Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Jim, I'm having trouble grasping your logic.
If Oprah makes more money because the government lowers taxes there's less revenue to provide services for the dependent. If corporations keep wages stagnant and funnel value to shareholders there's less wealth to go around for the majority to scrounge for.
This is precisely the macro situation we've been experiencing a to a large degree why wealth continues to consolidate at the very top.
Before the Bush 43 years the poverty rate was 1/2 what it was before the 1960's. That's a big drop. Since Reagan the amount government spends on welfare continued to drop as well.
I think if you do some research on public opinion there will be overwhelming support for economic factors over personal ones.
Republicans do seem to have a credibility gap. Reagan didn't help with this perception...
Big difference. Celebrities are a source of individual wealth, the CEO is usually on top of an organization. Celebrities have always done pretty well, where the CEO to individual contributor pay gap has grown dramatically over the last 30 years.
-spence
|
"Jim, I'm having trouble grasping your logic."
Not suprising. My logic is that wealth is not finite. So one oerson's wealth does not cause another person's poverty. The solution to poverty does not involve the confiscation of exorbitant assets from th wealthy. The solution to poverty is to help poor people acquire more wealth for themselves.
"If Oprah makes more money because the government lowers taxes there's less revenue to provide services for the dependent"
You're talking about tax revenues collected, which is not what I was referring to (which was wealth). But OK. What if she makes more money NOT because of a tax cut, but because she launches another successful business, like a TV show. In that case, has she 'stolen' that additional wealth from anyone? If anything, the tax revenue is maximized if she makes another million, compared to a million poor people each making an additional $1, because her tax rate is so high. SO if you want to maximize tax revenue, which is what you are saying, you should be happy when the uber rich get richer, as their tax rates are higher than ours. Try making that wrong!
"Before the Bush 43 years the poverty rate was 1/2 what it was before the 1960's"
Can you provide that data please? From what I am seeing, since 1970, the poverty rate has been between 10% and 15%.
"If corporations keep wages stagnant and funnel value to shareholders there's less wealth to go around for the majority to scrounge for."
You make it sound like only wealthy plutocrats own stock. Everyone who has a 401(k) or a pension, benefits when the market does well. How do you not know this?
"This is precisely the macro situation we've been experiencing a to a large degree why wealth continues to consolidate at the very top."
That's only true if the stock market runup since 2008 is caused by, and only by, the wage decreases taht have occurred under Obama. I thought the bull market was caused, in part, by all the free money floating around. If you force wages higher, corporations have less profit, and thus pay less in corporate taxes, correct? You don't create wealth by confiscating it from one person (or business) and giving it to someone else.
The rich will almost always get richer at a faster pace than the rest of us. Why? Because it takes money to make money. They have more investable assets. Its simple math. It's not unfair, nor is it harmful. If the rich get richer, not only does that NOT hurt poor people, you could argue it helps everyone else. The rich poay higher tax rates, so the more wealth that gets taxed at their higher rates, the lower the tax burden on the rest of us. Furthermore, unless the rich put their money in their mattress, they either spend it, invest it, or put it in the bank. All of those things are good for the rest of us. How can you work in business and not know this?
"if you do some research on public opinion there will be overwhelming support for economic factors over personal ones
I would put it this way...your party has done a good job convincing a large segment of the population that accepting government freebies, does no harm to anyone else. Unfortunately, as you and I will see firsthand within 20 years, nothing is free.
"Celebrities have always done pretty well, where the CEO to individual contributor pay gap has grown dramatically over the last 30 years"
Sorry, celebrities didn't make $20 million a movie, 30 years ago. Until you show me that data, it's speculation on your part. Furthermore, the CEO of a publicly traded corporation does infinitely more good for the population than a celebrity. Large companies provide good jobs, and they provide wealth to shareholders. Celebrities, for the most part, do nothing of the sort.
Very weak, even for you.
CEO compensation, as you know, is tied to stock options. When stocks appreciate, that helps the CEO fatten his bottom line. It also helps everyone who owns a share of that stock, meaning it's good for an awful lot of people.