional; growing productivity is not serving to benefit all, but only serves to benefit the already-super-wealthy.

Adam Smith envisioned that a capitalist economic system would work against this by fostering competition, both in terms of product pricing and wage valuation, but in practice, it has not happened, because there's a continuous oversupply of labour. Which means that the system is not functioning properly, as a capitalist economy. Smith was clear, in Wealth of Nations, that the producers in a capitalist system solely exist to serve the interests of the consumers, who are those the system is meant to uplift. And wealth derived by producers was meant to be incidental to that process, a happy accident, not the main focus of the economic engine, as it is today.

You don't even have to dig into competing economic theories; this is definitively broken as a system by capitalist principles, too.

Na. It is basic envy at work. Too much focus on what others have which you do not and not doing enough to improve your own situation.

[Elegiac]

Most here got a raise which was equal to or exceeded the CPI. Plus a 1000 bonus. Ohio has a cost of living adjustment each year according to what the CPI is for it's min wage earners. The CPI was 2% this year.

I'm so glad you got a break at the expense of people living in the blue states.

[Zan15]

Anti-Trump rhetoric is all you have. I do not envy others who make more than I do or have more. I happen to believe in " ye shall not covet your neighbor's stuff. "

Has nothing to do with Trump.
It was not even Trumps plan, it was republican congressional plan while Trump sat there waiting for them to finish it. The plan that passed was a plan that republicans have been pushing for 15+ years.






Its not your neighbor's stuff.

It is your stuff, taken away from you then they give you back just a few pieces of your stuff while giving away the rest to a handful of people.

so lets roll with the biblical talk

Thy town government shall confiscate 100 of your sheep each year, but this year they are only confiscating 98 of thy sheep.
They use to use 100 of your sheep for govt budgetary items, but now they are giving you 2 back and giving 50 to thy neighbor.
Not ALL your neighbors, just the 1 next door.

Leaving only 48 sheep to cover the needs that used to require 100 sheep and they still have as much need as they did last year to cover, nothing has changed.



and you do not see this as a problem?

- - - Updated - - -

Na. It is basic envy at work. Too much focus on what others have which you do not and not doing enough to improve your own situation.

lol others do not "have" anything till they took it from you......
that's not basic envy at work....


You can't envy someone who has a dog next door, when the very dog they have was yours.

[Endus]

Na. It is basic envy at work. Too much focus on what others have which you do not and not doing enough to improve your own situation.

Sure, if you resort to making up bullshit and ignoring fundamental concepts of economic theory, because your desire to shit on people you disagree with exceeds your desire to actually understand anything, I guess.

[Kaeth]

Top 47% but still in student loan debt for life!

[Independent voter]

That's a bullshit implication.

The argument against high wealth inequality has nothing to do with envy. It has to do with having a healthy and functional economy, which serves those who compose it. In a situation with high (and growing) wealth inequality, and stagnating wealth levels for better than the lowest 90%, you have an economic system that is not healthy and functional; growing productivity is not serving to benefit all, but only serves to benefit the already-super-wealthy.

Adam Smith envisioned that a capitalist economic system would work against this by fostering competition, both in terms of product pricing and wage valuation, but in practice, it has not happened, because there's a continuous oversupply of labour. Which means that the system is not functioning properly, as a capitalist economy. Smith was clear, in Wealth of Nations, that the producers in a capitalist system solely exist to serve the interests of the consumers, who are those the system is meant to uplift. And wealth derived by producers was meant to be incidental to that process, a happy accident, not the main focus of the economic engine, as it is today.

You don't even have to dig into competing economic theories; this is definitively broken as a system by capitalist principles, too.

Okay, say you have a decent job earning $50K a year, life is good. Suddenly someone buys the house across the street and you have a new neighbor and he makes $100K a year. You envy his nicer car, nicer lawn mower and maybe even a nicer wife.



This video explains it nicely.

[Rukario]

Pft, what about the 0.1%, or the 0.01% ?!

Those are the ones moving the strings...

[Endus]

Okay, say you have a decent job earning $50K a year, life is good. Suddenly someone buys the house across the street and you have a new neighbor and he makes $100K a year. You envy his nicer car, nicer lawn mower and maybe even a nicer wife.

This video explains it nicely.

I didn't say envy doesn't exist.

I said envy isn't why growing wealth inequality is a symptom of a failing economic system.

[d00mGuArD]

So a couple, earning a combined 160k are in the top 10%
That's very good really. I think most people have the opportunity to be in the top10% (combined), they just screw it up

[JohnBrown1917]

Na. It is basic envy at work. Too much focus on what others have which you do not and not doing enough to improve your own situation.

We have limited resources.

[Independent voter]

I didn't say envy doesn't exist.

I said envy isn't why growing wealth inequality is a symptom of a failing economic system.

So going back to our man who earns $50K a year, he has a pretty good life if he isn't living in one of the big coastal cities, house, car, big screen tv.

Where's the harm?

Globalization is what's pushing wealth inequality, globalization takes jobs away from the poor and gives money to the rich. How exactly do we fix that? And without driving the rich away or have them stash money in offshore accounts?

[Deleted]

So that's after taxes, right?

Hmm, getting there

[Endus]

So going back to our man who earns $50K a year, he has a pretty good life if he isn't living in one of the big coastal cities, house, car, big screen tv.

Where's the harm?

This is essentially no different from a slaveowner saying "I keep my slaves well-fed and comfortable, where's the harm?"

The "harm" is in the impact to the economy, which functions based on the strength of the consumer class, of which he is representative, in this example. By putting the increasing productivity in the hands of the wealthy, and not the consumers, growth is attenuated.

Ever wonder why the American economy is constantly on the edge of recession, despite continued nominal growth? Here's your answer. The goal by the wealthy isn't to manage a healthy economy, it's to keep the economy barely alive, while they bleed it for everything they can, at the expense of everyone else.

Or, to put it in overly simplistic terms, the guy earning $50k/year is "harmed" because he's not earning $90k or more for the same work, which he likely should be.

Globalization is what's pushing wealth inequality, globalization takes jobs away from the poor and gives money to the rich. How exactly do we fix that? And without driving the rich away or have them stash money in offshore accounts?

The bit in bold is where you straight-up admit that I'm right about wealth inequality being harmful. But I guess you can't see that, for some reason.

As for the rest, "globalization" is only an issue because of wealth inequality. We're just pushing this beyond the national level to the international. If we boosted developing economies to where they were comparable to the developed world, then "globalization" wouldn't have exploitable foreign markets with significantly cheaper labor pools, in the first place. You "fix this" by addressing wealth inequality, which is at the root of the entire thing.

[Independent voter]

This is essentially no different from a slaveowner saying "I keep my slaves well-fed and comfortable, where's the harm?"

It's plenty different, our $50K man can quit his job, move across country, marry who he wants etc, he is free.

The "harm" is in the impact to the economy, which functions based on the strength of the consumer class, of which he is representative, in this example. By putting the increasing productivity in the hands of the wealthy, and not the consumers, growth is attenuated.

Globalization has created markets overseas as well, this has hurt our $50K a year man too, he doesn't have the leverage his dad had.

Ever wonder why the American economy is constantly on the edge of recession, despite continued nominal growth? Here's your answer. The goal by the wealthy isn't to manage a healthy economy, it's to keep the economy barely alive, while they bleed it for everything they can, at the expense of everyone else.

Trust me the rich know more than anyone how important a thriving market is, rich people aren't stupid. Sure their might be one or two rich who "want to bleed the economy dry" but most understand it's a group effort, it's why they support things like free education.

Or, to put it in overly simplistic terms, the guy earning $50k/year is "harmed" because he's not earning $90k or more for the same work, which he likely should be.

Is he? He has everything the rich man has, PS4, wide screen tv, phone, Netflix account, AC, house, car, health insurance, etc. It might be of as high of quality but he has it. That's one thing capitalism has done right.

The bit in bold is where you straight-up admit that I'm right about wealth inequality being harmful. But I guess you can't see that, for some reason.

As for the rest, "globalization" is only an issue because of wealth inequality. We're just pushing this beyond the national level to the international. If we boosted developing economies to where they were comparable to the developed world, then "globalization" wouldn't have exploitable foreign markets with significantly cheaper labor pools, in the first place. You "fix this" by addressing wealth inequality, which is at the root of the entire thing.

Globalization helps the rich because the companies they profit from can now move the means of production to a place where wages are a fraction of what is charged locally.

Globalization hurts the poor because their jobs are moving away.

[Zekthul]

For most, in context....the 1000 dollar bonuses ARE crumbs

Pelosi and Obama tout $40 in tax savings as a victory for the American people and liberals cheer. After all that is one less tank of gas their peons must worry about. Then these same people who claimed $40 was a victory for their cause claim $1,000 is meaningless crumbs. The same people who praised that $40 in their pocket now jump on the bandwagon and criticize the $1,000. It is sad so many people are blind sheep who can’t learn to form their own opinions or see the blatant partisan hypocrisy in ALL politicians.

[Elegiac]

So going back to our man who earns $50K a year, he has a pretty good life if he isn't living in one of the big coastal cities, house, car, big screen tv.

Where's the harm?

Not living in one of the big coastal cities. Obviously.

Globalization is what's pushing wealth inequality, globalization takes jobs away from the poor and gives money to the rich.

Which is why the United States is as close to full employment as you'll get in peacetime, right?

[Deleted]

10%. Not bad at all. As a college dropout that isn't the smartest I'll take that.

[Endus]

It's plenty different, our $50K man can quit his job, move across country, marry who he wants etc, he is free.

You're deliberately missing the point for some reason.

The point is that you're accepting the negative impacts as "okay" because they're the current state. Like the slaveowner does with the fact that he owns people. You ignore the harm because you've decided to accept it as right/necessary/proper.

Globalization has created markets overseas as well, this has hurt our $50K a year man too, he doesn't have the leverage his dad had.

I addressed this later. Complaints about "Globalization" are just complaints about wealth inequality, at an international rather than national level.

Trust me the rich know more than anyone how important a thriving market is, rich people aren't stupid. Sure their might be one or two rich who "want to bleed the economy dry" but most understand it's a group effort, it's why they support things like free education.

A basic glance at economic patterns for the last half-century demonstrate this claim to be untrue.

Also, "free education" is mandated by the government, and paid for through taxes, precisely because the wealthy aren't paying for it voluntarily because it's "better for the markets" if they do so.

Is he? He has everything the rich man has, PS4, wide screen tv, phone, Netflix account, AC, house, car, health insurance, etc. It might be of as high of quality but he has it. That's one thing capitalism has done right.

"My slaves have a better roof over their heads and eat better than the beggars in the poorhouses, everything's fine!"

And this isn't about "capitalism" versus some other economic system. This is an economy failing to live up to capitalist precepts. Which include that systems should never favor the producer over the consumers, if there is any conflict in interests.

Globalization helps the rich because the companies they profit from can now move the means of production to a place where wages are a fraction of what is charged locally.

Globalization hurts the poor because their jobs are moving away.

Which is entirely about wealth inequality.

And you won't admit that for some frustrating reason.

[ghotihook]

I got: You're a 1 percenter among millennials! Yay!

Dang, I got 4th percenter. I need to be a female!

[Zan15]

Pelosi and Obama tout $40 in tax savings as a victory for the American people and liberals cheer. After all that is one less tank of gas their peons must worry about. Then these same people who claimed $40 was a victory for their cause claim $1,000 is meaningless crumbs. The same people who praised that $40 in their pocket now jump on the bandwagon and criticize the $1,000. It is sad so many people are blind sheep who can’t learn to form their own opinions or see the blatant partisan hypocrisy in ALL politicians.

oh here we go again. This was all covered already in many other threads.

40 dollars a paycheck x 52 pay checks = 2080.00
if you even consider it might be 26 weeks = 1040.00


Now this is not a 1000 one time bonus which after taxes is closer to 750 and for which most people will not be getting close to 1000 since most bonus announcements have requirements to get 100 to 1000 bonus, if you worked there X years.

This was also for EVERY WORKER, not 4 million out of 160 million.

10 year total for obama 10,400 to 20,800
10 year total for bonuses 1000







Now as for the 1000 bucks. If actually taken in CONTEXT 1000 is crumbs when the 1000 to the corporations giving the bonuses in total turns out to be 2-10% of the total amount of savings.

For example:
When ATT spends 400 million to give bonuses, but is saving 4-5 billion or 48 billion over 10 years....that 400 million is CRUMBS.



And lastly, the govt did not need to borrow 1.5 trillion dollars to pay for the 40 dollar tax savings.