:facepalm:

[dust1n]

Are you saying that.....
Bail-outs, stimulus money & pork projects are handed out to the poor or middle class.
Government programs for the little people don't have catches which disqualify those in need, eg, underwater homeowners.
Capitalism is great, but crony capitalism is not just socialism for the rich.
Bush & Obama are that different on this?

I agree except that capitalism is great. All things fail... especially markets.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

There are 2 ways to look at this. One is the cynical view that people at the top get to make their own salaries while the 'peons' do not. Another POV is that high income earners are high achieving people who make things happen in business. I tend to think it's more the latter than the economically left leaning folks would say.

Another item that needs to be brought up is that the 'rich' stay that way because of their habits. They think 5-10 years down the road by saving money instead of squandering it and invest in themselves and in things that grow in value. I've run the numbers on how much wealth we've thrown away over the years on car payments and other stupid purchases, and I was about to throw up.:banghead3:

As I read some of the responses, I'm reminded of a theory of money I heard somewhere. If you took all the tools of wealth and money in the world and divided them equally among all people, within 5 years the people who had money will have it again and those who were broke will be broke again because of their habits.

The more I encounter people of all different walks, the more I'm convinced the above theory is 100% correct.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

There are 2 ways to look at this. One is the cynical view that people at the top get to make their own salaries while the 'peons' do not. Another POV is that high income earners are high achieving people who make things happen in business. I tend to think it's more the latter than the economically left leaning folks would say.

Another item that needs to be brought up is that the 'rich' stay that way because of their habits. They think 5-10 years down the road by saving money instead of squandering it and invest in themselves and in things that grow in value. I've run the numbers on how much wealth we've thrown away over the years on car payments and other stupid purchases, and I was about to throw up.:banghead3:

As I read some of the responses, I'm reminded of a theory of money I heard somewhere. If you took all the tools of wealth and money in the world and divided them equally among all people, within 5 years the people who had money will have it again and those who were broke will be broke again because of their habits.

The more I encounter people of all different walks, the more I'm convinced the above theory is 100% correct.

1. Most people today who are rich didn't get that way due to hard work, but because it was handed to them. 2. Rich people are just as apt to squander their money as poor people, and not all poor people throw money away on useless things.

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree except that capitalism is great. All things fail... especially markets.

Silly you!
Capitalism is great precisely because of how it fails. Ideally, we have numerous competing players. Each competes with the others,
with the best surviving, & the worst going out of business. Good ideas are copied & adapted quickly. It's analogous to evolution.
There are larger scale instabilities, as depressions & recessions throughout history show, but recovery has been swift (typically a few years).

Socialism is centralized, so that success & failure are both system wide. It's analogous to intelligent design, but without as much intelligence.
The failure we see in our economy are due to the socialist aspect of our system, ie, crony capitalism. But now, we have gov't deciding which
capitalistic losers are to survive at the expense of taxpayers. Some of the companies which were "too big to fail" were even created by gov't
(eg, Fannie & Freddie). The more gov't manages our affairs, the longer lasting the solutions....& the problems.

Ain't no system perfect. You just pick yer poison.
I'll take the one with greater autonomy.

 

[Kathryn]

Maybe I'm just stupid, but I don't understand this quote from the article:

Middle-class Americans? Not so fortunate. Those making between $50K and $100K saw their incomes creep up only 1.5%.
Part of the imbalance comes from differences in the growth of wages, the largest component of adjusted gross income.
Overall, salaries and wages grew 2.1%. But the super-rich saw an 11.2% hike, and those just below them enjoyed a 4.6% increase.
But the middle class saw a drop of 0.7% in wages.
And while capital gains rose healthily for most income brackets, the wealthiest taxpayers benefited from a 37.6% hike, and those in the bracket below pocketed 32% more. Middle-income folks saw only a 19.8% increase.

Oh, I guess that the middle class INCOMES come from sources other than wages - like, maybe capital gains?

So - incomes went up in general for all income brackets and this is bad news?

 

[McBell]

So - incomes went up in general for all income brackets and this is bad news?

[sarcasm]
Hell yes it is bad news.
See, the rich are not supposed to have their income go up.
I mean, really now, they are already rich for crying out loud!
[/sarcasm]

 

[Kathryn]

[sarcasm]
Hell yes it is bad news.
See, the rich are not supposed to have their income go up.
I mean, really now, they are already rich for crying out loud!
[/sarcasm]

Oh, you're right - I forgot.

Maybe they're rich because they know how and what it takes to make one's income GO UP.

Bad richies. Shame on them.

 

[no-body]

I've run the numbers on how much wealth we've thrown away over the years on car payments and other stupid purchases, and I was about to throw up.:banghead3:

This is generally true but usually there is little to be done about it, it isn't about wise investments it's about being penalized for not having enough money to pay everything up front. You actually end up saving more money in the long run if you have money. That sounds pretty sick to me.

 

[waitasec]

Maybe I'm just stupid, but I don't understand this quote from the article:



Oh, I guess that the middle class INCOMES come from sources other than wages - like, maybe capital gains?

So - incomes went up in general for all income brackets and this is bad news?

perhaps you over looked a four letter word
and i'll point it out to you...

And while capital gains rose healthily for most income brackets, the wealthiest taxpayers benefited from a 37.6% hike, and those in the bracket below pocketed 32% more. Middle-income folks saw only a 19.8% increase.

 

[Kathryn]

perhaps you over looked a four letter word
and i'll point it out to you...

No, I saw it, read it and understand that point.

I just don't understand YOUR point.

 

[Kathryn]

This is generally true but usually there is little to be done about it, it isn't about wise investments it's about being penalized for not having enough money to pay everything up front. You actually end up saving more money in the long run if you have money. That sounds pretty sick to me.

It's a goal that can be set and worked toward by making a series of good financial (and other) decisions.

 

[waitasec]

No, I saw it, read it and understand that point.

I just don't understand YOUR point.

why would you assume the middle class benefitted by capital gains?


you said:

So - incomes went up in general for all income brackets and this is bad news?

no, most.

 

[no-body]

It's a goal that can be set and worked toward by making a series of good financial (and other) decisions.

So people should be penalized for being poor but not rich? The double standard drives me crazy "The haves are clearly our superiors so they should be allowed to do what they want"