Proof the rich are getting richer

[Ugg]

NYT Article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/business/21tax.html?ex=1345348800&en=051a1fd734c999bc&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

Average Incomes Fell for Most in 2000-5

By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
Published: August 21, 2007
Americans earned a smaller average income in 2005 than in 2000, the fifth consecutive year that they had to make ends meet with less money than at the peak of the last economic expansion, new government data shows.

The average income in 2005 was $55,238, nearly 1 percent less than the $55,714 in 2000, after adjusting for inflation, analysis of new Internal Revenue Service statistical tables shows.

Total income listed on tax returns grew every year after World War II, with a single one-year exception, until 2001, making the five-year period of lower average incomes and four years of lower total incomes a new experience for the majority of Americans born since 1945.

The growth in total incomes was concentrated among those making more than $1 million. The number of such taxpayers grew by more than 26 percent, to 303,817 in 2005, from 239,685 in 2000.

These individuals, who constitute less than a quarter of 1 percent of all taxpayers, reaped almost 47 percent of the total income gains in 2005, compared with 2000.

People with incomes of more than a million dollars also received 62 percent of the savings from the reduced tax rates on long-term capital gains and dividends that President Bush signed into law in 2003, according to a separate analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice, a group that points out policies that it says favor the rich.

Welcome to the new "Gilded Age".

[juanm]

And yet, the masses think that immigration or terrorism are big concerns... Man, have they been successful at brainwashing us... :mad:

[zimv20]

these kinds of averages are thrown off by all those at the high end. i'd like to see the stats for those making $100k and less. i bet the % drop would be much higher during that period.

[SMM]

And yet, the masses think that immigration or terrorism are big concerns... Man, have they been successful at brainwashing us... :mad:

When I see a good blue-collar American worker, supporting the aristocracy which exploits him/her, I shake my head in wonderment. Their 'masters' have convinced them that they owe their livelihood to those who would enslave them.

Myth: Republicans are good for businesses.
Fact: More small businesses fail under their leadership.
Fact: Virtually all recessions/depressions have happened under their watch.
Fact: Republican economics are based on wealth preservation.

Myth: Republicans practice smaller government and fiscal responsibility
Fact: Republicans run up huge debt, knowing they will not have to pay for it.

....and so it goes.

[Rodimus Prime]

Might want to put in the current downward spin the US economy is going in is cause by the time we where under Clinton watch where loans where giving out very easy to people with poor credit who should of never gotten them. Particle home loans and loans against one's home.

Well now people are defaulting on those loans and some lenders have had to declare bankruptcy. Also I might like to add those same loans where given out due to acts passed because of Democrats in power during that time. We are just paying for it now.

Problem we run into is looking at when things happen is people look at the who is currently in power but they do not look at the events that lead up to the down turns in the economy nor do they understand that it has an up and down cycle in it that seems to repeat it self every 5-6 years.

[juanm]

Totally off-topic, but what's a blue collar worker? :D

[latergator116]

Totally off-topic, but what's a blue collar worker? :D

Someone who does manual labor such as construction (i.e. your average joe).

[TheAnswer]

Totally off-topic, but what's a blue collar worker? :D

Miembro de la clase obrera (el proletariado).

[juanm]

Thanks! Answer, English is fine. Actually, it's the reason I'm on Macrumors... :)

[zap2]

W
Fact: More small businesses fail under their leadership.
\


My family learned that one the hard way, my parents bussiness didn't failed, but certianly has not been help by Bush(reason for them voting for him in 2000, in 2004 they saw nothing had come from him, and Iraq war was terrible, so they voted for Kerry)

[nplima]

By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
Published: August 21, 2007
Americans earned a smaller average income in 2005 than in 2000, the fifth consecutive year that they had to make ends meet with less money than at the peak of the last economic expansion, new government data shows.

yeah, the non-rich getting less value for their hard earned cash is the bit that sucks. who cares if the richest now have 20 ferraris (or MacPros) instead of 10?

[solvs]

And yet, the masses think that immigration or terrorism are big concerns... Man, have they been successful at brainwashing us... :mad:

You forgot gays and abortionists. Also make good scapegoats. But yeah, they just keep falling for it.

[Swarmlord]

What? You thought that they weren't?

I bet you're shocked that the successful people continue to be successful.

Oh, that's right. You expect the government to use taxation as a stick to beat wealth distribution into a more pallatable percentage.

[.Andy]

What? You thought that they weren't?

I bet you're shocked that the successful people continue to be successful.
I don't see anyone being shocked that the successful are continuing to be successful. It's the relative rate increase that the successful are accruing wealth and the resultant growing divide that's the problem. And remember the rest of society doesn't solely measure success by the dollar as you do.

Oh, that's right. You expect the government to use taxation as a stick to beat wealth distribution into a more pallatable percentage.
You've got it backwards. People don't expect the government to use taxation to benefit the rich and enable them to become increasingly wealthy at the detriment of those on middle to lower incomes.

[atari1356]

It takes money to make money.

Most people scrape by and work hard to afford a nice home to live in and a car.

It's not surprising that the rich get richer... the extra money they have can be used to buy real estate, invest in the stock market or a number of other investments.

I see real estate as the big problem now. When the boom started, the rich started buying up properties and flipping them - making a profit and raising the prices that the average joe had to pay. Suddenly houses cost double what they did a few years ago (at least where I live)... and property taxes have skyrocketed as well. So, now many more people can't even afford a house unless they buy something far outside the city.

[Thomas Veil]

What? You thought that they weren't?

I bet you're shocked that the successful people continue to be successful.

Oh, that's right. You expect the government to use taxation as a stick to beat wealth distribution into a more pallatable percentage.So...you're okay with the current system, in which the rich use government to skew income away from the poor and middle class and towards them?

[Ugg]

What? You thought that they weren't?

I bet you're shocked that the successful people continue to be successful.

Oh, that's right. You expect the government to use taxation as a stick to beat wealth distribution into a more pallatable percentage.

I am shocked that the US government continues to subsidize the uber wealthy and corporations at the expense of the individual.

[leekohler]

So...you're okay with the current system, in which the rich use government to skew income away from the poor and middle class and towards them?

Of course he is. That kind of wealth redistribution is just fine. CEOs and shareholders should make all the money, while the people who do the the real work that actually requires talent, blood, sweat and tears make a pittance by comparison. Anybody ever see Fritz Lang's Metropolis? This is what the US is beginning to remind me of.

[Swarmlord]

So...you're okay with the current system, in which the rich use government to skew income away from the poor and middle class and towards them?

First, I'm not okay with the current system because I don't believe that taxation should be based on income. and second, what one person makes does not "skew" income away from someone else. If anything, the more I make, the more people who's services I use will make when I do business with them.

[Swarmlord]

I am shocked that the US government continues to subsidize the uber wealthy and corporations at the expense of the individual.

So, allowing people to keep their own money is considered a subsidy these days?

By the way, those corporations you think pay taxes? They are called employers of the individuals you want to help and they just pass the cost of the taxes on to the customers that are also the individuals that you want to help.

[IJ Reilly]

This discussion dovetails nicely with the thread on Venezuela. Anyone who professes a distaste for left-wing populists like Hugo Chavez should keep in mind that electing leaders of his sort is the direct result of a non-existant or declining middle class, and lots of poor people with little hope of advancing economically. The US is in the process of developing a "dumbbell economy," where the rich grab a steadily larger share of the pie, and the people near the middle and bottom slip further down. Anyone who doesn't get the consequences of this process is in serious denial.

[leekohler]

So, allowing people to keep their own money is considered a subsidy these days?

By the way, those corporations you think pay taxes? They are called employers of the individuals you want to help and they just pass the cost of the taxes on to the customers that are also the individuals that you want to help.

Wow- talk about oversimplification. See my earlier post.

[leekohler]

First, I'm not okay with the current system because I don't believe that taxation should be based on income. and second, what one person makes does not "skew" income away from someone else. If anything, the more I make, the more people who's services I use will make when I do business with them.

Ok, then what should taxes be based on?

As for you last sentence, that's just simply not true- at least that's not how it's working right now. All you have to do is look at Bush's immigration bill to see that's not the case. He wants to import cheap labor for a reason you know. It'll drive down business costs, right? Please, give me a break. If he can't import the labor, it'll just get outsourced, sort of like a lot of tech jobs these days.

[Swarmlord]

Ok, then what should taxes be based on?

As for you last sentence, that's just simply not true- at least that's not how it's working right now. All you have to do is look at Bush's immigration bill to see that's not the case. He wants to import cheap labor for a reason you know. It'll drive down business costs, right? Please, give me a break. If he can't import the labor, it'll just get outsourced, sort of like a lot of tech jobs these days.

I'm a big fan of the Fair Tax, but any use fee and consumption based sales tax appeals to me. The savings in manhours wasted calculating and processing income based taxes alone will yield billions. It also gets rid of tax cheats and also taxes those outside the system whether because they are illegal or even if they are just tourists.

[Desertrat]

I've read in various sources these last dozen years or so that in constant dollar terms, the buying power of the middle class has been in general decline. But, you don't have to be a gold-bug to watch the decline in purchasing power of all fiat money. That decline comes under the heading of "historical inevitability".

Right now, those who sold those over-valued houses to the suckers are smiling, all the way to the bank. Those who sold early and invested in rising-value assets are indeed getting richer. Same as those who bought in early to what became the dot-com bubble and were smart enough to get out before the bubble popped.

Then again, right now, a bunch of briefly-rich folks who thought the party would never end are finding that it's Sunday Morning Coming Down.

And those on the bottom strata of the economic pyramid will generally stay there, whether there's capitalism, socialism, Democrat or Republican
management of "the system".

'Rat

[imac/cheese]

You've got it backwards. People don't expect the government to use taxation to benefit the rich and enable them to become increasingly wealthy at the detriment of those on middle to lower incomes.

The government is not using taxation to benefit the rich at all. They are using taxation to tax the rich, which means that they take money from the rich. Under Bush, the government has decided to take less money from the rich. They have also decided to take less money from those in middle to lower incomes as well. I am middle class and under Bush I have received tax cuts and therefore have had to pay less money to the government. The tax cuts to the rich were definitely not to my detriment. I have spent that additional money that I did not have to pay the government and therefore other people (mainly in the service industry) have benefitted from my tax cuts as well.

This really seems to me to be some sort of jealousy against those that are making a lot of money. I am happy that the rich are getting richer because then they pay more taxes.

[mactastic]

See, when conservatives argue that average incomes have gone up over Bush's time in office, this is what they mean.

Of course anyone who knows anything about averages knows there's a hell of a lot more to the story than just what the average is...

[srf4real]

There is no way to justify multimillion dollar salaries for any person. Nobody is worth that much unless they OWN their successful business. We all pitch in together to make it happen. Yes some skills are certainly more appreciated than others, and should be compensated accordingly, but giving a CEO half a billion dollars in his short career life (before he gets busted for cheating) is not appropriate, while the company's workers can't afford a modest home. A pro ball player worth 100 million in his career? Come on, people on food stamps are washing his clothes.

[mactastic]

The tax cuts to the rich were definitely not to my detriment.
Those who lost family members in the I-35 bridge collapse might disagree with you.

[Rodimus Prime]

I'm a big fan of the Fair Tax, but any use fee and consumption based sales tax appeals to me. The savings in manhours wasted calculating and processing income based taxes alone will yield billions. It also gets rid of tax cheats and also taxes those outside the system whether because they are illegal or even if they are just tourists.

on problem with that type of tax. it taxes the poor a lot more heavily than the current system. It puts the burden on the poor for giving money to the government. Right now the burden of funding the government is on the rich.
Also the sales tax eat up large part of the poor income than the rich.

[johnee]

This discussion dovetails nicely with the thread on Venezuela. Anyone who professes a distaste for left-wing populists like Hugo Chavez should keep in mind that electing leaders of his sort is the direct result of a non-existant or declining middle class, and lots of poor people with little hope of advancing economically. The US is in the process of developing a "dumbbell economy," where the rich grab a steadily larger share of the pie, and the people near the middle and bottom slip further down. Anyone who doesn't get the consequences of this process is in serious denial.

wow, you're the level headed friend i never had :)

i'll throw in my two cents also....

It really bugs me that republicans, who's "values" are derived from their savior, don't eschew money. Check out my sig... jesus said "sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven...". then he says "For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God". See Luke 18:22-25

Now, these are jesus's words. He is their savior, one of the two big guys they worship. How can they say they are "christ"ians yet still desire material wealth? They say you need to "interpret" his words. His words are crystal clear, they are just hypocritical monkeys.

Remember that "what would jesus do" campaign? I barely remember it too. Seeing as how republicans like money and business, they quickly realized they created a living, breathing hypocrisy. Know why? Because Jesus would denounce the lifestyle of the rich. Jesus would give up all materialistic means, just like he did when he lived. Jesus would walk the earth. Jesus would be honest, moral, and good. These are traits many "religious right" folks just couldn't deal with.

[imac/cheese]

There is no way to justify multimillion dollar salaries for any person. Nobody is worth that much unless they OWN their successful business. We all pitch in together to make it happen. Yes some skills are certainly more appreciated than others, and should be compensated accordingly, but giving a CEO half a billion dollars in his short career life (before he gets busted for cheating) is not appropriate, while the company's workers can't afford a modest home. A pro ball player worth 100 million in his career? Come on, people on food stamps are washing his clothes.

The people who get paid multimillions are those that have the talent and skills to make someone else even more money. If the CEO can turn a billion dollar profit for a company, he is definitely worth $100M a year. If an athlete brings in $100M for a team owner, he is worth $15M a year. The people washing the clothes of the pro ball player are probably not on food stamps and they are probably making more than I am as an engineer, because that service is worth it to the athlete.

Those who lost family members in the I-35 bridge collapse might disagree with you.

There is plenty of money for bridge inspections, however this type of service is often ignored by governments from local to federal because it doesn't have any show value and doesn't really benefit the politicians at all. They (republicans and democrats) would rather spend our money on programs that do nothing but look good.

Now, these are jesus's words. He is their savior, one of the two big guys they worship. How can they say they are "christ"ians yet still desire material wealth? They say you need to "interpret" his words. His words are crystal clear, they are just hypocritical monkeys.

It seems you have a strong fascination with this verse because I have seen you state this about 5 times in this forum (as well as every time I see your sig). Jesus' words are crystal clear. He told the man in the story to sell everything and follow Him. Jesus did not tell others He met to sell everything and follow Him. God sees money as a tool to accomplish His will. We should not focus on our money and the end result should not be money for its own sake or for our own pleasure. In this verse, God's will was for the man to sell all he has and follow Jesus. People who put money (or anything really) above God's will are not living the way God wanted us to live. Jesus recognized that money can be a very dangerous master and those that worship money will have difficulties getting into heaven. There are other times in the Bible where God tells us to be productive and make a living for ourselves and take the money we have and use it to earn additional money. Christians who make a lot of money often give large sums of money to charities, churches, missionaries, and various other good causes. Not all do. God requested a tithe (10%) but praised those who were willing to give even more.

[TheAnswer]

wow, you're the level headed friend i never had :)

i'll throw in my two cents also....

It really bugs me that republicans, who's "values" are derived from their savior, don't eschew money. Check out my sig... jesus said "sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven...". then he says "For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God". See Luke 18:22-25

Now, these are jesus's words. He is their savior, one of the two big guys they worship. How can they say they are "christ"ians yet still desire material wealth? They say you need to "interpret" his words. His words are crystal clear, they are just hypocritical monkeys.

Remember that "what would jesus do" campaign? I barely remember it too. Seeing as how republicans like money and business, they quickly realized they created a living, breathing hypocrisy. Know why? Because Jesus would denounce the lifestyle of the rich. Jesus would give up all materialistic means, just like he did when he lived. Jesus would walk the earth. Jesus would be honest, moral, and good. These are traits many "religious right" folks just couldn't deal with.

While I agree with the general concepts that you put forth, I don't think Jesus is asking all people to shun all materialistic possessions. The quote in your signature is directed towards one person, not all his followers/believers. "sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven...".

There is a difference between the singular you and the plural you in earlier forms of English (as well as in the Romance Languages). If Jesus was speaking to his followers, he would have used ye instead of thou, so a Christian having material possessions is not a clear augur of hypocrisy.

That said, I do believe that seeing the high level of materialism and greed displayed by many (of any faith or political affiliation) would have Jesus spinning in his grave.

[IJ Reilly]

Without bringing Jesus into the debate, I'd ask how much enlightened self-interest is required to recognize that no nation can remain stable for long without a prosperous and upwardly mobile middle class. If the only upward mobility in a society is from rich to super-rich, then it's only a matter of time before the social contract breaks down. Then the pitchforks and torches come out, either literally for figuratively. Countries with huge gulfs in their political systems often reflect similar divides in the distribution in the nation's wealth.

[dswoodley]

The government is not using taxation to benefit the rich at all. They are using taxation to tax the rich, which means that they take money from the rich. Under Bush, the government has decided to take less money from the rich. They have also decided to take less money from those in middle to lower incomes as well. I am middle class and under Bush I have received tax cuts and therefore have had to pay less money to the government. The tax cuts to the rich were definitely not to my detriment. I have spent that additional money that I did not have to pay the government and therefore other people (mainly in the service industry) have benefitted from my tax cuts as well.

This really seems to me to be some sort of jealousy against those that are making a lot of money. I am happy that the rich are getting richer because then they pay more taxes.

you are right in that my taxes are down too, but I also have much less disposable income than I did 5 or 6 years ago.

[mactastic]

There is plenty of money for bridge inspections, however this type of service is often ignored by governments from local to federal because it doesn't have any show value and doesn't really benefit the politicians at all. They (republicans and democrats) would rather spend our money on programs that do nothing but look good.
Plenty of money for inspections maybe, but not for repairs. Inspection reports are cheap. Structural improvements are not. I'd guess maybe $30-50K to write a report. $50-300 million to repair / replace a bridge of that size. The two costs are not even comparable.

These things are prioritized based upon available funds. Obviously there is not "plenty of money" for repairs, or they would get made. And why is there no money? Because conservatives insist that tax rates go down.

Decisions have consequences.

[leekohler]

you are right in that my taxes are down too, but I also have much less disposable income than I did 5 or 6 years ago.

Exactly- because companies are no longer giving raises like they used to, if at all. All other costs go up, but you have to scrimp to cover them. Then they downsize some more, increase your workload and give you no compensation for the additional time and work.

But hey- the economy's doing great! :rolleyes:

[dswoodley]

Exactly- because companies are no longer giving raises like they used to, if at all. All other costs go up, but you have to scrimp to cover them. Then they downsize some more, increase your workload and give you no compensation for the additional time and work.

But hey- the economy's doing great! :rolleyes:

Actually I get the same raise I always did (about $.50/hour - woo-hoo!) annually. But that doesn't come close to matching inflation. I'm not going to complain very much (if at all) because I still have SOME disposable income, just not nearly as much. At the present rate though, by 2015, I'll be living paycheck to paycheck. By 2020, I'll be spending more than I make unless I drastically alter the way my family spends, or take a fourth job (already have 3), or find a better job or sell a kidney on the black market. I think the economy is actually doing ok in terms of generating wealth and sustainability, I just wish more of that was going to reinvest in and reward the working class.

[leekohler]

I just wish more of that was going to reinvest in and reward the working class.

And therein lies the problem.

[dswoodley]

And therein lies the problem.

No arguments here. The workforce/workplace is such a cut-throat environment with all those fickle people looking to get a handful of top-paying jobs. Yet you have CEOs who run companies into the ground (Northwest Air, Home Depot) who give themselves huge bonuses and salaries for their bang-up jobs. Reinvest those bonuses and salaries in the workers for pete's sake.

[mactastic]

A rising tide lifts only the biggest, most expensive boats, eh?

[johnee]

Even mother nature has the poor in her sights :

Glitzy resorts on the Mayan Riviera were spared, but vulnerable Mayan villages were exposed to the full fury of one of history's most intense storms [hurricane Dean]

I just thought this current event fit this thread...

[solvs]

And therein lies the problem.

People like SL have theirs. Screw the rest of us. It's what Jesus would want.

[imac/cheese]

People like SL have theirs. Screw the rest of us. It's what Jesus would want.

Compared to the people of Jesus' time, we are all filthy rich and living lives of luxury.

These things are prioritized based upon available funds. Obviously there is not "plenty of money" for repairs, or they would get made. And why is there no money? Because conservatives insist that tax rates go down.

There is plenty of money available but those who spend it prioritize the available money based on their personal desires and opinions. A few months of the Iraq war budget could've repaired a lot of bridges. How many hundreds of millions are spent on other failing programs? I hate giving more money to someone who does not spend it wisely in the first place. Make them spend what they have on important expenditures instead of just giving them more to spend.

Exactly- because companies are no longer giving raises like they used to, if at all. All other costs go up, but you have to scrimp to cover them. Then they downsize some more, increase your workload and give you no compensation for the additional time and work.

Many companies are trying to get more out of their employees and stretch each dollar because competition is tough. If many companies did not do this, they would not be able to compete in today's market because their products would cost too much. A lean company is better suited to compete, however some companies are finding that they are losing their best employees to companies that are willing to offer better benefits and more pay. It is all cyclical. Companies will become more and more lean until they realize that most people don't like to work in an environment that is too lean and then the companies will start reinvesting in their employees until their costs go up too high...

[leekohler]

Many companies are trying to get more out of their employees and stretch each dollar because competition is tough. If many companies did not do this, they would not be able to compete in today's market because their products would cost too much. A lean company is better suited to compete, however some companies are finding that they are losing their best employees to companies that are willing to offer better benefits and more pay. It is all cyclical. Companies will become more and more lean until they realize that most people don't like to work in an environment that is too lean and then the companies will start reinvesting in their employees until their costs go up too high...

Or until someone walks in with a rifle and starts blowing people away. Also, what happens if ALL companies simply decide to go "lean"? It's happening by the way. Look around.

God sees money as a tool to accomplish His will. We should not focus on our money and the end result should not be money for its own sake or for our own pleasure. In this verse, God's will was for the man to sell all he has and follow Jesus. People who put money (or anything really) above God's will are not living the way God wanted us to live.

I find it interesting that you know what God thinks. And it would seem that there are a lot of people putting money above almost all else these days.

[takao]

Compared to the people of Jesus' time, we are all filthy rich and living lives of luxury.


yeah those roman patricians were poor indeed

[imac/cheese]

I find it interesting that you know what God thinks. And it would seem that there are a lot of people putting money above almost all else these days.

God tells us what He thinks in the Bible. Since johnee was making a point from the Bible, I was refuting what he said based on the God of the Bible. I understand that others may not believe in God or think that God is different from the one I believe in.

I do agree with you that a lot of people are putting money above everything else. We all end up worshipping something, and unfortunately many people end up worshipping money. And money is a cruel master.

[Swarmlord]

<snip>I do agree with you that a lot of people are putting money above everything else. We all end up worshipping something, and unfortunately many people end up worshipping money. And money is a cruel master.

Still doesn't excuse politicians wanting to cure people of this vice by separating them from their money and giving it to someone else.

[Ugg]

Still doesn't excuse politicians wanting to cure people of this vice by separating them from their money and giving it to someone else.

So carrying out Jesus' wishes is now a crime?

[leekohler]

Still doesn't excuse politicians wanting to cure people of this vice by separating them from their money and giving it to someone else.

Oh wow! Is somebody going to give me your money? Yay! :rolleyes:

[srf4real]

Jesus would denounce the lifestyle of the rich. Jesus would give up all materialistic means, just like he did when he lived. Jesus would walk the earth. Jesus would be honest, moral, and good. These are traits many "religious right" folks just couldn't deal with.Jesus is way cool... one of my favorite quotes: "The wisdom of their wise men shall perish.":cool:

[mactastic]

Compared to the people of Jesus' time, we are all filthy rich and living lives of luxury.
I'm not sure you fully understand how inflation works...

There is plenty of money available but those who spend it prioritize the available money based on their personal desires and opinions. A few months of the Iraq war budget could've repaired a lot of bridges. How many hundreds of millions are spent on other failing programs? I hate giving more money to someone who does not spend it wisely in the first place. Make them spend what they have on important expenditures instead of just giving them more to spend. If there was truly plenty of money available, wouldn't you think we could do all the above simultaneously?

[Swarmlord]

Oh wow! Is somebody going to give me your money? Yay! :rolleyes:

Unfortunately, not my money and also not for you. Mine is in Heinz-Kerry modeled tax free investments and I've minimized my W-2 wages as much as possible. On the other hand you have a computer and a job, so by the democrats' definition you're too well off for handouts.

The irony would be that there's a high probability that I will qualify for democrat handouts before you will, especially those programs "for the children". :)

[imac/cheese]

I'm not sure you fully understand how inflation works...

If there was truly plenty of money available, wouldn't you think we could do all the above simultaneously?

By filthy rich and lives of luxury, I mean the actual quality of our lives. If this has anything to do with inflation, then maybe I do not understand.

There is not plenty of money available to do everything. There is plenty of money available to do what is important, but our representatives decided to waste our money on other things but you still want to give them more money to do what was important the first time around.

[leekohler]

The irony would be that there's a high probability that I will qualify for democrat handouts before you will, especially those programs "for the children". :)

Well good! You'll be getting your money back then. Talk about irony. ;)

[mactastic]

By filthy rich and lives of luxury, I mean the actual quality of our lives. If this has anything to do with inflation, then maybe I do not understand.

There is not plenty of money available to do everything. There is plenty of money available to do what is important, but our representatives decided to waste our money on other things but you still want to give them more money to do what was important the first time around.
I've got no objections to efforts to reduce or eliminate government waste or bloat. I'd prefer none of the fiat money the government steals from me at the point of a gun be used in this Iraq debacle. But I've heard estimates above $1 trillion needed for infrastructure repair. We've not even come close to that level of expenditure in Iraq. Yet you say there is plenty of money available? I don't think you have a grasp of the scope of the infrastructure issue.

[imac/cheese]

I've got no objections to efforts to reduce or eliminate government waste or bloat. I'd prefer none of the fiat money the government steals from me at the point of a gun be used in this Iraq debacle. But I've heard estimates above $1 trillion needed for infrastructure repair. We've not even come close to that level of expenditure in Iraq. Yet you say there is plenty of money available? I don't think you have a grasp of the scope of the infrastructure issue.

I work in the infrastructure industry as an engineer for a medium sized city. There are always infrastructure repairs that need to be made that can be pushed back to another year and then there are those repairs that impact public safety that need to be made as soon as feasible. I would be willing to bet that the estimates at $1 trillion are inflated to cover all desirable infrastructure needs. The cities around me are building a lot of "nice to haves" because the politicians that get the funding for these projects are more concerned with new projects instead of replacing or repairing the infrastructure that is in bad condition.

I wonder, did the Bush tax cuts actually reduce the amount of money that went into infrastructure repair? If they did, then shame on him for ignoring an important aspect of society to spend money elsewhere.

[mactastic]

I work in the infrastructure industry as an engineer for a medium sized city. There are always infrastructure repairs that need to be made that can be pushed back to another year and then there are those repairs that impact public safety that need to be made as soon as feasible. I would be willing to bet that the estimates at $1 trillion are inflated to cover all desirable infrastructure needs. The cities around me are building a lot of "nice to haves" because the politicians that get the funding for these projects are more concerned with new projects instead of replacing or repairing the infrastructure that is in bad condition.
According to the ASCE, $1.6 trillion (http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/actionplan07.cfm) is required over the next five years to bring our existing infrastructure up to good condition. This does not include "nice to have" new projects. This is only for repair of existing deteriorated infrastructure.

Are you still asserting that there is "plenty of money" to do all the work that needs to be done?

I wonder, did the Bush tax cuts actually reduce the amount of money that went into infrastructure repair? If they did, then shame on him for ignoring an important aspect of society to spend money elsewhere.
Well obviously they didn't increase it. But that's just part and parcel of conservative philosophy: reduce the amount of money government takes in. And you can't reduce the amount of money in the federal coffers without consequences somewhere.

Well, I suppose you can if you cut taxes and borrow like heck... But even then, the priorities were elsewhere.

[solvs]

The irony would be that there's a high probability that I will qualify for democrat handouts before you will, especially those programs "for the children". :)
Difference being that I'm ok with some of my money going to your kids, and/or if you were to become sick or disabled, even if you aren't willing to do the same for me.

I find it interesting that you know what God thinks.
Well, to be fair, he's probably closer than others here who seem to think Jesus wants rich people to get tax cuts and poor kids to go without healthcare.

[Desertrat]

mactastic is correct about the vast sums needed for infrastructure repairs. Quite a few investment recommendations are for stock in companies that do that sort of work: Bridge repair, water and sewer lines, etc.

But there ain't "plenty of money" for all purposes. Our GDP is roughly 11 trillion dollars (roughly 30% of the world economy). Taxes at all levels suck up about 40%, figuring city, school, state and federal. Spread that out across all priorities, and the folks who budget tax dollars are always allocating a shortage. Always have been. Always will be.

So, the only solution, most of the time, is to reorient priorities--which is where the yowling and howling begins. For instance, if you reduce social transfers in order to upgrade infrastructure, that particular special interest group screams.

And so it goes.

'Rat

[imac/cheese]

According to the ASCE, $1.6 trillion (http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/actionplan07.cfm) is required over the next five years to bring our existing infrastructure up to good condition. This does not include "nice to have" new projects. This is only for repair of existing deteriorated infrastructure.

Are you still asserting that there is "plenty of money" to do all the work that needs to be done?


Well obviously they didn't increase it. But that's just part and parcel of conservative philosophy: reduce the amount of money government takes in. And you can't reduce the amount of money in the federal coffers without consequences somewhere.

Well, I suppose you can if you cut taxes and borrow like heck... But even then, the priorities were elsewhere.

That $1.6 trillion is a huge number, but as stated in your article, 2/3 of that is money that is already allocated and only 1/3 is estimated to be new funding. That brings the total down to $533 billion -- still huge. The article also states that the cost is over a five year period which brings the total down to an annual amount of new funding of about $100 billion. This is not just the cost of bridges and roads to make the highways safe, but it also includes all recommendations by ASCE to include aviation, brownfields, dams and levees, drinking water, wastewater, and inland waterways.

The article states that $9.4 billion per year for 20 years would eliminate all bridge deficiencies, which is what we were actually talking about. I would say that there is enough money to make those repairs if the government would prioritize their spending and then not spend the money on the lowest priorities. The problem is that ASCE does not lobby to get infrastructure money from congress while other groups are, as 'rat would put it, yowling and howling for those dollars. A bridge repair gets put off until one somewhere collapses and then there is a huge uproar to spend money on bridge repairs (and blame the other party for not doing it earlier).

There are many estimates for the cost of the Iraq War but a figure I have seen several times is about $2 billion per week which is roughly $100 billion a year.

We don't have enough money for our government to do everything, but we have enough to do what is important. Unfortunately we end up spending money on what congressmen think will get them re-elected.

[mactastic]

That $1.6 trillion is a huge number, but as stated in your article, 2/3 of that is money that is already allocated and only 1/3 is estimated to be new funding. That brings the total down to $533 billion -- still huge. The article also states that the cost is over a five year period which brings the total down to an annual amount of new funding of about $100 billion. This is not just the cost of bridges and roads to make the highways safe, but it also includes all recommendations by ASCE to include aviation, brownfields, dams and levees, drinking water, wastewater, and inland waterways.

The article states that $9.4 billion per year for 20 years would eliminate all bridge deficiencies, which is what we were actually talking about. I would say that there is enough money to make those repairs if the government would prioritize their spending and then not spend the money on the lowest priorities. The problem is that ASCE does not lobby to get infrastructure money from congress while other groups are, as 'rat would put it, yowling and howling for those dollars. A bridge repair gets put off until one somewhere collapses and then there is a huge uproar to spend money on bridge repairs (and blame the other party for not doing it earlier).

There are many estimates for the cost of the Iraq War but a figure I have seen several times is about $2 billion per week which is roughly $100 billion a year.

We don't have enough money for our government to do everything, but we have enough to do what is important. Unfortunately we end up spending money on what congressmen think will get them re-elected.
When I said infrastructure, I meant the whole shebang. I wasn't just talking about bridges.

Also, as you point out, much of that money has indeed been allocated. But that doesn't mean it gets spent as such. The article also notes the frequency with which such allocated funds get raided.

In addition, just because the money is allocated, doesn't mean the overall tab is reduced. Let's say you've budgeted $20K for remodeling your house, and allocated $15K of that already. Does that mean the remodel cost is only going to be $5K? No, the cost is still $20K, and my assertion is still valid. I also never claimed that the quoted figure would need to be spent in one fiscal year, so I'm not sure why you're on that tangent.

Of course the government has enough money to tackle any one problem. It just can't do everything for everyone, and for the reasons I've elucidated above, infrastructure (again, more than just bridges) repair falls pretty low on that list.

[imac/cheese]

When I said infrastructure, I meant the whole shebang. I wasn't just talking about bridges.

Also, as you point out, much of that money has indeed been allocated. But that doesn't mean it gets spent as such. The article also notes the frequency with which such allocated funds get raided.

In addition, just because the money is allocated, doesn't mean the overall tab is reduced. Let's say you've budgeted $20K for remodeling your house, and allocated $15K of that already. Does that mean the remodel cost is only going to be $5K? No, the cost is still $20K, and my assertion is still valid. I also never claimed that the quoted figure would need to be spent in one fiscal year, so I'm not sure why you're on that tangent.

Of course the government has enough money to tackle any one problem. It just can't do everything for everyone, and for the reasons I've elucidated above, infrastructure (again, more than just bridges) repair falls pretty low on that list.

Your original post on this topic (#36 in this thread) was about bridge repairs. That is why I brought up points about the cost of bridge repairs. My annual "tangent" was simply to show the amount of money that would actually be required annually. Cost figures that show multiple years are often misleading to someone looking at what the actual costs are going to be. I realize that the already allocated money will still add to the total costs but our debate was started based on the facts that tax cuts were to the detriment of those in the I35 bridge collapse. If the money was already allocated to be spent new taxes would not be needed to pay for these projects.

You are right that funds often get raided because infrastructure projects are not sexy.

[Swarmlord]

Well, to be fair, he's probably closer than others here who seem to think Jesus wants rich people to get tax cuts and poor kids to go without healthcare.

When our medical technology reaches the point where a doctor can just reach out his hand and completely heal someone, I'm sure that costs will go down.

[leekohler]

When our medical technology reaches the point where a doctor can just reach out his hand and completely heal someone, I'm sure that costs will go down.

And until then only the rich deserve healthcare, right?

[Swarmlord]

And until then only the rich deserve healthcare, right?

I don't know... Jesus stated that it was their faith that actually healed them. Can you afford that kind of bill?

[AHDuke99]

so what? if you work hard and get a good education and run a company, then you deserve to get paid well. this is AMERICA .. anyone can do it if they have determination. we dont need a socialist state like they have in many european countries. the rich are getting richer thanks to the overall economy. DOW 14,000 (yes its dropped, but still), etc. .... the tax rate in 1970 was 70% and we saw how great the economy did in the 1970's. It was Reagan's tax cuts that stimulated the economy to grow during the 80's and then that benefited in the 1990s boom keepiing them around 40%. the worst thing we could have happen is a democrat to take the white house and raise the taxes on the rich and raise the death and capitol gains taxes. that would send us into a recession. the rich buy things which drives our economy. take away their buying power and watch out GDP and wall street take a dive.

[solvs]

When our medical technology reaches the point where a doctor can just reach out his hand and completely heal someone, I'm sure that costs will go down.
And in the meantime, plenty of hardworking Americans are going broke or dying because of things beyond their control (illness, accidents, disabilities) because people like you would rather pay to lose wars than make healthcare more affordable. Even those who have insurance, if you can even get it or afford it, are being screwed. While the industry makes money hand over fist. While we pay more per person to get less care, because we do already pay for it.

Try telling most people out there that the healthcare system is fine, and they'll laugh in your face... if they aren't already crying.

anyone can do it if they have determination.
Unless you get sick or injured.

[Swarmlord]

...because people like you would rather pay to lose wars than make healthcare more affordable. <snip>

Now that's the most inane line I've read in quite a bit. I pay to win wars and kill the enemy and if you think that money spent in the past 10-40 years on ANY of the military whether during war time or not would have been funneled into free healthcare you are completely confused.

Congress won't even shift money from the bridge to nowhere in Alaska or the pedestrian bridge over the Missouri river between Nebraska and Iowa to fix the bridge that collapsed in Minnesota.

[leekohler]

Now that's the most inane line I've read in quite a bit. I pay to win wars and kill the enemy and if you think that money spent in the past 10-40 years on ANY of the military whether during war time or not would have been funneled into free healthcare you are completely confused.

Congress won't even shift money from the bridge to nowhere in Alaska or the pedestrian bridge over the Missouri river between Nebraska and Iowa to fix the bridge that collapsed in Minnesota.

Then obviously many things need to be fixed, don't they? Your problem is that you accept these failures as somehow OK. We reject them and think things can be done better. It's called accountability, my friend- something Bush, Cheney, Rove and others seem to think doesn't apply to them. Apparently, you don't think it does either.

[Desertrat]

"While we pay more per person to get less care..."

Totally wrong. We pay more per person because of cancer surgery and heart/lung/kidney transplants which occur more here than in other countries. We pay more per person because of the cost of the more high-tech diagnostid equipment than is available in other countries. We pay more per person because of the higher clerical/bureacratic salary scales than in other countries.

Among other things.

'Rat

[Swarmlord]

Then obviously many things need to be fixed, don't they? Your problem is that you acceot these failures as somehow OK. We reject them and think things can be done better. It's called accountability, my friend- something Bush, Cheney, Rove and others seem to think doesn't apply to them. Apparently, you don't think it does either.

It's difficult to distinguish who's the most guilty in Congress with all the pigs face down in the trough.

[Peterkro]

"While we pay more per person to get less care..."

Totally wrong. We pay more per person because of cancer surgery and heart/lung/kidney transplants which occur more here than in other countries. We pay more per person because of the cost of the more high-tech diagnostid equipment than is available in other countries. We pay more per person because of the higher clerical/bureacratic salary scales than in other countries.

Among other things.

'Rat


4) It is difficult to argue with the assertion by Herzlinger and Parsa-Parsi(3) that relative to the US health system, the Swiss system delivers an overall superior performance. Much the same can be claimed by many other foreign health systems because, in cross-national comparisons, the higher US health spending has not translated into consistently superior quality of care(4) or in greater satisfaction among patients,(5) physicians, and hospital executives. Furthermore, the US has consistently ranked relatively low on most traditional health status indicators, such as life expectancy and infant mortality. These population-based health status indicators are driven by numerous socioeconomic variables besides health care and cannot be used as a reliable indicator of health system performance in cross-national studies. Even so, it is troublesome that on the metric of potential life years lost per 100 000 population (due to premature death that could have been avoided through timely and appropriate health care, public health measures, and less risky behavior), the US was estimated by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to have lost 5120 lives per 100 000 in 2000, while the comparable numbers were 3888 in the United Kingdom, 3806 in Germany, 3571 in Canada, and 3400 in Switzerland.(2)

http://scienceweek.com/2004/sb041008-4.htm

[leekohler]

It's difficult to distinguish who's the most guilty in Congress with all the pigs face down in the trough.

You continue to prove my point.

[solvs]

Then obviously many things need to be fixed, don't they? Your problem is that you accept these failures as somehow OK. We reject them and think things can be done better. It's called accountability, my friend- something Bush, Cheney, Rove and others seem to think doesn't apply to them. Apparently, you don't think it does either.
Thank you for getting what I was trying to say.

We pay more per person because of the higher clerical/bureacratic salary scales than in other countries.
Besides what Peterkro posted, which is a much better response than the quicky link I was going to post, I think this also proves my point. Do you know why we have so much bureaucracy and why doctors have to have so many highly paid clerical workers? I could tell you stories from when I worked for a medical billing software company. One of the many reasons I hate insurance companies.

But yeah, my point remains, we do pay more and get less on average.

It's difficult to distinguish who's the most guilty in Congress with all the pigs face down in the trough.
No it isn't. If you're paying attention you'd know exactly who was doing what. On both sides. You're just one of the few left who still makes excuses for the biggest pigs making the biggest messes.

[Swarmlord]

<snip> Do you know why we have so much bureaucracy and why doctors have to have so many highly paid clerical workers?<snip>

So, you want everyone else to have higher paying jobs, but not clerical workers? Maybe they have skills a counter worker at McDonalds doesn't.

[leekohler]

So, you want everyone else to have higher paying jobs, but not clerical workers? Maybe they have skills a counter worker at McDonalds doesn't.

Nice dodge, once again!

[Swarmlord]

Nice dodge, once again!

What dodge? The name of the thread is "Proof the rich are getting richer" and then he whines about mere clerical people being overpaid and practically being the cause of exorbitant medical costs. He can't have it both ways.

[leekohler]

What dodge? The name of the thread is "Proof the rich are getting richer" and then he whines about mere clerical people being overpaid and practically being the cause of exorbitant medical costs. He can't have it both ways.

Oh forget it. :rolleyes:

[mactastic]

It's difficult to distinguish who's the most guilty in Congress with all the pigs face down in the trough.
Ditto for the corporate piggies.

[solvs]

Um... had you actually read my post you would have noticed I was referring to the fact that they need so many clerical employees to deal with the insurances, and the software to manage everything. Often having to overbook patients to stay afloat if the insurances even pay. In other countries it isn't anywhere near as bad, but the doctors still make plenty of money, despite what some of you keep saying about how they'll become indentured gov employees or whatever if we socialize medicine. Not to mention all of the employees at the insurance companies, again proving the point that those bureaucracies we already have are costing us.

But yeah, nice way to completely dodge my actual point, as usual.