Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone should pay their fair share. The super rich get poor/middle class people to buy into the idea they shouldn't have to pay their fair share.

Yep

I'd like to see everyone limited to a maximum income of $150k a year, and maximum assets of $500k/person.

Anyone with more than that after _____ date when it goes into affect loses it. The government can then reallocate that money to people with less, and even everyone out. That's certainly a fairer system than what we have now.

Hahahaha!!!! Omg. Hahahahaha!!!! What a wacko! You're in the wrong country. We have something called freedom here. The government confiscating your property and dispersing it to others is not freedom. It is theft. There are plenty of communist utopias for you to move to, China, Russia...please leave. No really, you are a horrible person.

I think they are a republican mocking people who want more taxes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone should pay their fair share. The super rich get poor/middle class people to buy into the idea they shouldn't have to pay their fair share.

Yep

I'd like to see everyone limited to a maximum income of $150k a year, and maximum assets of $500k/person.

Anyone with more than that after _____ date when it goes into affect loses it. The government can then reallocate that money to people with less, and even everyone out. That's certainly a fairer system than what we have now.

Hahahaha!!!! Omg. Hahahahaha!!!! What a wacko! You're in the wrong country. We have something called freedom here. The government confiscating your property and dispersing it to others is not freedom. It is theft. There are plenty of communist utopias for you to move to, China, Russia...please leave. No really, you are a horrible person.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone should pay their fair share. The super rich get poor/middle class people to buy into the idea they shouldn't have to pay their fair share.

Yep

I'd like to see everyone limited to a maximum income of $150k a year, and maximum assets of $500k/person.

Anyone with more than that after _____ date when it goes into affect loses it. The government can then reallocate that money to people with less, and even everyone out. That's certainly a fairer system than what we have now.

Those kinds of systems are so ripe for corruption, which is what we see with the communist govts.

I think we need marginal taxes going up to historic levels when our economy was better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone should pay their fair share. The super rich get poor/middle class people to buy into the idea they shouldn't have to pay their fair share.

Yep

I'd like to see everyone limited to a maximum income of $150k a year, and maximum assets of $500k/person.

Anyone with more than that after _____ date when it goes into affect loses it. The government can then reallocate that money to people with less, and even everyone out. That's certainly a fairer system than what we have now.

Anonymous wrote:Everyone should pay their fair share. The super rich get poor/middle class people to buy into the idea they shouldn't have to pay their fair share.

Yep

Everyone should pay their fair share. The super rich get poor/middle class people to buy into the idea they shouldn't have to pay their fair share.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If someone has worked for their money honestly and fairly, and they are now a billionaire or millionaire because of it, then I wouldn’t accuse them of hoarding their money and not giving it too the poor. People should provide for those who need help, but it should be a voluntary decision, not forced. A flat tax will work fine, everyone pays their fair share.

You are not very bright. Flat taxes penalize the poor. During the time of Eisenhower, taxes on the rich were double what they are now. Back when people cared about each other as a society.

I honestly believe there is a strong connection between the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the inadequate tax rate we have today. Racism is a nation-wide thing, of course, but conservative southerners in particular couldn't abide their tax dollars going to black people. Reagan's tales of welfare queens and young bucks eating T-bones struck pay dirt.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The middle class have been hit extremely hard with exorbitant increases in childcare, higher ed and healthcare costs.

Meanwhile, wages have been mostly stagnant -- particularly when compared against increases in productivity. The top 1% -- and particularly the top 0.01% have hoovered up most of the profits. The last forty years have not been good for the middle class.

Wages have been stagnant due to a greatly expanding employee base. Even though the labor participation rate has shrunk in the past decade or so, it is still significantly higher than it was in the 50s and 60s. With women entering the workforce plus a constant stream of immigrants, the number of people working in the US has out-paced organic population growth. Average individual labor rate is simply the result of GDP divided by number of employed. As the number of employed has kept pace with GPD growth, the average individual labor rate has been stagnant as a result. Labor rate will only rise when there is a shortage to push up wages - this occurs during periods of low unemployment, like now. I will also point out that the upper middle class has greatly expanded because not just the top 1% has benefited from the economic prosperity of the US. People with jobs in the upper middle class are in shorter supply as they are not as easily replaceable by *new* immigrant labor.

All of this is to say, there is no nefarious cause for the stagnant wages. It's simply a matter of supply outpacing demand. If you want wages to rise, limit the number of immigrants coming in to the country to compete for those jobs, and don't make it stigmatizing for women to choose to be a home maker.

Actually, women entering the labor market also accounted for the rapid rise in house prices. When it was common for a household to have one breadwinner, housing was priced accordingly. As women begin bringing in money, housing went up, and now two parents HAVE to work in order to afford a SFH . It's a cycle.

Agree, but to be clear - women were IN the labor market, their income was just counted in bank mortgage calculations.

^^^^ their income was not counted in bank mortgage calculations until later

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The middle class have been hit extremely hard with exorbitant increases in childcare, higher ed and healthcare costs.

Meanwhile, wages have been mostly stagnant -- particularly when compared against increases in productivity. The top 1% -- and particularly the top 0.01% have hoovered up most of the profits. The last forty years have not been good for the middle class.

Wages have been stagnant due to a greatly expanding employee base. Even though the labor participation rate has shrunk in the past decade or so, it is still significantly higher than it was in the 50s and 60s. With women entering the workforce plus a constant stream of immigrants, the number of people working in the US has out-paced organic population growth. Average individual labor rate is simply the result of GDP divided by number of employed. As the number of employed has kept pace with GPD growth, the average individual labor rate has been stagnant as a result. Labor rate will only rise when there is a shortage to push up wages - this occurs during periods of low unemployment, like now. I will also point out that the upper middle class has greatly expanded because not just the top 1% has benefited from the economic prosperity of the US. People with jobs in the upper middle class are in shorter supply as they are not as easily replaceable by *new* immigrant labor.

All of this is to say, there is no nefarious cause for the stagnant wages. It's simply a matter of supply outpacing demand. If you want wages to rise, limit the number of immigrants coming in to the country to compete for those jobs, and don't make it stigmatizing for women to choose to be a home maker.

Actually, women entering the labor market also accounted for the rapid rise in house prices. When it was common for a household to have one breadwinner, housing was priced accordingly. As women begin bringing in money, housing went up, and now two parents HAVE to work in order to afford a SFH . It's a cycle.

Agree, but to be clear - women were IN the labor market, their income was just counted in bank mortgage calculations.

Anonymous wrote:If someone has worked for their money honestly and fairly, and they are now a billionaire or millionaire because of it, then I wouldn’t accuse them of hoarding their money and not giving it too the poor. People should provide for those who need help, but it should be a voluntary decision, not forced. A flat tax will work fine, everyone pays their fair share.

You are not very bright. Flat taxes penalize the poor. During the time of Eisenhower, taxes on the rich were double what they are now. Back when people cared about each other as a society.

If someone has worked for their money honestly and fairly, and they are now a billionaire or millionaire because of it, then I wouldn’t accuse them of hoarding their money and not giving it too the poor. People should provide for those who need help, but it should be a voluntary decision, not forced. A flat tax will work fine, everyone pays their fair share.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

the US is *EXCEPTIONALLY* good at increasing the productivity of, as evident through our GDP.

Wage growth is trailing productivity growth by a LOT. Starting around 1980. Why do you think that is?

^^^
Link for above: https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/

Thanks for the link, it actually shows that the divergence started in the early 70s, say around 1973. So here's a graph that should be interesting to you:



The sharp rise is due to the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, which greatly increased immigration into the US starting in the early 70s, exactly the point where you started to see wage stagnation. Since 1965, immigration and their descendants have accounted for about 55% of the US population growth. Also significant is the increased female workforce participation during the same period, rising sharply in the 70s and 80s:



The combination of dramatically increased immigration and women workforce participation produced an abundant supply of labor, which kept wages stagnant during the same period of time. The logic is simple if we use the income approach for GDP calculation:

GPD = Workers x Wages

If GPD grew but Wages was stagnant, that means the number of workers grew.

Note that I am not saying it is wrong for the US to take on immigration, or that it is wrong for women to enter the work force. It's in fact a strong argument that the influx of immigration and women into the labor force is one of the key drivers of US GDP growth, because the flip side of stagnant wages is that it has kept the price of goods and services low, making the US more competitive in the global market. But we must not ignore the facts, which are that the result is also stagnant wages.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Sure sounds like a liberal: all we middle-class people want is for other people to feed OUR children, too, and pay for OUR kids' college education, too.

Conservatives kind of take property rights for granted and believe, without evidence, that money acquired is the same as money earned. So, instead of viewing vast wealth as a problem -- evidence of an imbalance in the system; they don't view taxes on vast wealth to fund things that are beneficial to the society as a whole as an equitable adjustment to the system. They view it as taking from somebody who has rightfully earned the money in order to give it to someone who does not deserve the money. (If they deserved it, they'd have it. Poverty is evidence that you are undeserving. Wealth is evidence that you've earned what you have.)

That's quite a leap from what I basically said: that it's greedy and unrealistic to expect other taxpayers to feed and pay the college tuition of middle-class children.

And yes, some wealth distribution is beneficial to society as a whole, and that's why we educate children through high school. That's also why we fund Medicaid. And food stamps. We can tweak these programs, but not to the extent that middle-income people take OPM for their kids' lunches. If you're middle income, you feed your own kids.

Anonymous wrote:Tell us how taking more money from people who are wealthy will make you more wealthy.
How will taxing the wealthy solve the problem of income inequality.

are you really that dumb?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The middle class have been hit extremely hard with exorbitant increases in childcare, higher ed and healthcare costs.

Meanwhile, wages have been mostly stagnant -- particularly when compared against increases in productivity. The top 1% -- and particularly the top 0.01% have hoovered up most of the profits. The last forty years have not been good for the middle class.

Wages have been stagnant due to a greatly expanding employee base. Even though the labor participation rate has shrunk in the past decade or so, it is still significantly higher than it was in the 50s and 60s. With women entering the workforce plus a constant stream of immigrants, the number of people working in the US has out-paced organic population growth. Average individual labor rate is simply the result of GDP divided by number of employed. As the number of employed has kept pace with GPD growth, the average individual labor rate has been stagnant as a result. Labor rate will only rise when there is a shortage to push up wages - this occurs during periods of low unemployment, like now. I will also point out that the upper middle class has greatly expanded because not just the top 1% has benefited from the economic prosperity of the US. People with jobs in the upper middle class are in shorter supply as they are not as easily replaceable by *new* immigrant labor.

All of this is to say, there is no nefarious cause for the stagnant wages. It's simply a matter of supply outpacing demand. If you want wages to rise, limit the number of immigrants coming in to the country to compete for those jobs, and don't make it stigmatizing for women to choose to be a home maker.

Actually, women entering the labor market also accounted for the rapid rise in house prices. When it was common for a household to have one breadwinner, housing was priced accordingly. As women begin bringing in money, housing went up, and now two parents HAVE to work in order to afford a SFH . It's a cycle.