The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-25-2013, 04:03 PM   #1
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default Jaw Dropping Income Disparity Report

Between 1966 and 2011 the incomes of 90% of Americans (factoring in inflation) went up an average of $59.

For the top ten percent over that same period of time, incomes went up an average of $116,071.

http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/featu...C?OpenDocument

Oh, BTW, over that same period of time the working hours and the productivity of that 90% also rose dramatically.

Those at the top are pulling away from everyone else not because of hard work, but the shift of income from labor to capital and changes in federal income, gift, and estate tax rules.

The median wage has been stuck since 1999 at a bit more than $500 per week in real terms and job growth has lagged far beyond population growth. But capital gains and dividends have soared, a new Congressional Research Service study shows.


In simpler terms, the American people are getting ****ed over BIG TIME. Wake the **** up, dummies.


The Saez-Piketty analysis shows the concentration of growth at the very top increasing. That is bad for tax revenue and bad for social stability. The drop in incomes among the vast majority holds back economic growth, because there is just not enough aggregate demand to support creating enough new jobs to keep up with population growth.

And who was hit hardest by the new federal taxes that took effect this year? The vast majority.

Last edited by Rohirrim; 03-25-2013 at 04:07 PM..
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 03-25-2013, 04:10 PM   #2
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Between 1966 and 2011 income 90% of Americans (factoring in inflation) went up an average of $59.

For the top ten percent over that same period of time, incomes went up an average of $116,071.

http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/featu...C?OpenDocument

Oh, BTW, over that same period of time the working hours and the productivity of that 90% also rose dramatically.

Those at the top are pulling away from everyone else not because of hard work, but the shift of income from labor to capital and changes in federal income, gift, and estate tax rules.

The median wage has been stuck since 1999 at a bit more than $500 per week in real terms and job growth has lagged far beyond population growth. But capital gains and dividends have soared, a new Congressional Research Service study shows.


In simpler terms, the American people are getting ****ed over BIG TIME. Wake the **** up, dummies.


The Saez-Piketty analysis shows the concentration of growth at the very top increasing. That is bad for tax revenue and bad for social stability. The drop in incomes among the vast majority holds back economic growth, because there is just not enough aggregate demand to support creating enough new jobs to keep up with population growth.
And who was hit hardest by the new federal taxes that took effect this year? The vast majority
Our corporate overlords deserve that extra compensation for getting such productivity and docility out of us.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 11:28 AM   #3
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,123

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

This is the core problem. Lots of wingnuts worrying over "communism".

We're not headed toward communism, we're headed toward feudalism again.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 01:01 PM   #4
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

It's not like the average worker would benefit something if those CEOs were paid less.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 01:02 PM   #5
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
This is the core problem. Lots of wingnuts worrying over "communism".

We're not headed toward communism, we're headed toward feudalism again.
There's shades of both; the leftist variety holding sway on social issues, feudalism showing somewhat in economic ones.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 02:51 PM   #6
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
This is the core problem. Lots of wingnuts worrying over "communism".

We're not headed toward communism, we're headed toward feudalism again.
We're already there. The idea that the uber-rich less than one percenters can be hoarding $32 trillion offshore while the entire world's economy suffers is just glaring proof that globalization is nothing more than a resurrection of the same old feudalism. Been there, done that. Oh, and BTW, greed, for want of a better word, is not good.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 02:56 PM   #7
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,123

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
It's not like the average worker would benefit something if those CEOs were paid less.
Every dollar paid to a CEO is a dollar not invested in the company and not used to employ another person.

Tim cook alone "earned" enough money to employ 2,500 engineers or several times that many factory workers.

Instead, Apple pays Tim Cook outrageous sums of money and makes iPhones in China where they can get away with exploiting workers.

This isn't rocket science here vapid one.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 04:52 PM   #8
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,527
Default

"Suicided" pilot Phil Marshall explains in his last book how employee owned United Airlines was doing very well up until the day of 9/11 - - and since has gone badly downhill.

Makes you wonder if United was targeted -- to destroy an alternative business model NOT based on greed --
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 05:13 PM   #9
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,310
Default

You never have managed to explain why Phil Marshall's death was so spectacular.

What was the purpose? Why not a much more discreet and far less newsworthy death?

Any ideas?

Or just another instance of you veering a thread off-topic back to one of your perverted comfort zones?
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 05:34 PM   #10
elsid13
Lost In Space
 
elsid13's Avatar
 
Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 19,903
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
"Suicided" pilot Phil Marshall explains in his last book how employee owned United Airlines was doing very well up until the day of 9/11 - - and since has gone badly downhill.

Makes you wonder if United was targeted -- to destroy an alternative business model NOT based on greed --
You really are a wack job.
elsid13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2013, 05:09 PM   #11
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,734
Default

Kind of on topic, I thought this, written by a doctor, was interesting...

Quote:
It’s always amazing to me that the stories like this are always written about or by radiologists, or anesthesiologists, or orthopedic surgeons. They often feel like they are owed more money. It’s like… an entitlement. You know who else trained for five years? Me. It takes six years to be an neurologist, an immunologist, a nephrologist, a rheumatologist, or an endocrinologist. Almost none of those specialties expect to have a “$400,000-and-up dream job”. …

If your definition of “struggling” is not driving a Porsche, then it’s time to stop expecting the general public to give you any sympathy. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Is there any other profession that is as tone deaf as we are when it comes to talking about our livelihood? Is there any other profession that feels so free to complain about making too little, when they objectively make so much compared to so many others?
http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wo...-radiologists/
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 02:19 PM   #12
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,734
Default

Quote:
During the golden years, wages often accounted for almost 60 percent of national income. They are now at an abysmal 43.5 percent. Productivity has continued to rise faster than median wages. In January, incomes fell by the largest amount in twenty years. Consumer spending increased because the savings rate declined. That’s exactly the pattern that occurred in the years prior to the crash and Great Recession.

After a brief hiatus at the beginning of the Great Recession—when the crash eliminated wealth at the top—the top of the income scale has resumed expanding at the expense of everyone else. Corporate earnings increased 20.1 percent a year since 2008, but as much as $1.5 trillion of these profits remain uninvested. In other words, we have a growing accumulation of wealth at the top that is at the expense of consumer demand and that could potentially create new speculative bubbles.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...ering-recovery
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 03:39 PM   #13
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
Last paragraph:

Washington, of course, is in the grip of an economic philosophy promoted not only by Tea Party Republicans, but also by corporate lobbies like Fix the Debt and blinkered editorial page writers. This philosophy sees the expansion of the public sector as occurring at the expense of the private sector; but the experience of the New Deal and World War II suggests otherwise. In an economy driven by a high-powered private sector, the growth of the public sector can reinforce the strength of the private sector by smoothing out the business cycle and making investments in future growth that private industry would not undertake on its own. Government regulation can also help by preventing financial crises and discouraging stifling monopolies. But to many, these lessons seem to have been lost. Washington needs to wake up, but it’s not happening, and that’s why there are reasons to worry about our economic future.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:44 PM.


Denver Broncos