What is middle-class, really! - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

STORMINORMAN · #46 04-21-2003, 10:14 PM

Alex (DH} says "I think you'll find the top 1% has way more than 36% of the wealth."

Boy, now that's a new one on me. The "top 1%" of what? All
U.S. citizens? Taxpayers? Define this concept, please.

Has "way more than 36% of the wealth"... Total wealth in the U.S.? Define this one, too, please.

I would love to see a source: this doesn't sound correct to me.

Cheers!

DieselHead · #47 04-21-2003, 10:27 PM

I'll try to find you more sources, but this should suffice.

The wealthiest 1% (96% of that wealth is tied up in things other than their house) control 39.5 of the country's wealth. Oh, and that only accounts for the declared assets of the 1%. Surely, if they're "smart" enough to accumulate so much wealth, they have found ways to hide some of it.

The top 4% control 64%.

Wolff, Edward. 1998. "Recent Trends in the Size Distribution of Household Wealth." Journal of Economic Perspectives. Vol. 12, No. 3, 131-150.

It's amazing that most Americans are unaware of the actual wealth distribution in this country.

Narwhal,
Don't worry, I was just kidding. Hate those Princeton kids.

Glen · #48 04-22-2003, 12:19 AM

Taxes...simplified

tabasco85331 · #49 04-22-2003, 12:31 AM

I agree with you RS . I really think DH should ,``just say no ``to whatever he`s on . WOW !!!

Frank X. Morris · #50 04-22-2003, 12:48 AM

Howdy Glen,
Someone sent that to me a while back. I'm still laughing about it. Maybe everyone else will enjoy it. Thanx for posting it.

PaulG · #51 04-22-2003, 07:20 AM

Coming from England, I know a thing or two about the Class system...........

The First and most important issue is that your position in the Class system has almost nothing to do with income...........

It is determined more by TYPE of job, personal interests, education, background, geographical location, hobbies and political leanings.

That being said, if you want a hard-n-fast definition, the only one that holds water is that if you HAVE to work, you're Working Class.....

blackmercedes · #52 04-22-2003, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tabasco85331
Every time I hear Democrats say that large companies and corporations don`t pay their proportionate taxes I laugh . They do . Are they referring to the incentives they get to do business and help our economy grow ? Doing business in the U.S. is very expensive and to not encourage big business is a real mistake . Many businesses have moved to Mexico and Canada where they are wanted and encouraged , i.e. - GM and many Ford plants to name only a couple of the hundreds . So , no plant = no jobs generated , no money to support stores , restaurants and the many small busines that are dependant on people with jobs . Get it ? No trickle = no tickle down . Taxing large companies were it`s no longer profitable to stay here is biting our nose off ! Would you open a business that you knew wouldn`t make money for the stockholders ? They wouldn`t either !

Actually, little productive capacity has moved to Canada.

You have presented the problem. Companies are whining that it's too expensive to locate their productive capacity in the US. This is partially due to corporate taxes. So, what is your solution?

You present Mexico as the destination of the capacity. How do we compete with Mexico? We could not only lose corporate taxes completely (would that be enough? probably not) but we could ban unions, abolish the minimum wage, suspend any worker's rights under legislation and create Free Trade Zones where human rights are also suspended.

Why should we create the type of system that Mexico has? They have little tax base since they have no strong consumer middle class with a good income and they do not tax corporations. Did you chase those good manufacturing jobs to Mexico? No. Who wants to work for pennies a day without decent working conditions.

Why do we allow firms to sell their goods to us and make tremendous profits from us without contributing? We drop corporate tax rates (Canada has done this like crazy) but NOT ONE of those lost manufacturing jobs has magically returned. Companies just make more money. If you want to sell your goods here, you have to contribute. Whether it's through jobs or taxes, I don't care. Maybe we could eliminate the corporate tax, but legislate that goods must be made locally.

You are right about thae fact that is there is no "trickle" there will be no "trickle-down." The idea that if we reduce or eliminate the corporate tax that all these companies will magically start building productive capacity locally is being naive. There is no single simple solution. At one time we had managed trade between nations. Companies were expected to serve the needs of the citizens. They provided jobs, investment potential, and contributed to economic growth.

How does Nike do this? They would benefit greatly from your no-tax policy. But, they employ few Americans. Would they build sneaker plants if the tax was dropped? Sure... Keep dreaming. They would add to their bottom line, and laugh at all of us. Nike contributes little to our society other than paying a very small group of people and "allowing" us to buy $200 shoes. If they went broke tomorrow, would we notice? Probably not. Most of the job losses would be overseas. The firms that sell them marketing services would feel the pinch, and that's about it. Oh, and Mike's income would drop by $40-50 Million a year...

STORMINORMAN · #53 04-22-2003, 12:42 PM

...it might be interesting to review Paul A. Sand's, a prof at UNH, comments regarding Wolff, a big proponant of a NEW! Improved Tax: The WEALTH TAX!

"Wolff makes no effort to show that his additional tax brings the system more into line with the nebulous "ability to pay," -
he just assumes---WITH THE ENTIRELY ARBITRARY NUMBERS HE GIVES FOR WEALTH BRACKETS AND RATES--
that it will." (emphasis added via capitolization)

So... Why do I get the feeling that someone who went to NYU (O, my! Did you actually vote for Hillarious! herself?) would tend to believe a guy who just wants to completely redistribute the wealth via taxation, and is not satisfied with merely taxing income and capitol gains? Sorry. Can't buy Wolff's "numbers".

Yet.

Someone previously mentioned the effects of "giving a rebate to a poor guy vs. a rich guy"... To get a rebate you are supposed to have PAID FOR the item in the 1st place! These social re-engineering tax credits want the tax-PAYERS to BUY the item for the entitlements-receiver, and then they want to GIVE HIM THE REBATE for free! Just as long as they get his vote....

Glen · #54 04-22-2003, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Frank X. Morris
Howdy Glen,
Someone sent that to me a while back. I'm still laughing about it. Maybe everyone else will enjoy it. Thanx for posting it.

You're welcome, Frank...now lets invite some really wealthy folks out to dinner!

STORMINORMAN · #55 04-22-2003, 02:45 PM

Many ,many people aspire to achieve what we are calling "middle class" status (?) and work dilligently to do so...

Once they are there, like so many of those who were born (or, somehow drifted?) into it, many just can't wait to move up, higher & higher. Sky's the limit!

If you really want everyone to be totally "equal" you condem society to a bunch of averages:

average income
average dwelling
average family
average education
average wealth
average expectations & aspirations

Figure around the 60th percentile, give or take.

More like... Cockroaches or plankton?

Ants, termites and bees even have different classes.

p.s. NIKE is WAY not politically correct enough to satisfy the rabid anti-everything masses around here! Notice I refer to them as masses vs. majority. When we moved here a quarter-century ago, NIKE was jus' blue sneakers with a Swoosh!

tabasco85331 · #56 04-22-2003, 02:59 PM

Remember blackmercedes that people with jobs pay taxes , no jobs= no taxes . People with no jobs are actually a burdon and a liability to tax payers . When the U.S. does not encourage big business this starts a circle that drives our economy into the ground . Regardless , that you think business and manufacturing are not moving to places that encourage them , they are , in droves . We lose , until we figure it out , that we have taxed ourselves broke .

#57 04-22-2003, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tabasco85331
Remember blackmercedes that people with jobs pay taxes , no jobs= no taxes . People with no jobs are actually a burdon and a liability to tax payers . When the U.S. does not encourage big business this starts a circle that drives our economy into the ground . Regardless , that you think business and manufacturing are not moving to places that encourage them , they are , in droves . We lose , until we figure it out , that we have taxed ourselves broke .

Right, Please keep in mind the more taxes the work force has to pay indirectly increases labor cost, which incidently cost's companies more to produce a product. So the typical liberal prattle against big companies comes full circle. I know I went to non Ivy league school but I can still figure stuff out with the help of the internet.

blackmercedes · #58 04-22-2003, 06:25 PM

This idea that corporate taxes stifle economic growth is the true prattle. We've had corporate taxes for decades, and yet Canada and the US have managed to become the "premier" economies on the planet.

It IS possible to encourage business growth AND have them pay taxes. Cripes, you see it everyday. How many of YOU pay income taxes? But, you still go to work, work hard, be ambitious, and try to earn more. We need to make sure that the tax burden is not unreasonable, that is the key. We need to provide enough of a balance between personal and corporate tax in the gov't revenue equation, while allowing the gov't to provide the services that make our society great.

There are plenty of tax-free nations on the planet. Those nations are not being overwhelmed by immigrants from the G-8 nations.

Nike does employ US citizens, but could employ thousands and thousands more. Why not expect them to do so? Would Nike survive without access to the US consumer market? Nope. Why can't we expect them to chip in?

Okay, the argument that ANY corporate taxes just get added onto the bottom line and we consumers pay anyway is just crap. Companies in a COMPETITIVE marketplace cannot sell their product for a dime more than the market will allow. Regardless of cost struture. Young growing (growing!!) companies register little or no profit, and therefore pay no taxes. Established (profitable) companies have to compete in the same market. They have the benefits of being established and having had time to seek cost effective strategies.

Quote:
Remember blackmercedes that people with jobs pay taxes , no jobs= no taxes . People with no jobs are actually a burdon and a liability to tax payers . When the U.S. does not encourage big business this starts a circle that drives our economy into the ground . Regardless , that you think business and manufacturing are not moving to places that encourage them , they are , in droves . We lose , until we figure it out , that we have taxed ourselves broke .

Right. We agree. We need the JOBS. Jobs! You've said it over and over again, and I keep agreeing with you. But, your idea that corporate taxes are responsible for the loss of US manufacturing jobs is just propaganda from the corporate sector. They are tired of paying US wages. They are tired of US unions and labour legislation. They have broken down any managed trade agreements, and can produce their products in the cheapest environment possible, and SELL them in the most profitable market. It's easy to blame government for letting the manufacturing jobs disappear, as they colluded with business to eliminate any friction in the international market. Who lost? We did. Lost jobs. Lost wages.

How can doing more of the same thing that broke things fix it? We tore down managed trade. We cut corporate taxes like mad. We cut taxes to the rich. What is the result? Agrification of our economies, with manufacturing disappearing. Homogenization of the labour force, and a drop in real wages. An increasing spread int he gap between rich and poor. So, do we solve these problems by increasing the measures that created it? Sure.

engatwork · #59 04-22-2003, 07:38 PM

Quote:

They are tired of paying US wages. They are tired of US unions and labour legislation. They have broken down any managed trade agreements, and can produce their products in the cheapest environment possible, and SELL them in the most profitable market.

John - I could not have said it better myself. As this is written there are 18 new papermills on the drawing boards (millions and millions of dollars) and EVERY one of them is going to be built in the Asian region including China. I feel that in 10 to 15 years paper mills in Canada and America will be in the condition as the textile industry - pretty much non-existance.

mikemover · #60 04-23-2003, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by blackmercedes
?

You present Mexico as the destination of the capacity. How do we compete with Mexico? We could not only lose corporate taxes completely (would that be enough? probably not) but we could ban unions, abolish the minimum wage, suspend any worker's rights under legislation and create Free Trade Zones where human rights are also suspended.

Actually, abolishing unions and the minimum wage is NOT a bad idea!

Unions have become nothing more than giant "bullies"--How many of our airlines and other companies have to be forced out of business by their own uncompromizing, out-of-touch unionized employees before we realize this?

I've never been a fan of the minimum wage either...Why should an employer be forced to pay a worker a minimum amount of money, even if that worker is not actually WORTH that amount of money? Some minimum wage-level employees are excellent workers and deserve more. Many are NOT, and in fact barely even deserve the job AT ALL!

Mike