Quantcast

Defenestrated

Turbo Monkey
Mar 28, 2007
1,657
0
Earth
The gap between the rich and the poor in this country has been steadily widening for decades.



The richest 1% of this country have more income than the bottom 50%, this means that the top 300,000 individuals earn more than the bottom 150 million! And the %age of wealth contained in the top 1% is even more unbalanced with respect to the bottom 50%... The distribution is so lopsided that even after they pay their "higher" taxes, they still posses a majority of the country's wealth.



Hell, the top 0.1% almost own 10% of the country's wealth alone!



The middle class has been bleeding for quite some time as well. After tax income and disposable income has exploded for the those at the top and barely increased at all for those in both the middle and lower classes.



All the while most are too preoccupied to realize they are being ****ed...
 
Last edited:

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,007
149
The Cleft of Venus
i am cutting back on construction this next year and plan on laying sideways in the public trough...

f-! the rich!!!

gimmie mine bishes
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
5
The gap between the rich and the poor in this country has been steadily widening for decades.
first, let's be honest: the definition of both rich & poor has drifted for decades. it used to be that poor was defined as being destitute, now it means "i can't make my credit card payment". let's not mince words: in this country, outside of reasons for mental illness, there's no good reason why anyone should go hungry, and fewer reasons why anyone should remain poor.

don't you get a little tired of letting people wallow in self pity & ignorance, always blaming someone else for their woes?

i also believe this "poverty epidemic" also has to do w/ the marginalization of the family. no, not dead-beat dads, but grown up kids who just don't give a crap about their aging parents & let them eat dog food or drown in their own filth in a new orleans nursing home.

we are a selfish nation that desperately needs to be brought to our knees
All the while most are too preoccupied to realize they are being ****ed...
i'm too preoccupied earning a living. why are you so obsessed w/ other people's money? busybodies have done more harm in this world than the good they purport to do

as an aside, i've lost more money in the past 3 months than the grand total of the bottom quarter of "patriotic" americans have paid into the public coffers for taxable yr 2007.

and i'm not rich (4th fifth using the last graphic)
 

manimal

Ociffer Tackleberry
Feb 27, 2002
7,214
16
Blindly running into cactus
so let me get this straight. the lower and middle income brackets are ENTITLED to the wealth of the rich?

well heck, i 'm gonna quit working hard and saving money 'cause i'm gonna get mine too!
 

manimal

Ociffer Tackleberry
Feb 27, 2002
7,214
16
Blindly running into cactus
The gap between the rich and the poor in this country has been steadily widening for decades.
as stinkle said...lets get this term straight. how about the gap between the "have's and the have some's" because there are no "have not's" in this country, globally speaking.

i guess that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" has been translated to mean, "gimme, gimme"

but the up side is this...as democracy dies off and turns to socialism there are usually conflicts in the form of civil war/guerrilla war and i know where i'll be :twitch: :D
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
38,937
5,627
Sleazattle
as stinkle said...lets get this term straight. how about the gap between the "have's and the have some's" because there are no "have not's" in this country, globally speaking.

i guess that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" has been translated to mean, "gimme, gimme"

but the up side is this...as democracy dies off and turns to socialism there are usually conflicts in the form of civil war/guerrilla war and i know where i'll be :twitch: :D
Democracy and socialism are not mutually exclusive systems.
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,185
17
TN
Meh.
I'm of the belief that the widening of this wealth disparity is just a symptom of the ridiculous and unsustainable culture of greed and consumption in this country. And I mean that about both ends. Common people drive themselves into poverty by living beyond their means and reaping the punishment of interest rates and payments they couldn't afford, while the rich are more than happy to exploit their fellow man for all they're worth at the expense of the health of the economy and country at large.
Redistributing the wealth is a putting a band-aid on a problem that needs a freaking lobotomy.
Asking the rich to pay higher taxes isn't something I have a real problem with, but I think we should start to demand some financial responsibility from everyone. I understand we may need to bail out some banks and mortgages along the way, as the fallout hurts everyone when we don't, but this cycle of perpetual problems won't stop until everyone starts being smarter with their money.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,846
0
Orange County, CA
i guess that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" has been translated to mean, "gimme, gimme"
You haven't really been paying attention the last couple of months or so, have you? Hint: Something big happened on Wall Street that skull ****ed your talking point.
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,007
149
The Cleft of Venus
the ultra rich will simply find ways to reduce their taxes thru loopholes in the system

and

the lower class will continue to be expempt from fed tax so they will vote for party X.

silly to think otherwise.
 

manimal

Ociffer Tackleberry
Feb 27, 2002
7,214
16
Blindly running into cactus
You haven't really been paying attention the last couple of months or so, have you? Hint: Something big happened on Wall Street that skull ****ed your talking point.
i disagree. it is this "gimme" attitude that cause the collapse from both ends. people trying to "live the american dream" by buying houses they can't afford made possible by greedy bankers out to "get mine" at the expense of everyone.
yes, i'm pissed that the gov. bailed out the banks. yes, i'm pissed that the modern philosophy is that low cost housing to everyone is some new constitutional right.
maybe i'll start my own political party and call it the Responsibility Party :banghead:
 

TheMontashu

Pourly Tatteued Jeu
Mar 15, 2004
5,556
0
I'm homeless
so let me get this straight. the lower and middle income brackets are ENTITLED to the wealth of the rich?

well heck, i 'm gonna quit working hard and saving money 'cause i'm gonna get mine too!
No but they are entitled to a truly equal opportunity. Things like education need to be truly free and we need to do something about the inequality between poor schools and rich schools. I don't care what people say, poverty has alot more to do with why the poor are still poor than being lazy. I know kids who went to rich high schools getting into decent colleges with 2.0s while some of the kids at my school with much higher grades who worked much harder are having to take on mounds of debt to go to the same school. Why should a poor person work his ass off to get into school, when he has to work 4 times as hard as the rich kid to even get in to college, and once there has to take on a bunch of debt to pay for it. In the poorer families this is only made worse by the fact that poor tend to not have as good of credit as the rich.

There is also the issue of health care, every one has the right if the country as a whole can afford it. There is nothing like seeing a good friend loose his house because he got sick and had to spend a month in the hospital. I'm sorry, but when there are making millions and millions of dollars while others can't afford medical care something NEEDS to change.

I am not saying we need to take from the rich and give to the poor. I am saying take for the rich and provide for the poor. When there are people making enough money to have a private jet I honestly think that they can usually afford to pay more taxes. What is more important, some rich guy having a dual engine jet as apposed to a single engine jet, or the poor having a truly equal access to education and medical care over being stuck in a cycle of poverty.

I am also by no mean saying GIVE to the poor. If some one does not want to work than tough **** you get nothing. Don't give people money but provide them with basic services and make them work to provide for them selfs. The whole point of capitalism is that supposedly it allows for and some how creates equality. The whole work hard make money thing, this is true to an extent, but you are also forgetting having money and being born into money makes it quite a bit easier to make money, while it is much harder starting out poor. Take a look at history, socialism (the G.I. Bill) created the American middle class, while every time deregulation happens and capitalism takes it course the economy tends to go down the ****ter, for most. If you take a look at the distribution of wealth during these times, the money is still there, the rich just have it.
 

dante

Unabomber
Feb 13, 2004
8,814
9
looking for classic NE singletrack
yes, i'm pissed that the modern philosophy is that low cost housing to everyone is some new constitutional right.
actually, the current situation is anything BUT low-cost housing. what they did was put into place "more accessible housing", as in crappy option ARMs, liar loans, etc. the end result is that this was a fleecing of the poor, not a benefit. housing prices are still at historical levels with regards to annual income, being right about 4/1, where the traditional housing market has always been at around 3/1. trillions of dollars were created out of thin air, to be repaid by anyone who bought a house after 2000. lucky us.

Meh.
I'm of the belief that the widening of this wealth disparity is just a symptom of the ridiculous and unsustainable culture of greed and consumption in this country. And I mean that about both ends. Common people drive themselves into poverty by living beyond their means and reaping the punishment of interest rates and payments they couldn't afford, while the rich are more than happy to exploit their fellow man for all they're worth at the expense of the health of the economy and country at large.
Redistributing the wealth is a putting a band-aid on a problem that needs a freaking lobotomy.
Asking the rich to pay higher taxes isn't something I have a real problem with, but I think we should start to demand some financial responsibility from everyone. I understand we may need to bail out some banks and mortgages along the way, as the fallout hurts everyone when we don't, but this cycle of perpetual problems won't stop until everyone starts being smarter with their money.
:clapping: must spread rep...
 

jimmydean

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey
Sep 10, 2001
30,949
4,113
Portland, OR
Meh.
I'm of the belief that the widening of this wealth disparity is just a symptom of the ridiculous and unsustainable culture of greed and consumption in this country. And I mean that about both ends. Common people drive themselves into poverty by living beyond their means and reaping the punishment of interest rates and payments they couldn't afford, while the rich are more than happy to exploit their fellow man for all they're worth at the expense of the health of the economy and country at large.
Redistributing the wealth is a putting a band-aid on a problem that needs a freaking lobotomy.
Asking the rich to pay higher taxes isn't something I have a real problem with, but I think we should start to demand some financial responsibility from everyone. I understand we may need to bail out some banks and mortgages along the way, as the fallout hurts everyone when we don't, but this cycle of perpetual problems won't stop until everyone starts being smarter with their money.
:stupid:

My concern is more within a given organization. I'm all for paying CEO's large paychecks and bonuses, but there should be a limit based on employee salary average. Also limit the severance and "golden parachute" pacakages for poor performance.

I mean, if I do a crappy job, I get fired. If the CEO does a crappy job, not only do I lose from a company standpoint, but he gets a HUGE check to leave.

Intel used to do a good job of "wealth redistribution", but since the stock sucks, it's not a huge selling point anymore. I not only missed out on the raise I was promised, but I also didn't get a bonus at McAfee because the CEO got busted for false SEC reports and lying to investors. He got paid a bunch of money to quit.
 

manimal

Ociffer Tackleberry
Feb 27, 2002
7,214
16
Blindly running into cactus
I think the homeless people in the alleys and soup kitchens may argue that point vehemently with you. Or, are they not "people" to you, so they don't matter?
when did i ever give off the notion that they don't matter? i can positively guarantee that i work with and understand the homeless a lot more than you do. globally speaking, even our homeless live better than the impoverished of other nations and homelessness isn't something that can be cured; some people just choose to be homeless.
but thanks for trying to discredit my opinion by making me out to be a heartless a$$hole

whatever happened to "act your wage?"
 

Secret Squirrel

There is no Justice!
Dec 21, 2004
8,153
0
Up sh*t creek, without a paddle
:stupid:

My concern is more within a given organization. I'm all for paying CEO's large paychecks and bonuses, but there should be a limit based on employee salary average. Also limit the severance and "golden parachute" pacakages for poor performance.

I mean, if I do a crappy job, I get fired. If the CEO does a crappy job, not only do I lose from a company standpoint, but he gets a HUGE check to leave.

Intel used to do a good job of "wealth redistribution", but since the stock sucks, it's not a huge selling point anymore. I not only missed out on the raise I was promised, but I also didn't get a bonus at McAfee because the CEO got busted for false SEC reports and lying to investors. He got paid a bunch of money to quit.
I wonder if I can negotiate a parachute of my own at my next review time...hell...doesn't even have to be golden. I'd take a teak parachute...

Unless my new boss is into golden showers...that might get awkward in the conference room though...I'll have to bring some Tyvek.
 

Secret Squirrel

There is no Justice!
Dec 21, 2004
8,153
0
Up sh*t creek, without a paddle
when did i ever give off the notion that they don't matter? i can positively guarantee that i work with and understand the homeless a lot more than you do. globally speaking, even our homeless live better than the impoverished of other nations and homelessness isn't something that can be cured; some people just choose to be homeless.
but thanks for trying to discredit my opinion by making me out to be a heartless a$$hole

whatever happened to "act your wage?"
Some people around here do that. It makes me want to sic 13 rabid porcupines in a burlap sack on them. Fortunately, I don't have much interaction with those corporate clowns.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
38,937
5,627
Sleazattle
:stupid:

My concern is more within a given organization. I'm all for paying CEO's large paychecks and bonuses, but there should be a limit based on employee salary average. Also limit the severance and "golden parachute" pacakages for poor performance.

I mean, if I do a crappy job, I get fired. If the CEO does a crappy job, not only do I lose from a company standpoint, but he gets a HUGE check to leave.

Intel used to do a good job of "wealth redistribution", but since the stock sucks, it's not a huge selling point anymore. I not only missed out on the raise I was promised, but I also didn't get a bonus at McAfee because the CEO got busted for false SEC reports and lying to investors. He got paid a bunch of money to quit.
A friend of mine got fired basically so a Friend of the VP could take his job. He was fired 3 weeks before his wife was supposed to give birth. He was lucky in the fact that his son was born early and he had enough vacation built up they actually paid his benefits through that time.

A year ago that same VP got fired. Actually he didn't get fired but was given a special assignment. That special assignment was to find a new job. They kept him on and payed him until he found a better position. Worst part of all he was canned for ethics violations.
 

Stray_cat

Monkey
Nov 13, 2007
460
0
Providence
When I look at those graphs I don’t think wealth re-distribution, but rather opportunity distribution. The lower income brackets obviously don’t have access to the same services(education, health, etc etc), that your top percentile will. It’s partially the lack of access that blocks personal financial growth. There’s a reason why American only ranks 18th for education. Now the question would be: Who pays for it?
 

jimmydean

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey
Sep 10, 2001
30,949
4,113
Portland, OR
A friend of mine got fired basically so a Friend of the VP could take his job. He was fired 3 weeks before his wife was supposed to give birth. He was lucky in the fact that his son was born early and he had enough vacation built up they actually paid his benefits through that time.
When I was at Flatrock, we had hired a CEO to take the company public. The first thing he did was bring in all his friends from Mentor Graphics, one of them a QA guy to "help" me. I interviewed him, said he sucked, he was then hired anyway.

3 months later, we took a 33% pay reduction as a company to stretch the funding until round B was secured. When round B failed (sept 11, 2001) the company closed. I later learned that the CEO and his pals did not participate in the "company wide" pay reduction. I also learned my assistant made nearly double my base.
 

Defenestrated

Turbo Monkey
Mar 28, 2007
1,657
0
Earth
so let me get this straight. the lower and middle income brackets are ENTITLED to the wealth of the rich?
Not at all, however the lower and middle class are entitled to live in a system that benefits them equally relative to the extremely rich.

I thought I made it pretty clear with all the graphical aids that the rich are somehow amassing greater amounts of wealth as the lower and middle classes bleed.

but the up side is this...as democracy dies off and turns to socialism there are usually conflicts in the form of civil war/guerrilla war and i know where i'll be :twitch: :D
Capitalism is NOT synonymous with Democracy... In fact, had Trotsky risen to power instead of Stalin the USSR may have become a free socialist and democratic society...

"have not's" in this country, globally speaking
The united states is one of the closest industrialized nations to having the child poverty rate of a third world country fyi.

CHILD POVERY

 
Last edited:

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,045
0
Towing the party line.
Ok one last time for those who don't get it.

Socialism is state control of ownership and administration of the means of productions. Without this, there is no socialism. Redistribution of wealth and a centralization of power are key tennets of socialism, but without the control of production and distribution, there is no socialism. What you have is a watered down form of welfare economics.

For christ's sake, stop listening to the talking heads. All they are trying to do is scare the uneducated into voting their way through fear tactics and misinformation. There is no socialism in the US and neither party will bring it into effect unless they somehow manage to buy up then entire production and distribution system for major goods in the USA. Communist Russia was socialist.

Do some research for once or shut up about friggin' socialism. Stop complaining about something you know absolutely nothing about besides what you heard from some republican talking head on Fox or CNN.

Ironically, the closest thing to socialism is the bipartisan market buyout currently being put in place in the "economic stimulus package".
 
Last edited:

bohorec

Monkey
Jun 26, 2007
327
0
If public transport, education, medical care, lower taxes for middle class, environmental taxes, etc = communism,

then public wars for private profits, police state, saving privately owned bussiness with tax money, keeping schools expensive so only rich kids can get education on highest level, etc = feudalism

:biggrin:
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
5
Not at all, however the lower and middle class are entitled to live in a system that benefits them equally relative to the extremely rich.
says who?
Defenstrated said:
I thought I made it pretty clear with all the graphical aids that the rich are somehow amassing greater amounts of wealth as the lower and middle classes bleed.
all that was made clear is that someone graphically represented some possibly cherry-picked data
Defenstrated said:
The united states is one of the closest industrialized nations to having the child poverty rate of a third world country fyi.
how is child poverty objectively defined? and where it does occur, how is it defrayed in the depicted developed nations? i believe these are 2 rather relevant questions.
 

Defenestrated

Turbo Monkey
Mar 28, 2007
1,657
0
Earth

Defenestrated

Turbo Monkey
Mar 28, 2007
1,657
0
Earth
Seeing as though every country's childhood poverty rate is derived in the same fashion, it should be a fairly useful tool for comparison.
 

Skookum

bikey's is cool
Jul 26, 2002
10,189
0
in a bear cave
i am cutting back on construction this next year and plan on laying sideways in the public trough...

f-! the rich!!!

gimmie mine bishes
i'm sure all the Mexicans you hired will live comfortably as they take our currency over the border and live like kings.

we are a selfish nation that desperately needs to be brought to our knees
You have interesting points of view, many of them can be argued, but i'll just rest with a comment of "Be careful what you ask for".

so let me get this straight. the lower and middle income brackets are ENTITLED to the wealth of the rich?

well heck, i 'm gonna quit working hard and saving money 'cause i'm gonna get mine too!
i can't believe you actually believe this line of thinking. WTF for REALZ?!?

Let's examine another over-simplified way looking at things...

The rich never allowed trickle down, instead looked to raise profit margins by shipping jobs overseas. Since our market economy is dependent on cash circulating, people are encouraged to live beyond their means.

But what exactly would define living beyond our means nowadays?

The change is so subtle, but remember how Grandpa managed to make a good living on a 40/hr a week job, bought a house, car, saved to pay for your Dad and 3 aunts college tuition, all the while Grandma stayed at home to raise the kids. They still had enough cash floating around for quality yearly family vacations.

Fast forward to now... Now "The American Dream" is a socialist view?

Ironically, the closest thing to socialism is the bipartisan market buyout currently being put in place in the "economic stimulus package".
Nice.

It's amazing to look at how "so-called" conservative points of view just beg to be taken advantage of. If i was rich i would absolutely love this overbearing rugged individualist attitude.

It seems to me the graphs illustrate perfectly the reasons why we're headed for a possible depression. The economy is based on cash flow moving, while the cost of living currently is stretched well above what is reasonably sustainable. The rich never "trickled down" but folk were still aggressively promoted to spend. Remember when there were cartoons at the beginning of movies at the theater, and now you have a half hour of commercials?

Now as jobs dry up, people are going to defend rich people like they really need to be defended. Have some respect and dignity for yourself for a change.

If you want some power over leftist agendas from moderates, get off your stupid train, and use your views for specific agendas that make sense, and that don't rip us all off.
 

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,045
0
Towing the party line.
Trickle down doesn't work because as the rich get richer, they are (usually) smart about their money. It gets invested. Invested money will never trickle it's way down to the lower classes and thus they cannot stimulate the consumer driven economy the US (and most of the west) has.

You need liquid assets in the hands of the consumer, not money market assets in the hands of the wealthy.
 

3D.

Monkey
Feb 23, 2006
899
0
Chinafornia USA
It gets invested.
true to that

Inappropriately invested…

… coupled with our litigious society and the liability factor, opening up new businesses to cycle the wealth back to the population, is the last thing the mega-rich will do with there profits.

What they will do is stick their profits into the markets and suck even more capital out of our all ready depleted system, and in the end, be excessively compensated for contributing very little to society.
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
5
Trickle down doesn't work because as the rich get richer, they are (usually) smart about their money. It gets invested. Invested money will never trickle it's way down to the lower classes and thus they cannot stimulate the consumer driven economy the US (and most of the west) has.

You need liquid assets in the hands of the consumer, not money market assets in the hands of the wealthy.
couple questions/points:

if the bailout package is to keep our economy running (business making payroll, most notably), then this clearly is not excess cash injected into the economy, but required cash. so next: if the upper crust adds to their pile above & beyond what's required to keep the economy running, what incentive would they have to inject more? and aren't some forms of investment injected into the economy, like venture capital?

i'm not sure what the balance is, but it seems to me that trickle down is effective, but perhaps not absolutely.
 

Defenestrated

Turbo Monkey
Mar 28, 2007
1,657
0
Earth
Why would you even chose to use supply-side economics over demand-side?

Really the answer to the question comes down to whether you favor the proletariat or the bourgeois.

I mean, if you have two workable ways to stimulate the economy and you choose tax breaks for the rich over tax breaks for the middle and lower classes you must be a little heartless, or maybe you stand to gain something by doing so.