The current government has spent more money than any government in the history of the world. We don't need taxes to spend money. Oh, have you heard, unemployment is up and the standard of living is down.
If you don't trust them on the 1%, you can throw that bar out and just look at the top quintiles. That story doesn't change. As for the uneven dates, I think they're drawing the boundary at the metaphorical river. You probably don't want to get too close to WWII, which probably caused a lot of volatility in the data. You don't want to go past 2007 because of the current recession (and possibly the inavailability of data). And then splitting the data right before Ronald Reagan and Reaganomics.
Thank you. The pattern is overwhelming, issues of binning and exact years accepted. I'm not surprised that the entire truth (the baby) would be tossed out in the minor statistical bathwater for some (who also sit with us in the relatively declining bottom 99%.) It's like a defender who can't block a dunk, getting posterized by truth, while muttering "yeah but your socks don't match." Agree that the author of the chart should have made equal spans of years (though I think that has limited value -- perhaps using a moving average would avoid any noise issues best), and that the author should have included the stats on the top 1% (if available) from the earlier years. What to do about it seems simple: don't rig every tax law and financial regulation to benefit the top 1%, as we have systematically done for the last many years. Cheers.
Yeah, which follows exactly from runaway wealth accumulation within a small number of people. Thank you for supporting the point of the chart. Unless you are one of the robber barons, let's get together and do something about it. People with two incomes are regularly finding a lower standard of living than their parents, who often came from just one-income households. If that's an acceptable trend to you, then your kids will need four full-time incomes per household, for an even worse standard of living. It doesn't necessarily have to be this way.
In the 1950s and 60s and much of the 70s, a man could work full time in a gas station and support a family and eventually buy a house. Hard to imagine, isn't it? You know ... the idea that if you work hard and keep your nose clean you'll be alright? Wow, it's hard to believe there was a time when that was actually true.
I don't see many people talk about how the global economy has changed what it means to hold a regular middle class job. With the whole world connected through internet and free flow of capital, the regular workers are just commodities. Why pay someone 4 times as much for doing the same job. On the other end, the few highly skilled or specialized worker are going to be in demand no matter where and the very few top innovators are making more money than ever (facebook, google guys). The days of one working parent with a regular 9 to 5 job supporting a family in a house and 2 cars are not coming back.
I'll be happy to get together with you to do something about it as long as that something is NOT creating more taxes expecting the government to pass it around. The part of my post you left off is the most telling, our government doesn't have to tax people to spend money. We have spent more than at any time in history and what do we have to show for it?
And those days should be brought back, by whatever means are necessary. I like how folks act with the "well, that's just the way it is" bull****. Nothing is "just the way it is." Everything can be changed. And this needs to be changed. **** the global economy. That just means that the wealthiest individuals have gotten us to support a system that keeps those same individuals in the position of greatest power. As long as we accept that, things are going to keep getting worse for us. And when I say "us" I mean both you and me. Maybe you're satisfied just as long as you aren't on the bottom. But how are you going to feel when the only thing that keeps you one-step-above-rock-bottom is the fact that you can afford two meals a day, while your neighbor can only afford one? This isn't "just the way it is." This is the way a very small percentage of society has made things by steadily manipulating the market, subverting our system of government, and getting trainloads of lower-middle-class suckers to believe that the problem is "the poor."
Fair and equitable corporate and higher-end tax rates are part of the solution. Sorry, but if we're going to fix this, we're going to have to sacrifice a few of our sacred cows. Granted, it's a small part of the solution, but it's a very real problem.
I think it's easier to manipulate the tax code, but we can probably get something done without touching it. Institute a nationalized healthcare system. That one's already started. This way, you won't have people impoverished by unlucky health events. Dramatically increase investments in k-12 education. Too many people aren't even able to compete for the jobs of the upper quintiles because their primary school education was negligent. I would also abolish the neighborhood schooling scheme that effectively segregates kids by class. Susbidize college education to remove financial barriers for those who would otherwise attend. Encourage trade schools for skilled blue-collar labor. You can stop fighting foreign wars and shut down most of the military if you feel you need to cut somewhere to pay for education without raising taxes. Re-empower the unions to collectively bargain effectively. Get serious about enforcing legal-to-work law. Increase the minimum wage to something people can realistically live on. Beef up security net for those who have to go on welfare. Increase regulatory scrutiny of financial markets to eliminate abnormal profits reaped by insiders.
I agree about National Health Care. It's coming, and will be better for society as a whole, and should be a lot less expensive. I think we already subsidize college education enough. The Pell Grant covers most that reasonably can't afford to go. Almost every state has a scholarship that covers the cost of tuition. You can realistically live on minimum wage. Raising a family on minimum wage probably isn't.
The problem with making it difficult for people, corporations or attempting to isolate ourselves is that this world has become increasingly global. S&P 500 companies make more than 50% of their profits overseas. If we attempt to skin them instead of shearing them, we'll drive them away or reduce their competitiveness meaning that business will go to a European or Chinese firm and we'll lose out. Individuals are much more mobile and are more willing to re-locate if the financial implications become more dire. For such a large country our GDP per capita remains strong because of our services provided globally. If we 'raise our protectionist shields', then others will follow suit and it will lower the standard living. The real question is better asked is it governments role to rectify imbalances and income equality?
Raise our protectionist shields? What the hell? It's free trade that is destroying our middle class and raising the standard of living around the world. You totally have no idea what you're talking about much less what you're saying. You have a serious disconnect with cause and effect.
