Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Roscoe
Hate to tell you Wes, but you are wrong.....very wrong.
Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%).
The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%).
The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%).
The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%).
The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes.
The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 17.53 (2000: 20.81%) of all income. The top 5% earns 31.99 (2000: 35.30%). The top 10% earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%); the top 25% earns 65.23% (2000: 67.15%), and the top 50% earns 86.19% (2000: 87.01%) of all the income. (source: IRS)
I don't know how you describe the productive working class?? Remember, not much wealth is inherited. Not everyone is a Ted Kennedy. It is created by hard working productive people who gamble and take unbelievable risks. They work long hours and hire alot of people.
Class warfare does not fly....it only creates envious people who never really make anything of themselves. Those same envious people would love to have the wealth created by the hard working productive person but they are too lazy or don't have the confidence or know how to do it. Most wind up with the protection and security of a union job. That's the best they can do.
|
Roscoe,
First, I don't think that this problem is directly political in the sense of party loyalty. Neither classical Republicans nor classical Democrats are founded on much of what is happening in Congress today. But...
"...not much wealth is inherited..."
Actually a lot of wealth is inherited. That is why we hear of so much whining and efforts to circumvent the "Death Tax"
".. Class warfare does not fly...."
Not quite sure what you mean here but class warfare has been with us nearly since the beginning. The age old struggle of the "haves and have-nots". Are you saying that one side should just give up?
"Hate to tell you Wes, but you are wrong.....very wrong."
Sorry to disagree Roscoe. That appears illogical to me. The top 5% aren't
earning their money. It is simply not possible for them to do it. I think you are buying into a bit of propoganda, one area where the "haves" are definately not idle. Back when money was sea shells and a man had a cave full of sea shells, he no doubt once spent most of his time desperately guarding the cave, no time for true idleness.
In reality, guys like me, probably you (& working people everywhere), are doing the actual "pie" production and the top 5 % are taking
way more than their share. We have to expect a little spin on their story. The way I see it, I can afford to support the idle poor to the present extent. The unemployment rate is low, there aren't many idle. The idle, and those that work at all barely take enough to eat. The idle rich are a heavy, hidden and growing burden. And I assume the same hidden burden for you if you aren't one of the "idle rich", even if you can't see it... yet.
The statistics you quote are probably true but misleading... on purpose. You and I are not only paying our
growing middle class tax load but nearly all the taxes of the top 5 % as well. Nobody said the world was fair but no harm in seeking balance... depending on who you talk to. Sure, they'll call me names.
Before you express that I, not you, have bought into a fake idealogy, let me hasten to explain my position. I think that I, and all of us, can reason this for ourselves how economics work in their most simple form and apply the irrevocable principles to more sophisticated situations. I don't believe there is any magic to this, rocket science or secret mysterious principles. Smokescreen, perhaps. Lotta smoke.
First, there is nothing wrong with capitalism... some that is. Pure capitalism is like a Monopoly game, last man left standing wins. But there is nothing inherently wrong with
some socialism as well. There is a good reason that our attention is
diverted to the "terrible" burden of socialism and its idle poor. That's the smokescreen. That's the guy guarding the cave. Can't blame him for trying. At least I can't blame him.
The logic? I can relate a parable as to best describe to how I believe capitalism probably started. The original basic principles are true today.
At one time, very long ago, humans lived and survived in a socialistic state. We were hunters and gatherers. Everyone had a job, worked about 20 hours a week and results were shared in a tribal commune. But even then, by necessity, some on-person articles were personal possessions. Somebody took it a bit further. While many stone age inhabitants belived that no one could own the waters, the sky and the forest ...the first capitalist did.
Somebody... the first capitalist... initially claimed the "public" berry patch as personal property. A very suave privatization manuver, this guy convinced the rest of the tribe that the patch was his. I imagine they "bought his propoganda". Thereafter he did not have to pick his own berries. Not only that, but he could now "own" far more berries than he could pick. The less berries he gave the "hired" pickers, the more he got to keep. He became the first top 5 %. He, and his kind, even devised the first tax to pay other citizens to guard these berries.... alieviating himself from standing there with a spear day in and day out. Young men gave their lives to protect these berries... and still do.
Now who was paying the taxes back then? Today? If we take the taxes from the patch owner he will cry that it is an unfair burden on his hard earned wealth. If we take the berries from the labor force, they will of course
sometimes cry that they are unduly burdened. One fact stands out. The
labor force picked all, or nearly all, the berries. One way or another labor pays all, or nearly all the taxes. The patch owner simply couldn't pick all the berries he "owns". It isn't physically possible. Patch owners take risks but often with money that was not personally earned to start. Nobody but nobody... can physically handpick more than slightly above the average or so. We might assume anybody with an extreme excess amount had, or has, their hand in somebody elses berry bowl. So I say tax'em more. Lower my taxes. If the top 5 % don't like it fine. They can quit and be middle class and work again. Or they can drop to poor and I'll still feed them, but not as well as I have been.
Now I have no problem with a farmer who personally plants his own berries and works hard to get ahead. On soil he "owns" or leases from the new overseas owners. Well, the overseas owners bother me some. But this farmer is no pie thief either. There are many of us playing this Monopoly game and benefiting from our own hard work and, truthfully, that of others. But no fun playing Monopoly in the dark and pretending it isn't human nature to exploit others.
I have some experience. I've owned a business with a dozen employees. I've worked for low end corporate management. The simple fact is that corporations band together and continuously change the rules mostly for more power, usually to gain advantage over costs... labor for one. Unions band together for more power to change the rules back to hedge this exploitation when it occurs.
Both get a bit greedy when they have the upper hand. Human nature.
It is my opinion that the pendulum has swung too far the other way towards the wealthy elite. I think world modern labor has a claim. Both capitalism and socialism are here to stay and we have been seeking balance ever since they originally co-existed. Those that have strayed from this logic... well we could use your help.
And that is basically my argument, my opinion.
...