Fault Lines: The Top 1%

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Nov 10, 2008
590
112
43
45
#1


The richest 1% of US Americans earn nearly a quarter of the country's income and control an astonishing 40% of its wealth. Inequality in the US is more extreme than it's been in almost a century — and the gap between the super rich and the poor and middle class people has widened drastically over the last 30 years.

Meanwhile, in Washington, a bitter partisan debate over how to cut deficit spending and reduce the US' 14.3 trillion dollar debt is underway. As low and middle class wages stagnate and unemployment remains above 9%, Republicans and Democrats are tussling over whether to slash funding for the medical and retirement programs that are the backbone of the US's social safety net, and whether to raise taxes — or to cut them further.

The budget debate and the economy are the battleground on which the 2012 presidential election race will be fought. And the United States has never seemed so divided — both politically and economically.

How did the gap grow so wide, and so quickly? And how are the convictions, campaign contributions and charitable donations of the top 1% impacting the other 99% of Americans? Fault Lines investigates the gap between the rich and the rest.



"""
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#4
I think they also control 40% of the wealth, so as of now, perhaps 40% is prudent.

The real problems originate from their influence on politics and policy as a whole, the media, and campaign finance.


It stands to reason that if they pay 40% of the taxes they might as well control 40% of the influence on how that money is used. I mean, did you tell your dad how to run his house when he was paying the bills?
 
Mar 1, 2006
4,276
1,154
0
39
www.sendearnings.com
#5
It stands to reason that if they pay 40% of the taxes they might as well control 40% of the influence on how that money is used. I mean, did you tell your dad how to run his house when he was paying the bills?
Dont make them perfect or better than the rest of the population in descision making. Fuck an oligarchy, every human has that greed factor thats why a democracy with no hipocrisy in law works.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#6
The top 1% also pay almost 40% of the income taxes.


But they need to "pay their fair share"..... :dead:
There isn't any real reason for anyone to spend more than a few tens of thousands dollars a year. If you have billions of dollars the only way to spend them is on outrageous things like 700-million yachts, which you absolutely don't need. Which is why the flat tax rate is a stupid idea and tax rates were what they used to be back in the days:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Federal_income_tax_rates

The only reason people want more money is because in our society money equals status and we are biologically programmed to compete for status. Which is where a lot of our problems come from. Once you have enough to eat, a house to live in and you have your medical care and education provided, you don't really need much more (you can argue as much as you want about the cost of the latter two in the US, but the only reason they cost as much as they do is that most people with influence in each system are only after money with providing those services being an afterthought). The rest is all about status.

The whole debt/deficit/spending mess is yet another prime example of this phenomenon. It is a not very complicated optimization problem; you have on one side things you want to spend money on and that you can cut the amount you spend on, on the other tax revenues which you can increase. From there on it is a matter of priorities to have the two in balance, priorities that would not be at all difficult to define if it wasn't for the fact that all sorts of people are fighting for social status and prevent that from happening.

And while they're doing this, nobody notices the real reason for why the economy is not growing which is that it has hit the limits to growth....
 
Apr 12, 2005
6,109
5
0
54
www.freeloadmp3.com
#8
I think one thing to consider is that many people will think that those who are considered wealthy that need to be taxed more are the Bill Gates when in reality even if you taxed those type of individuals at 100% we would not come close to solving our debt problem. Many people who would be considered wealthy are business owners both small and large. I believe taxing them will do one of two things. They would lay people off to try and maintain or maximize profit shares or pass on additional increased tax expenses to the consumer in the form of raising prices on goods and services.
 
Oct 6, 2005
1,497
4
0
44
#10
Warren Buffet is an elitist prick, as are most people who reference him. Why does his opinion matter anymore than the next man's? Because he has more money?
Never met the dude... Don't know if he's a prick or not... Only know that he clearly understands how to make, and amass boat loads of money... If he writes an op-ed piece asking his buddies to pay a bit more in taxes to help out the country since it's going through a bit of a rough spot at the moment, why wouldn't anyone with even a hint of common sense listen...?
 
May 24, 2007
273
2
0
37
#12
by Richard Wolff.



The political posturing around the debt ceiling "crisis" was mostly a distraction from the hard issues. The hardest of those - underlying US economic decline - keeps resurfacing to display costs, pains and injustices that threaten to dissolve society. Its causes - two long-term trends over the last 30 years - help also to explain the political failures that now compound the social costs of economic decline.

The first trend is the attack on jobs, wages and benefits, and the second is the attack on the federal government's budget. The first trend enables the second. A capitalist economy suffering high unemployment with all its costly consequences shapes a bizarre, disconnected politics. The two major parties ignore unemployment and the system that keeps reproducing it. They argue instead over how much to cut social programs for the people while they agree that such cutting is the major way to fix the government's broken budget.

The first trend amounts to looting the US working class (the media softens that to "disappearing middle class"). Since the 1970s, real wages have been flat to declining, while productivity per worker has risen steadily. What employers give workers (wages) has remained the same while what workers produce for their employers (profits) rose. Workers and their families responded by working ever more hours and borrowing ever more money to get or keep the "American dream." By 2007, they were physically exhausted, families emotionally stressed and deeply anxious about the debts that their flat real wages could no longer sustain. When the system crashed, zooming unemployment, further wage and benefit reductions and home foreclosures made everything still worse for most Americans.

The second trend was looting the government. This happened because exhausted and stressed workers turned away from participation or even political interests after the 1970s. In contrast, employers used the profits made possible by flat wages and rising productivity to buy politicians, parties and policies. More than ever before, businesses and top executives grabbed the levers of political power. They made government serve their interests. Starting in the 1980s, Washington lowered business taxes, deregulated businesses, cut taxes on executives' and other high incomes, increased spending on the military-industrial and medical-insurance complexes, provided more opportunities and freedom for financial speculation, and so on. To distract people from recognizing, debating, or opposing this political shift, more was also spent on social programs and supports.

Washington was thus deprived of tax revenues (chiefly on corporations and the richest individuals) while spending more on defense, business supports and social programs. As this gap between revenues and expenditures rose, Washington kept borrowing ever more. Rising annual budget deficits added to the national debt. When the private capitalist system crashed in 2007, business and the rich made sure the government spent vast sums to bail out banks, insurance companies and large corporations and to revive the stock market. Accordingly, government deficits and debts zoomed upward.

Business and the rich made trillions from both trends. By keeping workers' wages flat, profits soared as employers alone kept the full fruits of rising worker productivity. Employers and the rich profited further by getting Washington to lower their taxes. They then lent at interest to the government what they no longer needed to pay in taxes. After all, the government needed to borrow precisely because it had stopped taxing corporations and the rich at the rates of the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. Business and the rich happily financed a political system that converted their tax obligations into secure, well-rewarded loans to the government instead.

Looting the working class and the state widened the gap between rich and poor in the US to what it was a century ago. Now the corporations and the rich want the state, whose budget they looted, to cut back social supports and services for the working class whose wages and productivity they also looted.

Republicans yell "class warfare" against advocates of a return to the 1940s tax rates on business profits, and the 1950s and 1960s rates on high-income individuals. Both were far higher than they are today. "Class warfare" better describes government policies since the 1970s. Business and the rich made sure those policies shifted the burden of federal taxation from business to individuals and from rich individuals to everyone else.

Despite this double looting of working people and the state, many victims direct their anger at the government instead of those who control the government. Unemployed millions fired by private capitalist employers (or suffering wage and benefits cuts imposed by them) blame the government, not their employers. Millions foreclosed out of their homes by private capitalist banks blame the government. They want the government punished, made smaller and weaker, and they are desperate to avoid further taxes. Republicans promise to do all that. Those who fear that a smaller, tax-starved government will do even less for them hear Democrats promising to cut less than Republicans. This is politics disconnected from economic realities (for example, high unemployment) and twisted into a contest between more and less government spending cuts imposed on a working class already reeling from economic crisis.

Neither party dares to return taxes on corporations and the rich to what they were. Neither party dares to advocate that government hire the unemployed to rebuild the US, to spend their government-job wages on maintaining their mortgages (reviving the housing industry) and thereby stimulate the whole economy from the bottom up. Above all, neither party dares admit that so long as production remains in the hands of tiny groups of rich shareholders and boards of directors, they will keep looting the system
Can the US do better than this capitalist system's performance? We need to debate honestly and decide whether and how we can do better. We should have had the courage to debate that over the last 50 years. The cold war - and the priorities of corporations and the rich - prevented that. Now it's long overdue. We need new political organizations mobilizing people to demand and engage that debate, theoretically and also in practical, political struggles.
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#13
Never met the dude... Don't know if he's a prick or not... Only know that he clearly understands how to make, and amass boat loads of money... If he writes an op-ed piece asking his buddies to pay a bit more in taxes to help out the country since it's going through a bit of a rough spot at the moment, why wouldn't anyone with even a hint of common sense listen...?


If he was poor would you still listen?
 
Oct 6, 2005
1,497
4
0
44
#14
If he was poor would you still listen?
Dunno...? But if Michael Jordan was giving me tips on my b-ball game, I'd be all ears...... On the flip... I don't think my high school coach played a single minute of Division 1 hoops, let alone pro basketball... But I listened to every critique he ever gave me...
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#15
Dunno...? But if Michael Jordan was giving me tips on my b-ball game, I'd be all ears...... On the flip... I don't think my high school coach played a single minute of Division 1 hoops, let alone pro basketball... But I listened to every critique he ever gave me...


Don't get me wrong, if Warren was giving me tips on how to make money, I would be all ears, but I don't see how making money makes him qualified to give tips on how to run a country, anymore than being skilled at playing basketball makes someone qualified to give tips on how to run a basketball organization.

Unless of course you believe that the the more money you have the more your tips on how to run a country should be listened to, or that the better you are at playing basketball the better you would be at running a basketball organization.
 
May 24, 2007
273
2
0
37
#16
^^^
By merit of his financial position, do you believe Warren Buffet has a perspective of the country that others with substantially less do not?
 
Oct 6, 2005
1,497
4
0
44
#17
Don't get me wrong, if Warren was giving me tips on how to make money, I would be all ears, but I don't see how making money makes him qualified to give tips on how to run a country
Maybe this is where the disconnect is... I don't believe Mr. Buffet is giving tips on how to run the country (a la Ross Perot)... Only that he is giving tips on how the country can make more money... Just as Michael Jordan may have very little understanding of how to run a basketball organization (should ticket prices be raised to bring in a superstar player or remain low to attract basketball fans...?) He clearly knows what it takes to build a championship team (strong center, agile point guard, dead eye shooter at the two, etc...)
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#18
Maybe this is where the disconnect is... I don't believe Mr. Buffet is giving tips on how to run the country (a la Ross Perot)... Only that he is giving tips on how the country can make more money... Just as Michael Jordan may have very little understanding of how to run a basketball organization (should ticket prices be raised to bring in a superstar player or remain low to attract basketball fans...?) He clearly knows what it takes to build a championship team (strong center, agile point guard, dead eye shooter at the two, etc...)


The very fact he thinks, as you say, that the country should "make more money" requires his advice to be regarded as in the context of running the country. His advice presupposes that the country should make more money, which is a political debate outside of his field of expertise.
 
Oct 6, 2005
1,497
4
0
44
#19
The very fact he thinks, as you say, that the country should "make more money" requires his advice to be regarded as in the context of running the country. His advice presupposes that the country should make more money, which is a political debate outside of his field of expertise.
Ha...!!!!!!!! What...???????? How do you figure...? Even better what's his field of expertise...?
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#20
Ha...!!!!!!!! What...???????? How do you figure...? Even better what's his field of expertise...?


I figure that the percent of government income compared to GDP in the United States is too high.

And Warren's field of expertise is business, not government.

Government cannot, and should not, be run like a business. The inherent goal of most business to is grow and make money. If the government had the same goal (which in my opinion it currently does) it would eventually grow to the point where it consumed nearly all income. When was the last time you heard any government or publicly funded entity like a university say "we have more money than we need., give us less next year"? Very rarely.

Every year, they "need" more more than they did the last because they are motivated by expansion.

Warren may be qualified to talk about expansion as it relates to generating income, but again, that presupposes that our government should be expanding and not contracting - which is the political debate I am referring to.