Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    27 Oct '17 19:21
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/26/worlds-witnessing-a-new-gilded-age-as-billionaires-wealth-swells-to-6tn

    "World's witnessing a new Gilded Age as billionaires’ wealth swells to $6tn.
    Not since the time of the Carnegies, Rockefellers and Vanderbilts at the turn of the 20th century was so much owned by so few."

    "The world’s super-rich hold the greatest concentration of wealth since
    the US Gilded Age at the turn of the 20th century, when families like the
    Carnegies, Rockefellers and Vanderbilts controlled vast fortunes.

    Billionaires increased their combined global wealth by almost a fifth last
    year to a record $6tn (£4.5tn) – more than twice the GDP of the UK.
    There are now 1,542 dollar billionaires across the world,"

    "“Wealth concentration is as high as in 1905, this is something billionaires are
    concerned about. The problem is the power of interest on interest – that
    makes big money bigger and, the question is to what extent is that
    sustainable and at what point will society intervene and strike back?”
    --Josef Stadler

    "The International Monetary Fund (IMF) recently said western governments should
    force the top 1% of earners to pay more more tax to try to reduce dangerous levels of inequality."
  2. Behind the scenes
    Joined
    27 Jun '16
    Moves
    1406
    27 Oct '17 23:35
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/26/worlds-witnessing-a-new-gilded-age-as-billionaires-wealth-swells-to-6tn

    "World's witnessing a new Gilded Age as billionaires’ wealth swells to $6tn.
    Not since the time of the Carnegies, Rockefellers and Vanderbilts at the turn of the 20th century was so much owned by so few."

    "The world’s super-rich ...[text shortened]... rce the top 1% of earners to pay more more tax to try to reduce dangerous levels of inequality."
    This is very true. These things have a way of correcting themselves from time to time. They are called violent revolutions. It's interesting that one of our local billionaire's wrote about this same thing only a short time ago.

    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014
  3. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    28 Oct '17 16:141 edit
    Originally posted by @mchill
    This is very true. These things have a way of correcting themselves from time to time. They are called violent revolutions. It's interesting that one of our local billionaire's wrote about this same thing only a short time ago.

    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014
    First
    "You show me a highly unequal society, and I will show you a police state. Or an uprising. There are no counterexamples.
    We have had a lot of pitchforks in history but I suggest that if there is one alternative that is getting more and more intimidating it is the potential for a police state. It is probably already possible to identify and remove all potential dissidents based on their social media input.

    Second
    "If we do something about it, if we adjust our policies in the way that, say, Franklin D. Roosevelt did during the Great Depression—so that we help the 99 percent and preempt the revolutionaries and crazies, the ones with the pitchforks—that will be the best thing possible for us rich folks, too. It’s not just that we’ll escape with our lives; it’s that we’ll most certainly get even richer."
    The great thing is that it is possible in capitalism to continue to intensify the exploitation of labour while conceding to labour some share in the rewards from their growing productivity. That was the basis on which it was possible to allow improved social conditions in much of the 20th century while capital systematically went about its business of accumulating and concentrating wealth. As Piketty has pointed out, the distraction has been the way two world wars destroyed so much capital - it has taken a while to return to its former glory but of course it is already there by now.

    Since the late 1970s under neoliberalism, the diifference have been that labour has stopped getting any share at all from its growing productivity. Productivity has grown dramatically but wages have stagnated and in addition the middle lcass is indeed getting hollowed out. That is unsustainable not because there is any limit to how far wealth can be accumulated - there is no limit in capitalism to prevent that - but because capitalism is eating its own foundations - it is destroying its own labour pool by wrecking the welfare state (including things like education, affordable housing and health services) and wrecking its markets (because it needs customers with the means to purchase its shiploads of commodities floating around our oceons in ever bigger container vessels).
  4. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    29 Oct '17 02:56
    In the US they are trying to frame this as the rich paying too much taxes.

    When you are raking it in hand over fist of course you will pay more taxes than the guy with nothing.
  5. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35841
    29 Oct '17 04:42
    Originally posted by @eladar
    In the US they are trying to frame this as the rich paying too much taxes.

    When you are raking it in hand over fist of course you will pay more taxes than the guy with nothing.
    Who is "they" trying to frame it that way? Fox News? They, like the president, are simply disconnected from reality.

    During WW II the rich paid a whopping 90% in income taxes, and they still made money hand over fist. Clearly, the 35% they pay now (less with loopholes) is, quite literally, nothing. Yet, Fox News loves to claim that we need to go back to Reagan-era "trickle-down" (more like "deluge-up" ) before, somehow, the economy collapses.
  6. Behind the scenes
    Joined
    27 Jun '16
    Moves
    1406
    29 Oct '17 06:48
    Originally posted by @suzianne
    Who is "they" trying to frame it that way? Fox News? They, like the president, are simply disconnected from reality.

    During WW II the rich paid a whopping 90% in income taxes, and they still made money hand over fist. Clearly, the 35% they pay now (less with loopholes) is, quite literally, nothing. Yet, Fox News loves to claim that we need to ...[text shortened]... ck to Reagan-era "trickle-down" (more like "deluge-up" ) before, somehow, the economy collapses.
    The FOX can have a strong influence on the weak minded.

    - Obi Wan Kenobi 🙂
  7. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    29 Oct '17 13:52
    Originally posted by @suzianne
    Who is "they" trying to frame it that way? Fox News? They, like the president, are simply disconnected from reality.

    During WW II the rich paid a whopping 90% in income taxes, and they still made money hand over fist. Clearly, the 35% they pay now (less with loopholes) is, quite literally, nothing. Yet, Fox News loves to claim that we need to ...[text shortened]... ck to Reagan-era "trickle-down" (more like "deluge-up" ) before, somehow, the economy collapses.
    90 percent tax rates and all of a sudden money end up being made in other countries.

    It was that way in the 80s, it would be even worse today.
  8. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    29 Oct '17 15:141 edit
    Originally posted by @eladar
    90 percent tax rates and all of a sudden money end up being made in other countries.

    It was that way in the 80s, it would be even worse today.
    The USA had a temporary advantage while other countries recovered from the catastrophe of two world wars, which the US largely evaded; a recovery deferred for generations in the USSR and China by the Cold War.

    The stupidity of this was to be deluded into thinking that temporary advantage represented a God-given natural superiority. As long as we deal in comparative measures, then the gap with "other countries" could not possibly remain unchanged and it could only narrow.

    If your second sentence made sense, then the transfer of wealth to the top 1% which has taken place since Reagan ought to have brought economic benefits to the US economy and the American people. Where are they? Where is your middle class going going gone? Why is poverty escalating instead of vanishing? Why are measures of well being such as longevity and health going backwards in the USA? Why is nothing trickling down? Why are your wars all paid for by debt?
  9. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    29 Oct '17 15:321 edit
    Originally posted by @finnegan
    The USA had a temporary advantage while other countries recovered from the catastrophe of two world wars, which the US largely evaded; a recovery deferred for generations in the USSR and China by the Cold War.

    The stupidity of this was to be deluded into thinking that temporary advantage represented a God-given natural superiority. As long as we dea ...[text shortened]... ng backwards in the USA? Why is nothing trickling down? Why are your wars all paid for by debt?
    http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year


    The US GDP did show positive gains after Reagan lowered the tax rates.

    Average real growth was 3.44 percent from 1983 to 1999.
  10. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    29 Oct '17 16:18
    Originally posted by @eladar
    http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year


    The US GDP did show positive gains after Reagan lowered the tax rates.

    Average real growth was 3.44 percent from 1983 to 1999.
    Average real growth was higher in the era of 70%+ top income tax rates.
  11. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    29 Oct '17 20:19
    Originally posted by @eladar
    http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year


    The US GDP did show positive gains after Reagan lowered the tax rates.

    Average real growth was 3.44 percent from 1983 to 1999.
    Don't you appreciate that when making international comparisons it is not sufficient to state the American GDP gains? You are not giving us a comparison.

    However what your table does display is the spectacular economic growth experienced in the New Deal and the war years (the decade from 1936, peaking in 1943 and 1944) - simply crazy levels of growth; of course 1936 was coming from a dreadfully low base. Still, the USA had a terrific war - I hadn't appreciated quite what a profitable war you guys enjoyed while you waited for Russia to win the war. You really have to understand that this was not going to last.
  12. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    29 Oct '17 20:25
    Originally posted by @finnegan
    Don't you appreciate that when making international comparisons it is not sufficient to state the American GDP gains? You are not giving us a comparison.

    However what your table does display is the spectacular economic growth experienced in the New Deal and the war years (the decade from 1936, peaking in 1943 and 1944) - simply crazy levels of growth ...[text shortened]... aited for Russia to win the war. You really have to understand that this was not going to last.
    War is always good for the economy, if your country is not fighting it, but simply providing supplies.

    Reagan's tax policy was not aided by war.
  13. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    29 Oct '17 21:24
    Originally posted by @eladar
    War is always good for the economy, if your country is not fighting it, but simply providing supplies.

    Reagan's tax policy was not aided by war.
    Comparisons - you have slipped away from your own argument / complaint about other countries taking over from the US.
  14. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    29 Oct '17 22:11
    Originally posted by @finnegan
    Comparisons - you have slipped away from your own argument / complaint about other countries taking over from the US.
    I have no clue what you are talking about.

    I agree the US benefitted frim WWII, but not all the way to 1999.
  15. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    29 Oct '17 23:11
    Originally posted by @eladar
    I have no clue what you are talking about.

    I agree the US benefitted frim WWII, but not all the way to 1999.
    Well go back to explain what you think you meant by this post: especially line one and the phrase "money end up being made in other countries"

    90 percent tax rates and all of a sudden money end up being made in other countries.

    It was that way in the 80s, it would be even worse today.
Back to Top