People march on Wall Street-Media Blackout - Page 6 - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 7th, 2011, 05:55 PM   #101
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,579
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

The class warfare I'm talking about very well could lead to a "grab your guns and defend yourself" type of civil war.

You may not think the middle class is moving down based on income, but statistics I've seen suggest otherwise.

I'd love to hear which pen stroke you think the government could make to solve these ills.
brewmenn is online now   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old October 7th, 2011, 09:25 PM   #102
3stratman
Let's Go Red Wings!
 
3stratman's Avatar
 
Join Date: 12-27-08
Location: Michigan
Posts: 717
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

These protesters are hilarious. They don't see what has really happened to them with all of this. They've bought into the class warfare game hook, line and sinker. They have blindly become shills for the Obama/Soros political machine. They are both using them, with great success, as PAWNs in their Obama re-election bid. Soros is funding them via MoveOn.Org, yet he is one of the biggest "tycoons" out there. They hate the corporate bailouts so much- well the President is one of the biggest proponents of those bailouts. The mortgage crises they are so pissed off about was created by the party they are aligned with (Frank and Dodd ring a bell?). They need to do some research and find out how many people those corporations they hate so much employ. And take a look at themselves and see how many goods and services they receive from those businesses. Do they own cars? Homes? Bank loans? Credit cards? Do they use airlines? Buses? Trains? Do they own electronics? Appliances? Computers? Do they ever need medication? X-rays? MRI's? The corporations they hate so much made all of those things possible for them to have. Why did they do that? Because they started a business, provided a product or service that people wanted or needed, and benefited from the fruits of their labor. Benefiting from the fruits of your labor: it's what a their relatives came to this country for many years ago. They didn't piss and moan because someone else was doing better that they were. They put their nose to the grindstone and made something of themselves. They knew hard works had it's rewards, they didn't have everyone screaming for it to be taken away from them, and they didn't expect a free ride from anyone. These protesters need to grow up.

And when did this country go from the "Be all you can be, the sky's the limit" attitude to the " You have too much, so you should give some to me because I don't have any" mentality. People like the late Steve Jobs used to be admired for their accomplishments; now they are vilified for being successful and making something for themselves. Our grandparents immigrated to this country to provide themselves with good lives through hard, honest work ( people are still doing that today ); they would be embarrassed to see their grandchildren whining about people doing better than them and demanding some be given to to them.

Last edited by 3stratman; October 7th, 2011 at 09:28 PM.
3stratman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8th, 2011, 07:49 AM   #103
opie
www.krissplicing.com
 
Join Date: 07-21-08
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 817
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
The class warfare I'm talking about very well could lead to a "grab your guns and defend yourself" type of civil war.

You may not think the middle class is moving down based on income, but statistics I've seen suggest otherwise.

I'd love to hear which pen stroke you think the government could make to solve these ills.
There is also plenty of data that suggests the middle class is moving up the ladder, rather than down it. But the classes are moved around by the politicians just like their districts move around to suit them.

The pen stroke that would be a balanced budget amendment sent to the states for ratification. I was more making the point that our politicians use social disorder to keep certain groups loyal to them, hence why I brought up the war on poverty. We still have the same percentage of the population in poverty now then when the war was waged. And total population has increased, which means the total number of those in poverty has also increased. So for all the money thrown at the program, it hasnt helped a bit but or politicians still use the poor as a political tool to get more money and stay in power.
opie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8th, 2011, 08:04 AM   #104
Brods
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 01-21-07
Location: Salem, Mi
Posts: 704
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Lots of different point of views. As usual the interwebz tends to polarize issues, one has to wonder how the conversations would go over a beer or three.
Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
.......
What Im gathering from the protestors is they feel they have been taken advantage of by the banks, for the most part. Im of the belief that it takes 2 to tango. Banks did not force anyone to take out loans of any nature, the banks were approached by individuals and asked if they (the bank) would loan them money. A contract was signed and based on that contract both parties agreed on the amounts and terms of the loans. I fail to see how it is not the banks or wall streets fault for an individuals situation.

We continue to hear about greed and predatory lending.... Truth is the banks are not doing anything we as individuals dont do ourselves. Take the 47% that pay no federal income tax.... Out of self preservation, shouldnt they step back and look at the bigger picture? "If I continue to pay no taxes, I will continue to hurt my country." They are being greedy by keeping all the money they earn while others are paying effective rates near 30-40%. Whether or not one has the ability to pay 30% is irrelevant....

........
Opie, you push for personal responsibility (and rightly so) but like so many others you seem to allow businesses a pass. Doesn’t the mortgage broker have a responsibility to lend only as much as can be reasonably expected to be repaid? Doesn’t the bank manager overseeing the broker have a responsibility to make sure the broker is not making bad loans? Doesn’t the Wall Street buyer of the mortgages have a responsibility to make sure the mortgages he is buying are sound? We could go on and on. Shouldn’t the people from the bottom to the top making bad decisions bear some responsibility? When those decisions were made against what would be considered reasonable judgment because of greed, shouldn’t those businesses and people who called the shots be held accountable?

It sounds like you lay the blame on the people who defaulted on their mortgages. I ask you this: say I borrow $5 from you and promise to pay you back. Most any reasonable person would figure I couldn't repay you. You bet ten friends $5 each that I will pay you back. If I don’t pay you back am I responsible for $5 or for $55? We had a deal, but I had nothing to do with your irresponsible side bets. So what do I owe? Seems to me I’m responsible for $5 and your betting is responsible for $50. Yes? So who caused more harm?


Quote:
Originally Posted by whiterhino View Post
I imagine that people are looking at it in 2 different ways. For me, I am looking at private industry and I am sure some are seeing it from a publically traded industry. Either way, I see it basically the same, although I believe a private owner who created his company bottom to top should reap the rewards. To me, every portion of the equation is supply and demand. There are very few people out there who can run a compay well. There are tons of people out there that can push a broom. And for every task in between, there is a similar supply and demand. So, if there is a need for high quality people, the price per person goes up. As that skill set gets saturated, the price per person goes down. Why does a company choose to pay an executive a high rate? Because they feel they get a return for their money that offsets the salary. It happens at every level. The above quoted statement is only talking about the top 100 CEO's out of thousands of companies. So, why are we worrying about 100 people? If they have found the secret to making their companies one of the top 100 companies in the world, they are worth every penny they are getting.
Certainly the private owner who builds a successful business by supplying customers with a product they want while conducting business in a law abiding and ethical way deserves whatever profit he makes. No argument there.

Public companies are a bit different for too many reasons to get into here. You ask why worry about the top 100? Why do we care about what famous sports stars do? Because they are roll models or at least they set the levels of success many will aspire to and mimicking their behavior is seen as a way to achieve that success. If the top 100 are outrageously compensated then the rest of the top 500 will want similar compensation and point to the top 100 as justification. And so on all the way down to the bottom 100.

WR, like you I lived through the hostile takeover era where conservative corporations with too much cash on hand or over funded pensions, etc. were forcibly taken over, raped and sold for parts. Wall Street paper pushers basically pilfering money earned by others’ hard work. Can you really say we as a country are better off today because of those actions?

I can understand people’s frustration with Wall Street. That that mortgage crisis caused such a huge financial meltdown has a lot to do with the wall street quaints’ (math wizards) deliberate and successful attempts to make “financial instruments” so complex that few could truly understand what they were really buying. The ratings agencies who were supposed to be the watchdogs did not do their jobs. A few people raised the alarm, but nobody cared because everybody was making tons of money. Greed kept it going until it finally burst. For sure there is much blame to go around, all the way down to the people who defaulted on their loans, but wall street greed is what exponentially amplified it to become a worldwide crisis.

Reward should be in proportion to risk. Wall Street and corporate America have been stacking the deck to minimize their personal risk while getting ever greater and greater rewards……all at the expense of the lowly surfs, of course.
Brods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8th, 2011, 12:45 PM   #105
opie
www.krissplicing.com
 
Join Date: 07-21-08
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 817
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brods View Post
Lots of different point of views. As usual the interwebz tends to polarize issues, one has to wonder how the conversations would go over a beer or three. Opie, you push for personal responsibility (and rightly so) but like so many others you seem to allow businesses a pass. Doesn’t the mortgage broker have a responsibility to lend only as much as can be reasonably expected to be repaid? Doesn’t the bank manager overseeing the broker have a responsibility to make sure the broker is not making bad loans? Doesn’t the Wall Street buyer of the mortgages have a responsibility to make sure the mortgages he is buying are sound? We could go on and on. Shouldn’t the people from the bottom to the top making bad decisions bear some responsibility? When those decisions were made against what would be considered reasonable judgment because of greed, shouldn’t those businesses and people who called the shots be held accountable?
Bear with me as I tend to jump around with points....

I am not so much allowing businesses a pass as I am placing responsibility on the consumer and employee to make smart, rational decisions. In my bread and butter job, I am not forced into the relationship by any influence on my employer. I provide a service and they pay me for it. In regards to the businesses I have relationships with my personal business, again there is no force to start and maintain those relationships. In short, we all enter into these things of our own free choice. It is up to us, the consumer, employee etc to make sure we are making the right decisions. It is up to us to be informed and smart enough to not get taken advantage of. Is it morally wrong for a business to take advantage of a consumer, sure. You will not get an argument from me. However, if a business takes advantage of me once, it will be the first and last time that is allowed to happen. And eventually, without any outside influence, that business will perish due to word of mouth from the customers that got taken advantage of. No need for any Government regulatory agency to monitor said business. Problem is everyone looks to the fed to provide a risk free environment so the majority of the consumer populace has gotten lazy in their due diligence in regards to vetting where they freely spend their money.

The Mortgage Broker... I believe it is up to the borrower to properly prepare themselves in figuring how much they can safely borrow without getting into trouble. There are many variables at play here in regards to what is a safe level of borrowing that must be made on each individual case, but I would never walk into a bank and ask "how much can I borrow." We always, my Wife and I, sit down and figure how much we "need" to borrow, and ask for a specific amount. Whether its our mortgage, a vehicle, personal unsecured loan etc. We figure how much we can afford to throw at a loan payment, what our monthly note will be each month based on P&I, how will our monthly finances be effected when works slows in the winter etc. These are all things I would expect everyone else to do in their own personal finances. What has happened, however, is people have gotten lazy. They rely on someone else to tell them what they can afford without factoring in any contingency plans. That is not the bankers fault, its the consumer for wanting to borrow as much as they think that can afford. It is the consumers fault for allowing someone else to let them think they can live outside their means.

Now... The bankers that did draw people in by promising folks more than they should have reasonably taken should share some of the burden of righting the wrong. But again, the terms of the agreement were laid in print and the person borrowing the money shoulders the majority of the burden for paying it back. EX: You go to a loan shark, you know you are going to be physically harmed if you borrow money and dont pay it back. But you borrow the money anyway and push comes to shove and you cant pay it back. Are you going to start crying foul because Guido is about to break your legs?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brods View Post
It sounds like you lay the blame on the people who defaulted on their mortgages. I ask you this: say I borrow $5 from you and promise to pay you back. Most any reasonable person would figure I couldn't repay you. You bet ten friends $5 each that I will pay you back. If I don’t pay you back am I responsible for $5 or for $55? We had a deal, but I had nothing to do with your irresponsible side bets. So what do I owe? Seems to me I’m responsible for $5 and your betting is responsible for $50. Yes? So who caused more harm?
For the most part, yes. They overextended themselves and there is no disputing that. It is smart financial planning to figure the bad times in with the good times. Everyone just figured on the good times and things went south. I know thats pretty general and there are exceptions, but for the most part it was all self inflicted.

If you borrowed $5 from me you would be on the hook for $5. My side wagers have nothing to do with the $5 you borrowed from me. I would never bet anyone else on your repayment of the $5, but I would then make good on my bets and pay off the folks I had made wagers with. But I fail to see how your analogy applies. There is no harm caused on any front but I did learn that you are not a safe investment and I would not loan you money again. If we had signed a contract I would expect to be repaid. If, however you never repaid the loan you would then have a history of non-repayment. In the future if you came to me to borrow again, and I agreed to loan you money and we signed a contract, and you never repaid, then the onus is on me because of your history.

There is a twist here though in regards to the banks loaning money to questionable borrowers... Congress was forcing banks to make loans to people that really shouldnt have been borrowing in the first place. So its not as cut and dry as it should be. Couple that with Fannie and Freddie promising to buy all of these questionable loans and anyone with an ounce of common sense could see what was coming.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brods View Post
Certainly the private owner who builds a successful business by supplying customers with a product they want while conducting business in a law abiding and ethical way deserves whatever profit he makes. No argument there.
The only thing we should be worried about here is lawful. You cant legislate ethics because what I feel is ethical you may not. Allow the free market system to weed out the unethical crap. Will some people get taken advantage of... Yes. But right now, in our Governments attempt to make everything equal and fair, we are all being taken advantage of.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brods View Post
I can understand people’s frustration with Wall Street. That that mortgage crisis caused such a huge financial meltdown has a lot to do with the wall street quaints’ (math wizards) deliberate and successful attempts to make “financial instruments” so complex that few could truly understand what they were really buying. The ratings agencies who were supposed to be the watchdogs did not do their jobs. A few people raised the alarm, but nobody cared because everybody was making tons of money. Greed kept it going until it finally burst. For sure there is much blame to go around, all the way down to the people who defaulted on their loans, but wall street greed is what exponentially amplified it to become a worldwide crisis.
Government greed is what allowed it to come to a head. Based on the number of Government agencies dedicated to preventing this from happening, and it still happened..... Yet we continue to put the same people into office. Smoke and mirrors.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brods View Post
Reward should be in proportion to risk. Wall Street and corporate America have been stacking the deck to minimize their personal risk while getting ever greater and greater rewards……all at the expense of the lowly surfs, of course.
And Government is stacking the deck in an attempt to eliminate personal risk.... one is a cause and one is an effect.... Which is which?
opie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8th, 2011, 02:05 PM   #106
Chiefwoohaw
Pokerob is my B*tch!
 
Chiefwoohaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 11,509
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

I really want to go watch these idiots get arrested on Monday but I have to work . . . dang!
Chiefwoohaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2011, 01:06 PM   #107
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,579
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
There is also plenty of data that suggests the middle class is moving up the ladder, rather than down it. But the classes are moved around by the politicians just like their districts move around to suit them.
Do you have any examples? I have looked and have found no examples of this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
The pen stroke that would be a balanced budget amendment sent to the states for ratification. I was more making the point that our politicians use social disorder to keep certain groups loyal to them, hence why I brought up the war on poverty. We still have the same percentage of the population in poverty now then when the war was waged. And total population has increased, which means the total number of those in poverty has also increased. So for all the money thrown at the program, it hasnt helped a bit but or politicians still use the poor as a political tool to get more money and stay in power.
From what I can find, the "war on poverty" was something that ran from the mid1960's to the mid 1970's and was somewhat successful in reducing poverty from around 17% to around 11%, and since the effort was largely abandon and poverty rates have slowly risen since. But I agree with you, Government programs like this suck and rarely work.

But once again were going away from the original topic. This isn't about taxes, it isn't about government welfare programs, it isn't about taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

I believe it's about getting those that are getting rich under the current system to realize that if they want to keep the current system they may need to spread the wealth a little more to keep the masses happy.

Once again, pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.
brewmenn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2011, 01:42 PM   #108
Chiefwoohaw
Pokerob is my B*tch!
 
Chiefwoohaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 11,509
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Iran just stated that they agree with the March.
Chiefwoohaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2011, 01:44 PM   #109
osteologation
Everyday I'm Shufflin'
 
osteologation's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-31-08
Location: Caro, MI
Posts: 1,709
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chiefwoohaw View Post
Iran just stated that they agree with the March.
That would piss me off if I was a member of "occupy wallstreet".
osteologation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2011, 01:57 PM   #110
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,579
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chiefwoohaw View Post
Iran just stated that they agree with the March.
Don't care.
brewmenn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2011, 03:21 PM   #111
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,130
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
I believe it's about getting those that are getting rich under the current system to realize that if they want to keep the current system they may need to spread the wealth a little more to keep the masses happy.

Once again, pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.

The wealth to keep the masses happy doesn't exist. The current system is not sustainable. It will come to an end.

Herbert Stein's Law:

"If something cannot go on forever, it will stop"
3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2011, 05:33 PM   #112
opie
www.krissplicing.com
 
Join Date: 07-21-08
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 817
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
Do you have any examples? I have looked and have found no examples of this.
None that I can find easily as the data is dated and I dont have a clue what to search for. But there was a time not to long ago that the number of millionaires in the US was increasing. Logic dictates that new millionaires came from the middle class, hence the middle class shrunk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
From what I can find, the "war on poverty" was something that ran from the mid1960's to the mid 1970's and was somewhat successful in reducing poverty from around 17% to around 11%, and since the effort was largely abandon and poverty rates have slowly risen since. But I agree with you, Government programs like this suck and rarely work.
I am pretty sure the war on poverty is alive and well. If the program has actually ended, then our politicians need to be informed. I find it hard to believe that the data you saw that suggests a 6% drop in poverty over a decade would result in the program ending. Can you link to the data you read?

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
But once again were going away from the original topic. This isn't about taxes, it isn't about government welfare programs, it isn't about taking from the rich and giving to the poor.
I know it seems like this is OT, but its not. Everything going on is so intertwined it is difficult to single out one issue and attempt to dissect it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
I believe it's about getting those that are getting rich under the current system to realize that if they want to keep the current system they may need to spread the wealth a little more to keep the masses happy.

Once again, pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.
So rather than try to elevate those at the bottom, you would like to bring those at the top, down? What if those at the top arent interested in "spreading it around" and take their ball to another country? Considering the disparity on who foots the tax bill here, what then? In the interest in actually keeping revenues flowing into the treasury, Id say it would be best to leave the folks that actually pay taxes, alone.

I understand the emotion involved and the human nature of wanting everything to be fair and even, but the long term effects of what you would like to see will hurt the country even more. You keep saying "pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered." I get what you mean, but you are also suggesting cutting off your nose because it wont stop running. Everything in life has a tendency to balance itself out. Looking at a problem and trying to resolve it based on short term data is a recipe for long term disaster. We can not make everything fair and equal because in order to do so we would need to be unfair and unequal.... Perfect example is affirmative action. The best long term solution would be to judge and treat everyone under the same law, same rules, same regulations. NOT have different sets of standards for each group.
opie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2011, 07:34 PM   #113
whiterhino
I'm not old, honest...
 
whiterhino's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-07-06
Location: Davisburg MI
Posts: 22,329
iTrader: (22)
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Default

Chopping a top percentage off the over achievers only leads to them not seeing a value in achieving. Ever hit a tax bracket threshold and end up paying more than the extra you made? I have. It sucks.
__________________
GLFWDA member since 1979.
Member Southern Michigan Rock Crawlers.
whiterhino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2011, 08:34 PM   #114
aber61
Senior Member
 
aber61's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-22-08
Location: Commerce Twp. Michigan
Posts: 6,259
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
So they're a lot like the Tea Party people then?
People at the Tea Parties don't get arrested by the HUNDREDS.
It is the out of control liberals, besides they should be protesting the guy they voted into office not the people who have a job.
aber61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2011, 08:38 PM   #115
aber61
Senior Member
 
aber61's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-22-08
Location: Commerce Twp. Michigan
Posts: 6,259
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3stratman View Post
These protesters are hilarious. They don't see what has really happened to them with all of this. They've bought into the class warfare game hook, line and sinker. They have blindly become shills for the Obama/Soros political machine. They are both using them, with great success, as PAWNs in their Obama re-election bid. Soros is funding them via MoveOn.Org, yet he is one of the biggest "tycoons" out there. They hate the corporate bailouts so much- well the President is one of the biggest proponents of those bailouts. The mortgage crises they are so pissed off about was created by the party they are aligned with (Frank and Dodd ring a bell?). They need to do some research and find out how many people those corporations they hate so much employ. And take a look at themselves and see how many goods and services they receive from those businesses. Do they own cars? Homes? Bank loans? Credit cards? Do they use airlines? Buses? Trains? Do they own electronics? Appliances? Computers? Do they ever need medication? X-rays? MRI's? The corporations they hate so much made all of those things possible for them to have. Why did they do that? Because they started a business, provided a product or service that people wanted or needed, and benefited from the fruits of their labor. Benefiting from the fruits of your labor: it's what a their relatives came to this country for many years ago. They didn't piss and moan because someone else was doing better that they were. They put their nose to the grindstone and made something of themselves. They knew hard works had it's rewards, they didn't have everyone screaming for it to be taken away from them, and they didn't expect a free ride from anyone. These protesters need to grow up.

And when did this country go from the "Be all you can be, the sky's the limit" attitude to the " You have too much, so you should give some to me because I don't have any" mentality. People like the late Steve Jobs used to be admired for their accomplishments; now they are vilified for being successful and making something for themselves. Our grandparents immigrated to this country to provide themselves with good lives through hard, honest work ( people are still doing that today ); they would be embarrassed to see their grandchildren whining about people doing better than them and demanding some be given to to them.
aber61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2011, 01:08 AM   #116
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,579
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
None that I can find easily as the data is dated and I dont have a clue what to search for. But there was a time not to long ago that the number of millionaires in the US was increasing. Logic dictates that new millionaires came from the middle class, hence the middle class shrunk.
Only if "millionaire" is the divide between middle and upper class, and if you ignore that many of those new millionaire got that way due to inflation, that a million isn't what it used to be, and finally, only if there aren't as many or more middleclassers falling out the bottom into lower class as who ascended into upper class. Otherwise it's just another example of the rich getting richer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
I am pretty sure the war on poverty is alive and well. If the program has actually ended, then our politicians need to be informed. I find it hard to believe that the data you saw that suggests a 6% drop in poverty over a decade would result in the program ending. Can you link to the data you read?
I guess it depends on how you define "the war on poverty". It was a phrase coined by LBJ in 1964 for his new social programs. It didn't end because it dropped poverty 6%, it ended because we got a new president. Some of those programs still exist today, but many were dismantled by Nixon in the '70's and Reagan in the '80's. Just like all the other "war on concepts" you will never completely eradicate the concept, to the war will never really end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
I know it seems like this is OT, but its not. Everything going on is so intertwined it is difficult to single out one issue and attempt to dissect it.
It's exactly because everything is so intertwined that I want to single out one issue to focus on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
So rather than try to elevate those at the bottom, you would like to bring those at the top, down? What if those at the top arent interested in "spreading it around" and take their ball to another country? Considering the disparity on who foots the tax bill here, what then? In the interest in actually keeping revenues flowing into the treasury, Id say it would be best to leave the folks that actually pay taxes, alone.

I understand the emotion involved and the human nature of wanting everything to be fair and even, but the long term effects of what you would like to see will hurt the country even more. You keep saying "pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered." I get what you mean, but you are also suggesting cutting off your nose because it wont stop running. Everything in life has a tendency to balance itself out. Looking at a problem and trying to resolve it based on short term data is a recipe for long term disaster. We can not make everything fair and equal because in order to do so we would need to be unfair and unequal.... Perfect example is affirmative action. The best long term solution would be to judge and treat everyone under the same law, same rules, same regulations. NOT have different sets of standards for each group.
If people want to find another country that has less taxes and fewer social programs that the USA and move there that's fine. Good luck finding such a place, and unless they can take their entire company with them their high paying job will stay here and will be done by someone else.

And I don't want to bring anyone down. I want those at the top to realize that unless they do more to bring the bottom up that the bottom will eventually fall out completely and when it does it will take the top, middle, and everything else down with it.
brewmenn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2011, 01:19 AM   #117
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,579
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whiterhino View Post
Chopping a top percentage off the over achievers only leads to them not seeing a value in achieving.
Intuitively that make sense, but in reality there seems to be little evidence that it actually happens. Through the late 1940's '50's and '60's The top tax rates were much higher than today, and yet those were some of the most prosperous times in our history. Also, the people I'm talking about are people who have so much wealth that they could stop working now and live comfortably for the rest of their lives, so I have to believe that they work for the achievement itself, not for the money it brings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by whiterhino View Post
Ever hit a tax bracket threshold and end up paying more than the extra you made? I have. It sucks.
We do not have any tax rates over 100% so what you are claiming never really happens. If it happened to you, you should fire your accountant, or hire one.
brewmenn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2011, 05:30 AM   #118
opie
www.krissplicing.com
 
Join Date: 07-21-08
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 817
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
Only if "millionaire" is the divide between middle and upper class, and if you ignore that many of those new millionaire got that way due to inflation, that a million isn't what it used to be, and finally, only if there aren't as many or more middleclassers falling out the bottom into lower class as who ascended into upper class. Otherwise it's just another example of the rich getting richer.
SO then you need to define rich. This exemplifies one of my points that the class definitions are loose, just like district lines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
I guess it depends on how you define "the war on poverty". It was a phrase coined by LBJ in 1964 for his new social programs. It didn't end because it dropped poverty 6%, it ended because we got a new president. Some of those programs still exist today, but many were dismantled by Nixon in the '70's and Reagan in the '80's. Just like all the other "war on concepts" you will never completely eradicate the concept, to the war will never really end.
War on poverty is self explanatory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
It's exactly because everything is so intertwined that I want to single out one issue to focus on.
Then how is anything OT in regards to talking about one issue?

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
If people want to find another country that has less taxes and fewer social programs that the USA and move there that's fine. Good luck finding such a place, and unless they can take their entire company with them their high paying job will stay here and will be done by someone else.
So you would be OK, and Im not being a smart ass, with the folks that actually carry the majority of the income tax burden packing up and leaving the US due to changes in tax law that requires them to pay even more while 47% still gets to pay at least $0 in Federal income tax?

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
And I don't want to bring anyone down. I want those at the top to realize that unless they do more to bring the bottom up that the bottom will eventually fall out completely and when it does it will take the top, middle, and everything else down with it.
I think this is where you'll find the biggest argument from me. Its not anyone elses responsibility to elevate anyone else. Nor should anyone be pressured or coerced into doing so. The want and desire to create a better life needs to come from inside each of us. The fruits of that struggle are much sweeter if you know you did it because of your hard work, not because someone artificially leveled the playing field. We hear talk that the rich are doing their best to keep the poor, poor..... I say that is hogwash. IMO, the biggest hurdle to the lower and middle class moving up is regulation via Government agencies.
opie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2011, 06:47 AM   #119
whiterhino
I'm not old, honest...
 
whiterhino's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-07-06
Location: Davisburg MI
Posts: 22,329
iTrader: (22)
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
Intuitively that make sense, but in reality there seems to be little evidence that it actually happens. Through the late 1940's '50's and '60's The top tax rates were much higher than today, and yet those were some of the most prosperous times in our history. Also, the people I'm talking about are people who have so much wealth that they could stop working now and live comfortably for the rest of their lives, so I have to believe that they work for the achievement itself, not for the money it brings.



We do not have any tax rates over 100% so what you are claiming never really happens. If it happened to you, you should fire your accountant, or hire one.
Really? Here's an example. A person makes $34,499 so he is in the 15% tax bracket. Therefore he pays $5174.85 in taxes, or nets $29,324.15.

Now he gets a year end bonus up to $36,000 because he busted his ass and helped improve production. Now he pays 25% in taxes, or $9000, leaving him a net of $27,000.

He just lost $2325.15 even though he got a $1501 bonus. This is not some superstar that needs a fancy accountant. You seem to imply that he should have some great write offs to offset this. At that income, his life is pretty humble.

So, at the end of the day (year) this person would be better off to stay a slacker, not worry about improving company production because he's only going to get burned at the end of the year. Now take this same attitude to an executive level where the government is promoting what amounts to at least a $50,000 additional tax. Why would that person want to achieve the higher level if he is in a position of just barely breaking over the threshold?

By the way, tax numbers taken from here. http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

Regarding the 40's, 50's and 60's being the most prosperous times, what level of unemployment was there? What percentage of the population was paying taxes?
What percentage of the population was living on welfare or other government assisted living?
__________________
GLFWDA member since 1979.
Member Southern Michigan Rock Crawlers.

Last edited by whiterhino; October 11th, 2011 at 06:50 AM.
whiterhino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2011, 09:57 AM   #120
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,579
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whiterhino View Post
Really? Here's an example. A person makes $34,499 so he is in the 15% tax bracket. Therefore he pays $5174.85 in taxes, or nets $29,324.15.

Now he gets a year end bonus up to $36,000 because he busted his ass and helped improve production. Now he pays 25% in taxes, or $9000, leaving him a net of $27,000.

He just lost $2325.15 even though he got a $1501 bonus. This is not some superstar that needs a fancy accountant. You seem to imply that he should have some great write offs to offset this. At that income, his life is pretty humble.

So, at the end of the day (year) this person would be better off to stay a slacker, not worry about improving company production because he's only going to get burned at the end of the year. Now take this same attitude to an executive level where the government is promoting what amounts to at least a $50,000 additional tax. Why would that person want to achieve the higher level if he is in a position of just barely breaking over the threshold?

By the way, tax numbers taken from here. http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

Regarding the 40's, 50's and 60's being the most prosperous times, what level of unemployment was there? What percentage of the population was paying taxes?
What percentage of the population was living on welfare or other government assisted living?
Seriously? You really don't know how tax brackets work? I had you figured for being smarter than that. Please take you numbers and put them into the tax calculator and tell me what you come up with.
brewmenn is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:14 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.69084 seconds with 81 queries