Tax cuts should end. (Did that get your attention?)

[Conan71]

I'm always interested in the "class warfare" argument, in that when conservatives use it, it usually assumes a very specific direction of said warfare; ie. of the poor against the rich.  I'm not sure why conservatives can't conceive of it running the other direction.

There's incontrovertible evidence that the richest Americans control an increasing amount of the economic pie.  Here's an excellent chart from an excellent series in Slate on wealth inequality in the US:



If the trickle down theory actually functioned, you'd see a much gentler upslope, as the resources given back to the top 10% were plowed back into the economy and trickled down to the lower 90% of the economy.  Alas, that's not what has happened. 

Instead, "from 1980 to 2005, more than 80 percent of total increase in Americans' income went to the top 1 percent. Economic growth was more sluggish in the aughts, but the decade saw productivity increase by about 20 percent. Yet virtually none of the increase translated into wage growth at middle and lower incomes . . ."

So: the rich got waaaaay richer and the rest of us have stagnated (and FYI I appreciate your individual stories of success over the last decade or so; sadly you're running against the statistical norm). While it's taken the Great Recession to uncover that fact, it's a dynamic that's been in effect for nearly a quarter century.  In essence, if this information proves anything it's that there is no such thing as trickle down.  There is no compelling economic reason to "give" the top tier of earners more resources in the hopes that they will help (through employment) the rest of us.  They already control a quarter of it and the rest of us are no richer for it. We are actually arguably poorer. 

I'm not particularly "jealous," of that kind of unimaginable wealth (I don't have a good concept of how rich most of these folks actually are), though I am fearful that, as in any lopsided system, as they come to monopolize more and more of our wealth 1) they will continue to be untouchable, as their advocates in the GOP firewall them off from criticism/further taxation and 2) the government will begin a gradual but massive drawdown of our social services because they won't be able to fund them. 

Step away from wage growth for a minute and consider job growth.  How many jobs were created from 1980 to 2005?  Who created those job opportunities? Sorry all those jobs aren't worth $250K plus per year, but unless you wish to pay three times what you do now for every consumable and durable good you use as well as services and utilities, it's simply going to remain that way.

There will always be a middle class working their arses off to help enrichen the upper crust (which has grown also).  Unless you care to flatten out the income curve which was a proven failure under communism.

[we vs us]

Step away from wage growth for a minute and consider job growth.  How many jobs were created from 1980 to 2005?  Who created those job opportunities? Sorry all those jobs aren't worth $250K plus per year, but unless you wish to pay three times what you do now for every consumable and durable good you use as well as services and utilities, it's simply going to remain that way.

There will always be a middle class working their arses off to help enrichen the upper crust (which has grown also).  Unless you care to flatten out the income curve which was a proven failure under communism.

I'm not agitating for everyone to be a Sr. Vice President of the Me Corporation, but if we create 10 million burger flipping jobs at minimum wage we've still got a major economic problem.  You still guarantee a vast underclass working at poverty wages (with, coincidentally, no health insurance, 401k, or other bennies). 

But either way we're looking at a decade of massive wealth redistribution (upwards) in exchange for the worst job gains since the labor dept has been keeping tabs.  So using either metric (wages increased or jobs created), the trickle down scheme (at least in the Bush mode) has been a massive failure. We've gained virtually nothing from these huge giveaways from our treasury.

[heironymouspasparagus]

The missing piece of the puzzle is that China has realistically been at this for about 15 to 20 years.  We have had 200.  They started 20 years ago at what would probably be a 1750 AD equivalent level, and now possibly about 1930.  The trajectory is meteoric if nothing slows/stops it.
At that rate, by 2050, they will be where we will be in 2100.

Should we attack now??

We saw what that "job growth" has been.  30% and more reduction in real wages in that time.  That does affect the real standard of living for the biggest number of people - it goes WAY down - as it has.  The quality of the job DOES make a difference.  It DOES directly affect the strength of the economy.  And it DOES affect the real people getting hosed by that "job growth".


I very much want and plan to get rich, too.  And I also recognize that it will NEVER be by my efforts only.  And the people who actually do the work should get their share of it too.  (I have said for 15 years that the minimum wage should be $10.00 per hour - with student exceptions.  Now it should be 15.  And yes, that is what I pay entry level after 6 month "indoctrination" or try-out time, whatever you want to call it - up from starting $10 per hour.  If a company cannot justify paying 10 per hour - now 15 - to do a certain job, then they should NOT DO THAT JOB.  Rethink the process, product, whatever it is.  You are doing it wrong!)

And here is another 800 lb gorilla - the big wages for CEO's - moving around now in the 580 to 1 ratio range.  That means for every dollar the lowest paid employee makes, the CEO of some pretty big companies make better than 580 dollars.  Grotesque on the surface, but even MORE so when one becomes aware that the corporation is getting to take that as a tax deduction.  Which means in addition to me, you and likely most people here getting to pay 40% and the CEO getting to pay 16% - we are also subsidizing that CEO in a very real way to the tune of additional big percentages for the "salary" deduction off of the company income tax.  ANOTHER WHAMMY!!

How special.

And we keep electing the Inhofe's of the world - the one who says the big oil companies haven't given him enough money!  Millions!

And we keep getting screwed.  And we keep voting AGAINST our own best interest.  We sure do have it "together", don't we?

[Conan71]

I'm not agitating for everyone to be a Sr. Vice President of the Me Corporation, but if we create 10 million burger flipping jobs at minimum wage we've still got a major economic problem.  You still guarantee a vast underclass working at poverty wages (with, coincidentally, no health insurance, 401k, or other bennies). 

But either way we're looking at a decade of massive wealth redistribution (upwards) in exchange for the worst job gains since the labor dept has been keeping tabs.  So using either metric (wages increased or jobs created), the trickle down scheme (at least in the Bush mode) has been a massive failure. We've gained virtually nothing from these huge giveaways from our treasury.

Ahh, time for a little requisite Bush bash.  How many non-government jobs have been created so far under President Obama?

I hear you drag this income disparity meme about once every month or two.  I'm not very problem-oriented.  What's your solution?

FWIW, it wouldn't have mattered who the President was 1992 to 2000, we had a huge explosion in the tech and telecom sectors during that period which translated to more jobs in transportation, hospitality, and well as piss-poor paying jobs in the retail sector which exploded.  I'll always give Clinton his props for pretty sound fiscal policy but he also was the beneficiary of relatively little international chaos and the fellow lucky enough to be in the seat during what amounted to a second industrial revolution.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Over a million this year. 

And yes, that is way too few!  How do we get more?  Give us some real idea - not the "cut taxes" mantra, since we know for a fact that is morally and intellectually bankrupt (hey, a lot like Inhofe!!) as well as being wrong.

Anyone out there hired anyone lately??  Any new jobs in Tulsa??  Anyone being hired in Tulsa??


As far as 1992 to 2000.  No, it likely would not have made much difference who was President, since the stage had already been set for the largest expansion in the history of the world.  The tax hikes of the previous two administrations had a huge impact on that - here is a little non-Murdochian reality moment - it kept deficits under control, with actual surpluses for 4 years.  THAT is what allowed the continuation of the expansion that started soon after Reagan's first tax hike - up to that time, the largest in the history of the world.  And then there was the infamous "watch my lips" tax increase. 

Wow... all those tax hikes... and each one just spurring the economy on for year after year after year....

[Red Arrow]

Wow... all those tax hikes... and each one just spurring the economy on for year after year after year....

WOW!  Let's raise everyone's (except mine) taxes by 50% or so.  Just think how fast the economy would grow.  Anyone with income over $250,000/yr would give all their income over $250,000 to the government for equitable redistribution.

Life would be great.

Well, maybe not.

[heironymouspasparagus]

WOW!!  Wouldn't it be great if those richest would pay even half the percentage rate that most of us have to pay?? 

Not even asking for parity - just half parity would be a huge relief to the economy.

How is it the Murdochianistas can never look that fact in the eye and face up to the abomination they are promoting on the middle class in this country??

That one thing alone would likely take care of the deficit and a big chunk of the debt.
How about that??

[Red Arrow]

Not even asking for parity - just half parity would be a huge relief to the economy.
That one thing alone would likely take care of the deficit and a big chunk of the debt.

Got any numbers?

[Gaspar]

Gawd!  How loud do you have to say it?

CUT SPENDING!
and CUT TAXES

[Red Arrow]

Gawd!  How loud do you have to say it?

CUT SPENDING!
and CUT TAXES

How about this loud?

[Gaspar]

How about this loud?

Won't make any difference.  In about 5 minutes someone will post something about how we can't afford tax cuts. 

[Conan71]

Won't make any difference.  In about 5 minutes someone will post something about how we can't afford tax cuts.  

B..b.bbb...but we can't afford to cut spending because it's creating and saving so many new jobs Gaspar!

[nathanm]

Gawd!  How loud do you have to say it?

CUT SPENDING!
and CUT TAXES

What spending would you like to cut? How are you reasonably going to cut enough spending to have money left over for tax cuts? (Hint: You aren't)

[bokworker]

This is where I feel we get of the rails so to speak on this issue. the fact is it is not JUST tax cuts or spending cuts. I am resigned to the fact that as a provider of funds to the federal government that my taxes are going up. But am I being unreasonable to expect some show of faith on being a bit more realistic on the spending side as well? Targeted tax cuts can and should be used (and they have by this administration) but anyone that thinks there are not ways to cut spending as well is just being obstinant in their outlook.

[Conan71]

This is where I feel we get of the rails so to speak on this issue. the fact is it is not JUST tax cuts or spending cuts. I am resigned to the fact that as a provider of funds to the federal government that my taxes are going up. But am I being unreasonable to expect some show of faith on being a bit more realistic on the spending side as well? Targeted tax cuts can and should be used (and they have by this administration) but anyone that thinks there are not ways to cut spending as well is just being obstinant in their outlook.

We are starting to see on a local and state level what happens when more funds are not available for ongoing operating expenses and charters and constitutions don't allow for deficit spending.  Necessary and sometimes painful cuts follow.  All it's going to take is 537 elected officials in DC who all have a common goal of a much more efficient and lean government.

It can be done, I simply thing most people believe that government is so bloated there's simply no way to rein it in.  It can be reined in.  You cannot cut 1mm federal jobs overnight without creating chaos, we know that much.  But government can adapt just as well as corporations and people can when resources are pulled from them.  You make do with less.