The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central GOP - the party of the rich

I suggest you read the paper cited in the graph if you have any questions about these numbers.

I know conservatives wish that this wasn't the case, but a lot of wealth inequality, lack of domestic job creation and decimated middle class can be traced directly to Reagan policies.

One assertion that you can and should make is that wealth does not trickle down, rather it is very evident that it concentrates at the top. This leads to inevitable conclusion that the only way to address wealth inequality is via progressive taxation.

They already pay 35% what do you propose? 50,60,75%? Because under Obama's taxation on millionaires and billionaires ( you know those millionaires & billionaires that make $250K a year) would rise. Where would you start the tax hike and how much? Remember, you're trying to be FAIR!

Non Sequitur. Your caption and usage tried to imply that the top 10% was a bunch of fat cats. That there was some sort of big break between them, and the other 90%. I made that point that the scale keeps pretty smooth and steady down to a lot larger segment than that top 10%, and that a much larger portion than 10% lives pretty darn well.

So why is unequal wealth distribution so bad in the first place?

What is import? That people closer to the bottom can still live well, or that nobody has more than they do? The gap between the living standards of the 70percentile and the 1 percentile of the population in the USA is lower than in any society in history.

The 70percentile still typically have cars, and houses and PCs and clean food and plumbing and electricity and big TVs and internet etc. The top percent just has nicer houses and cars etc, and the very top has some additional conveniences.

If we go socialist, the haves will be the politicians and bureaucrats, and the have-nots will be everyone else. I would much rather market forces and market assigned value be the driving factor regarding wealth distribution than politics. And when you argue that those with money use their money to pursue unfair advantages, you realize that that lobbying/unfair advantages mostly come from the govt.

Your arguments regarding money and power, are arguments for smaller govt, not larger govt.

Where I would change our tax code? First, I'd start by stopping mortgage interest write off, it distorts the market. Second, I'd tax capital gains as a regular income. Third, I'd create legislation to penalize (in tax code) one-time bonuses with intention of shifting to long term share purchase options. Last but not least, 1mil plus needs to be a lot higher than it is now and/or loopholes need to be closed.

We already covered this in excruciating detail.



If you compare to medieval societies, perhaps you are right. Not so much if you compare to any other First-World country at the preset time.

It boggles my mind that you'd make these claims when I linked data showing POVERTY IN USA at record high levels. You do know what BELOW POVERTY LINE means, right?

This is what 1% consist of, while 99% picking up the tab for bailouts.

There is not a single one of us who thinks that this is not wrong, if those banks took bailout funds. If they didn't then who the hell cares how much they pay their employees. If you don't like it, put your money elsewhere.

This whole conversation boggles my mind.

There have always been rich and there have always been poor. History doesnt lie. Deal with it or get a guillotine and a mob and do something about it.