Two-Tiered 1%--Issues With The Top 1% OR The Top .05%?

by Justitia Themis 82 Replies latest social current

• 

  james_woods

  It's the same old golden rule: whoever has the gold, makes the rules.

  And that golden rule applies as perfectly under totalitarian communism (better, I should say) than it does under capitalism.

  This is one of the reasons why I think it is both un-American and un-Constitutional to allow large (or small) corporations to donate political contributions. It is the reason why attempts at limiting individual contributions by the ultra-rich have long been attempted (with mixed success).

  This is the reason why I think the Bank and Auto Manufacturing bailouts should never have been done. This is the reason why I think that government handouts to so-called "green industry" should never have been done - and that includes G.E. as well as Solyndra.

  I do not understand how both Republicans and Democrats can support such government funding when it is obvious that it is under corrupt influence from political contributions and cronyism.
• 

  NewChapter

  I grow weary of the argument that any action to make things bearable for the many is pure socialism and we will be like the old Soviety Union tomorrow. This old idea of some redistribution is at least as old as the Jubilees of ancient Israel.

  When all of the money, resources, and power are consolidated with a small group, what then? Not one person has ever said they want to take all of the money from the rich. Not one person is arguing that we shouldn't have the opportunity to get rich. This hyperbolic reasoning is ridiculous. That 1% has used their power and money to accumulate more on an unfair playing field. Plenty of people don't even want to be rich. They simply want to have a home, feed and educate their families, and get health care. But the right muddys the argument by making this a purely socialist vs capitalist argument. FOX News called Warren Buffet a socialist for godssakes.

  So is the argument that until the few can take it ALL from the many, they just won't have enough? Their rights will be violated? Their efficient tactics have stolen opportunity from the rest of us.

  We don't want Communist Soviet Union---but we can't sustain what we do have.

  When a starving Somalian looks longingly at someone else's food---is it envy? Or is it injustice? Is is socialist to share some of that food, out of plenty, with the starving person? Does it mean the only option is to give up all the food? NO. They don't want ALL the food--only enough to survived.

  The 99% don't want ALL the money. They want opportunity. They want an even playing field. They want to the same rules to apply to everyone. They aren't asking the rich to hand over their yachts, they are asking to be able to support their families. Oh---I guess this is evil and socialist. The rich have taken the bootstraps away, thrown them into a closet where they are collecting dust and no one gets to use them. Wanting them back is not exactly socialism, and bits of socialism to soften the edges of capitalism does not translate into totalitarian government.

  You do know that totalitariasm is a form of government and socialism is an economic system, right? They don't go hand in hand. And the US will never adopt a purely socialist economy.

  NC
• 

  james_woods

  I disagree that socialism is "an economic system". It can affect economics, but it is really a philosophy of government that affects far more than the economic system.

  The problem with socialism (with a socialistic government) is that it seldom knows when to stop. This is what leads to totalitarianism and loss of freedom.

  And the US will never adopt a purely socialist economy.

  Probably not in our lifetimes - but this seems to me to be what most of the wall street protestors actually want.
• 

  Diest

  James if it makes you feel better, payroll taxes are regressive, the more you make past 107k the less you pay (by percentage). Even better if you earn your money through stock sales or dividends you pay 0%. Roughly 33-36% of our nation’s tax revenue comes from payroll taxes.

  Most states use sales taxes to create most of their revenue, these taxes are also regressive since those who make less pay more as a precentage of their income.
• 

  james_woods

  James if it makes you feel better, payroll taxes are regressive, the more you make past 107k the less you pay (by percentage). Even better if you earn your money through stock sales or dividends you pay 0%. Roughly 33-36% of our nation’s tax revenue comes from payroll taxes.

  You are confusing social security taxes (FICA) with federal income taxes. There is no 107k cutoff for income tax.
• 

  JonathanH

  I have a question for the economically conservative. Left to purely capitalistic means, will the top 1% (or .5%, whatever), procure a greater or lesser % of the nations wealth over the next decade? The top percentile already controls a considerable amount of the money in the country, do you think that this % will naturally decrease, or increase over time, and why? Is this change (either up or down) healthy or unhealthy? That is all.
• 

  james_woods

  I have a question for the economically conservative. Left to purely capitalistic means, will the top 1% (or .5%, whatever), procure a greater or lesser % of the nations wealth over the next decade? The top percentile already controls a considerable amount of the money in the country, do you think that this % will naturally decrease, or increase over time, and why? Is this change (either up or down) healthy or unhealthy? That is all.

  I believe that it will be less, simply because the government will not stop spending and they will not stop taxing. It is obvious that nobody in government has any stomach for increasing taxes on anyone except the top 1%.
• 

  Diest

  I didnt confuse it. I know FICA is payroll taxes and I am not refering to federal/state withholdings. Those taxes are regressive as are state sales taxes.....It is good that you avoided those isuese by trying to tell me something I knew.
• 

  JeffT

  Jonathan, I'll take a swing at that, but this is only a first pass.

  We don't have a purly capitalistic system, most obviously proven by the recent bailout programs (banks, the auto industry). We've created a system where reward is detached from risk. If you blow a bunch of money on some hot shot scheme, don't worry. If it goes upside down the government (taxpayers) will pick up the tab. If these guys had to say to themselves "if this deal goes under I'm going to be back where I was in high school, flipping burgers at McDonalds" they'd consider the risks more carefully.

  Prudent business people keep the long term health of the their business in mind. That health depends on good employees, an up to date physical plant and a sound business plan. (I've worked as an account for both prudent and imprudent business people, there's plenty of both). The prudent business person will succeed given a reasonable chance to do so. The improvident business person, who ingnores the basics, will be on the street if nobody bails him out.

  And seeing sorry ass on the street would serve as a warning to others.
• 

  JonathanH

  That's not what I meant james, I mean in a purely ideally capitalistic system, not in a "well the government will interfere will capitalism, with this and this policy." I mean, if left to their own devices will the top 1% accrue more or less of the nation's wealth?