This is truly scary.

[youbet]

I believe most people do have the ability to pull themselves up, if left alone and allowed to do it. If I did not believe this then I would wholeheartedly say let's abandon capitalism and switch to communism. ?

To say that there is no middle ground between capitalism and communism would a little extreme in my view.

 

[donheff]

What do non-Christians say? People suffer and people die. That's what happens in this world. There is NO RELIGION whose God can be claimed to prevent it, so I'm not sure why this question always comes up when Christianity is discussed.

I think this was in response to me reacting to:

My sister in law said that Katrina happened because of the things that happened in New Orleans!!

by saying:

What does someone who thinks like that say when her young child gets cancer, original sin?

My statement wasn't a diss on Christians it was a diss on the pre-Christians who make comments like the one about Katrina. No true Christian would say such a thing; it is totally unlike anything Jesus would say. They should read their own bumper stickers (WWJD?) and maybe it would dawn on them that they are Old Testament people.

And for them I ask, once again, if you believe bad things (e.g. Katrina) result from God punishing evil doers, what do you say when he visits cancer on your toddler?

 

[Zipper]

Religion is brainwashing kids before they can make an intelligent decision on their own.

Someone obviously rammed LKH with this stuff before he/she could tell fairy tales from reality.

Maybe it was [moderator edit]

 

[dumpster56]

Bible study , thursday April 19 North Carolina.

Comment..

From a group of ladies, George Bush must know what he is talking about and doing because he is a saved Christian!

Oh Boy.

Lets get back on point, I was quiet at the comment. However there are many in the country that are blindly following a president and his policies only because he is a born again christian.

That is what is scary.

 

[donheff]

Lets get back on point, I was quiet at the comment. However there are many in the country that are blindly following a president and his policies only because he is a born again christian.

That is what is scary.

Yes very scary. But the ball was back in your court way back in the beginning with the question about what you said in response to the scary ladies.

 

[Andre1969]

Just remember, from another thread on this board we learned that conservatives, like the ones you mentioned, think with their heads.

Hey, liberals think with their heads too. Bill Clinton certainly did. And it got a certain chunky intern's blue dress stained, as I recall.

And while the male conservatives may think with their heads, what do the female ones think with?

 

[ERD50]

Lets get back on point, I was quiet at the comment. However there are many in the country that are blindly following a president and his policies only because he is a born again christian.

That is what is scary.

And many follow a leader because he is a Democrat, or because he is a Republican, or because he was from 'humble beginnings' or a 'war hero'.

It's *all* scary. But many people do not like to think. They would rather just 'trust' someone with whom they share a common value. That is the scary part, IMO.

-ERD50

 

[youbet]

Lets get back on point, I was quiet at the comment. However there are many in the country that are blindly following a president and his policies only because he is a born again christian.

That is what is scary.

ERD50 is right on. There are people following various politicians and political agendas for all sorts of non-rational or single-issue reasons.

I understand you're having trouble letting go of this since it happened right there in your very own Bible study class. But there's other things you can do on Thursday nights, right?

 

[ERD50]

My question is, do we really want to live in a world where Donald Trump can brag that he takes in $28k a MINUTE, when young parents who work two full-time jobs can't make that in a YEAR?

A resounding 'YES' from me. What is the alternative? Redistribute everybody's income so we all have the same, regardless of how much effort, education or risk an individual put in to gather that income? That describes a world that I would not want to live in.

We should have social programs to help those who cannot help themselves. But allow people to get a reward for taking risk and working hard.

-ERD50

 

[Non sequitur]

Zipper, I really can't think of any other explanation. Well stated.

 

[youbet]

Maybe it was mom?

And the cycle goes on, because I'm sure LKH is abusing his/her own kids with this crap.

Zipper you stated in a post a while back that you were a father and grandfather many times over. Yet, you seem to relish bringing peoples families into discussions in inappropriate ways. That makes you scum. Why don't you try telling the poster what you think without bringing their mother or children into it?

 

[LKH]

I think this was in response to me reacting to:
by saying:My statement wasn't a diss on Christians it was a diss on the pre-Christians who make comments like the one about Katrina. No true Christian would say such a thing; it is totally unlike anything Jesus would say. They should read their own bumper stickers (WWJD?) and maybe it would dawn on them that they are Old Testament people.

And for them I ask, once again, if you believe bad things (e.g. Katrina) result from God punishing evil doers, what do you say when he visits cancer on your toddler?

Thanks, donheff, for the clarification! That's a good question. Like you, I don't believe God works that way.

 

[LKH]

A resounding 'YES' from me. What is the alternative? Redistribute everybody's income so we all have the same, regardless of how much effort, education or risk an individual put in to gather that income? That describes a world that I would not want to live in.

We should have social programs to help those who cannot help themselves. But allow people to get a reward for taking risk and working hard.

-ERD50

I wouldn't want to live in a pure communist state. But I do believe that we need to make it a little easier for the people who don't have all the advantages to make a decent living, even if it means The Donald can only make $15K a minute. He'd still be rich as Croesus, but maybe the people who give the only resource they have - time - to make our businesses work should get a little more of the reward than they currently get.

 

[LKH]

Religion is brainwashing kids before they can make an intelligent decision on their own.

Someone obviously rammed LKH with this stuff before he/she could tell fairy tales from reality.

Maybe it was mom?

And the cycle goes on, because I'm sure LKH is abusing his/her own kids with this crap.

I'm always amazed at the venom that some people spew at people of faith, particularly Christians. I never did anything to you, and you probably need to get used to the fact that lots of people believe differently than you do. Play nice, will you? Kind of sad that I have to say that to an adult.

 

[lets-retire]

I wouldn't want to live in a pure communist state. But I do believe that we need to make it a little easier for the people who don't have all the advantages to make a decent living, even if it means The Donald can only make $15K a minute. He'd still be rich as Croesus, but maybe the people who give the only resource they have - time - to make our businesses work should get a little more of the reward than they currently get.

The problem with that line of thinking is once someone like Trump hits the magic ceiling why should he risk more of his money only to have the profit taken away. To put it in perspective the government says you can only earn $10,000 in interest and dividends per year, after that you must surrender everything to the government for redistribution. After all you really didn't earn it, you only invested in a company and are sitting back taking the profit. The second part isn't very effective either. Every person in a company is hired only because they help make the company a certain amount of money. If say the security guard at the front door helps the company earn $25,000 a year because he makes customers feel safe, then it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to pay her $40,000. It would be smarter/cheaper just to get rid of the security guard and lose the $25,000 per year. When we are talking about the minimum wage or near minimum wage type work, normally the employee brings the company very little money or the job requires very little skill so they receive very little money.

 

[LKH]

Listen, if the company is making the kinds of profits that let someone take in $28k a minute (or even a lot less), they can afford profit-sharing. If they're making that much money, then the employees are absolutely helping the company make more than you claim. Plus, that theory is a bit skewed on other fronts as well. You can't tell me that teachers, for example, lack the skills and that their jobs are so unimportant that they deserve to be paid so much less than other people with similar levels of education. And don't talk about the "summers off." Most teachers I know either work second jobs to make ends meet, or they are back in school to maintain their certifications and/or gain their masters' degrees. And these days, most teachers are back in the job market within five years, looking for better employment. Which means our kids are getting short shrift, being taught by youngsters without much experience, and the rare exception, those who feel so called to it that they're willing to sacrifice.

And the sad fact is, "the norm" is not as advantaged as you might think. A person with average intelligence, average skillsets, just needs to run into one problem - a health issue, for example - and suddenly he's unemployed or underemployed. If you look at the stats, "average" income is not very much.

I have another friend who's worked 20 years for a mining company as a legal secretary, makes $30k, and for the last decade has had to work a 2nd job to afford anything beyond the mean necessities. After 20 years of her life, the company will give her a whopping $900 a month in retirement benefits - until she gets SSI. Then it drops quite a bit. And the company recently sued current retirees to force them to agree to let the company quit paying its share for health insurance. Had she known that the company was going to pull that, she would've gone and done something else. But she's got 2 years to retire - at this point, she's pretty much stuck with whatever they'll spare her, because it's too late to start over somewhere else. You might say she should've quit some time ago and found better employment, but like so many, she has disadvantages that keep her from doing that. She has some health issues that make it tough to insure her, and a lot of companies won't even hire people like that.

What I think is amazing is that I have friends who have less education than she has, who were fortunate to stumble into jobs with companies that care more about their employees, and these people seem to think that they somehow earned the better deal, and by implication that she deserves to get stiffed.

 

[donheff]

Thanks, donheff, for the clarification! That's a good question. Like you, I don't believe God works that way.

I better provide my bona fides so you won't think I am back sliding in some other thread - I am not actually a believer. But I do like a lot of aspects of Christian beliefs. It does seem, though, that some of the traditional beliefs (even the original Southern Baptist tradition) are being supplanted by fundamentalists who are more attuned to Old Testament retribution and apocalyptic visions than the Gospels.

By the way, a lot of people have read Dawkin's God Delusion recently which may explain the overtly hostile posts. But that discussion probably belongs in another thread - and might really drive you away.

 

[youbet]

The problem with that line of thinking is once someone like Trump hits the magic ceiling why should he risk more of his money only to have the profit taken away.

I'm not quite sure what to think about the growing concentration of wealth in the USA today. The top 1% now control 38% of the wealth and that percentage is growing quickly since the mid-70's. (http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html)

I'm really not for government controls, but I can't help but wonder what life will be like for the diminishing middle class if the trend continues and the top 1% controls, say 50% or 70% or more of the wealth.

Are you proposing to eliminate the progressive income tax system, the minimum wage and other existing economic factors we have today to make our economy and wealth accumulation truly laissez faire?

If they are able to do so under today's tax structure and business regulations, would you be comfortable with the top 1% controlling 90% of our aggregate wealth? If not, where do you draw the line?

 

[LKH]

Hi, Youbet!

That's the problem I see. When that top few percent also controls how things are done, it's just a little too easy for them to scrape more profits off the scalps of people who are barely making ends meet. Some folks think the only alternative is pure communism, but nobody here is arguing for that. Just a little more fair play. It's unfortunate that human nature is such that some folks will have to be pushed to share a little of the joy with the people who help them earn it. But there it is.

L

 

[ERD50]

I wouldn't want to live in a pure communist state. But I do believe that we need to make it a little easier for the people who don't have all the advantages to make a decent living, ....

OK, let's have a proposal from you. What *would* you do?

And careful, there can be a fine line between 'helping people that don't have all the advantages' and removing some incentives to do more with what you have. The law of unintended consequences often comes into play in these well meaning programs.

And, FYI, here is how it 'works' now. Despite popular impression, the 'wealthy' *do* pay a very high percentage of the taxes. In the example you gave, that family would most likely pay zero federal taxes. Yes, they would pay FICA. FICA is a regressive tax (which is at odds with the progressive income tax system). I don't recall hearing the Dems talk about reform in the FICA area. I'm not sure why? Eliminating (or partially eliminating) the cap and putting in a threshold would seem do-able, and a boost to low income individuals.

-ERD50

http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/tax-policy/fact-sheet/

In 2002 the latest year of available data:

# the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid over one-half of all individual income

# The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid over one-third of all individual income taxes.

# Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.

# Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income (in all years since 1990) have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.

# In 2005, says the Treasury, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.

# The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.

# The share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers will rise from 32.3 percent to 33.7 percent.

# The average tax rate for the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers falls by 27 percent as compared to a 13 percent decline for taxpayers in the top 1 percent.

 

[youbet]

So, it looks like the percentage of taxes paid is more or less in line with the percentage of wealth controlled........ OK.

But even with those that control the wealth paying a proportionate share of the taxes, would you be comfortable if the current trend continues and the top 1%'s share increases from 38% to 70%? 80% 90%?

I'm not sure what to think. Again, I'm not a big fan of government controls, but that kind of wealth concentration led to some pretty nasty social upheavals in the past......even if the percentage of taxes paid was proportionate to the wealth controlled, as it seems to be today.

 

[ERD50]

.... if the current trend continues and the top 1%'s share increases from 38% to 70%? 80% 90%?

I'm not sure what to think. Again, I'm not a big fan of government controls, but that kind of wealth concentration led to some pretty nasty social upheavals in the past......even if the percentage of taxes paid was proportionate to the wealth controlled, as it seems to be today.

'If the current trend continues' is a big IF. Things usually tend to regress to the mean.

So that report states that the top 5% control about 60% of the wealth. I guess I'm not surprised. The majority of people are probably the average 'worker bee' types, a few percent at the bottom will be incapable or unmotivated, and only the top few percent are the exceptionally smart, creative, aggressive, risk-taking types that build new businesses and create wealth (and jobs for the 'worker bee' types). Luck (good and bad) will come into play, and drive some people above or below their capabilities. So it seems reasonable to me that 5% end up controlling 60% of the wealth.

Come to think of it, maybe the 5% that are capable of obtaining (and holding onto) wealth are *exactly* the people that *should* be in control of it!

-ERD50

 

[youbet]

So, you're comfortable with the current trend and have no problem with the top 1% controlling, say, 90% of the wealth?

 

[lets-retire]

LKH--The last time I checked many of Trump's companies were in New York and New Jersey. Don't they have unions? If they felt the Donald was not paying a fair wage they would be striking and making him pay more. As it is, normally, union employees are paid more than the non-union workers. So you are arguing that he is not paying a fair wage, but I don't see the unions backing you up. Teachers are a different animal. Most are not subject to the free market they are normally government workers. Anything in government employ is hard to compare. Using your argument Police and Fire workers need to be paid several tens of thousands more than they are. A lot of police officers have at least a four year degree, work year round, make less than a teacher, and still have to take part time jobs to make ends meet. My point is they are government workers, like teachers and their pay is not all that. I never said the norm was advantaged, what I said is the normal person is what needs to be looked at not the handicapped, if you are going to make large statements about the working class. If someone of average intelligence is not making above minimum wage after a few years then the person has a problem not the employer (actually the employer probably has a problem worker). Sorry to say but your friends problem of not moving to a better paying job is not very relevant to the discussion. I could bring up the fact that even after obtaining a four year degree and working in an industry for 15 years I make $20,000 less than my wife, who has no education past high school and has only worked in her field for 9 years. A lot has to do with the pay provided by the industry. Your friend chose a career path that as my mother-in-law (also a legal secretary) described as being a glorified secretary. Secretaries do not make a lot of money, they never have and they never will.

youbet--If the wealth of the nation is being controlled by a few people then it is the fault of the people not government. Although I do seem to recall some laws against anti-competition practices of companies. I would think that if to much of the wealth of the nation is controlled by too few people it would run afoul of the anti-competition laws. I do not have a problem with progressive taxes per say. When you start talking about capping the amount a person makes by instituting a 100% tax bracket, then I have a problem.

 

[FinanceDude]

So, you're comfortable with the current trend and have no problem with the top 1% controlling, say, 90% of the wealth?

Well, around the turn of the century, only 15-20 FAMILIES controlled 95% of the US wealth, so we're getting better.............