Gap between rich and poor rising faster in Canada

[bush_cheney2004]

The poster asked for a yes or no answer.

No.

[cybercoma]

No.

No?

A simple yes or no should suffice.

[jacee]

No?

Yes, No.

[jacee]

You would have a point if the rich stuffed their money in a mattress, but fortunately we haven't for hundreds of years.

Do rich people not help ordinary people by hiring them, investing, saving in banks, and buying more products than an average person. Oh and don't forget paying more dollars in tax than the average person. A simple yes or no should suffice.

As I said (before I fell asleep ... No.

The wealthiEST have taken the jobs overseas,

Stashed their wealth offshore,

And pay the same proportion of their income in taxes AS THE POOR.

Yes, the wealthiEST pay a smaller proportion in taxes than the middle class and THE RICH.

Yes that's right, if you are rich, you are being screwed by the richEST.

And now that the middle class is being gutted and won't be paying as much taxes, the tax burden will fall increasingly on the 'ordinarily wealthy', while the richEST will pay far less than you.

The distinction between the 'ordinarily wealthy' and the wealthiEST 1% is very important, because it's the 'ordinarily wealthy' who are now being screwed by the wealthiEST. And they are counting on you suckers to defend THEM, and they laugh at you all the way to the Caymans as they foist THEIR tax burden onto YOU.

Edited September 30, 2011 by jacee

[Pliny]

Along with government complicity. Rich lobby the gov to change the rules so it works in their benefit. The lines between Corporations and Government are so blurred, they seem to be one.

Do all the rich lobby for the same thing? I'm sure the Koch Bros. aren't lobbying for what Geroge Soros is lobbying for. Nor is GM lobbying for what Toyota wants. Is Astro Zeneca lobbying for Pfizer? How about Bill Gates and Steve Jobs?

Yes, corporations lobby government, and never have I seen such crony capitalism as under the Obama administration.

Governments tend to look where the money is because they want their fair share - and some for the needy as well, so they cozy up to wherever it is, and protect it's wealth - because it's their job and what they get paid to do. They don't get paid to spend it but it helps if they can show there is a need to spend it.

The problem with social programs promoting "equality" and "social justice" is that they are patronizing, paternalistic and condescending (sarcasm on)- but hey I'll take what I can get - as a matter of fact I deserve more - that's why the Democrats are the best party.(sarcasm off)

[blueblood]

The above response reminds me of Patrick Ewing's "defense" of being a very well paid NBA player during the last work stoppage in that league...

It was laughably pathetic then and it still is now....

And this response reminds me of your "defense" of high paying union jobs during their work stoppages even though someone overseas can do the same job for pennies on the dollar.

So rich people just get their money and stuff it in a vault and from time to time go swimming in it like scrooge mcduck?

[blueblood]

As I said (before I fell asleep ... No.

The wealthiEST have taken the jobs overseas,

Stashed their wealth offshore,

And pay the same proportion of their income in taxes AS THE POOR.

Yes, the wealthiEST pay a smaller proportion in taxes than the middle class and THE RICH.

Yes that's right, if you are rich, you are being screwed by the richEST.

And now that the middle class is being gutted and won't be paying as much taxes, the tax burden will fall increasingly on the 'ordinarily wealthy', while the richEST will pay far less than you.

The distinction between the 'ordinarily wealthy' and the wealthiEST 1% is very important, because it's the 'ordinarily wealthy' who are now being screwed by the wealthiEST. And they are counting on you suckers to defend THEM, and they laugh at you all the way to the Caymans as they foist THEIR tax burden onto YOU.

How am I being screwed? I buy inputs and products at market rate, how am I getting screwed there?

Those rich people provide capital for R and D, and providing liquidity in the bank with their deposits for people to get loans to grow their business's and buy things. Rich people also buy products and hire workers to help them make more money.

But then you believe that they stuff their money in a giant ass vault. That's the only way that they don't help anybody. You do realize they would be in rags if they didn't spend any of that money. But spending money means that someone else benefits as well, most likely somebody who is not rich.

[ToadBrother]

How am I being screwed? I buy inputs and products at market rate, how am I getting screwed there?

Those rich people provide capital for R and D, and providing liquidity in the bank with their deposits for people to get loans to grow their business's and buy things. Rich people also buy products and hire workers to help them make more money.

But then you believe that they stuff their money in a giant ass vault. That's the only way that they don't help anybody. You do realize they would be in rags if they didn't spend any of that money. But spending money means that someone else benefits as well, most likely somebody who is not rich.

Unless of course they hang on to the cash, which is what usually happens during a recession. That's why corporate tax cuts usually have little or no effect during such periods because corporations want to maintain maximum liquidity by building up cash reserves.

[Bonam]

Unless of course they hang on to the cash, which is what usually happens during a recession. That's why corporate tax cuts usually have little or no effect during such periods because corporations want to maintain maximum liquidity by building up cash reserves.

Corporations "hanging onto" cash usually means putting that cash into treasuries, and this demand for treasuries allows the government to borrow money at low rates. Corporations don't just keep their "cash" in a $20 billion checking account.

[Oleg Bach]

Rich folks do not understand what it is not to have a bus ticket..they assume that everybody has disposable income..that everybody can go out and spend a 150 dollars on a meal...that everybody is prosperious...It is a division that is natural - when you are warm you can not imagine a person who suffers in the cold - and the gap in the lack of empathy widens mentally - and fiscally...maybe one week a year we could keep a better balance by taking away all the money from the rich for ten days per year - that should close the gap and re-connect the dis-connect.

[Bonam]

when you are warm you can not imagine a person who suffers in the cold

I guess some of us have more vivid imaginations than others.

[blueblood]

Unless of course they hang on to the cash, which is what usually happens during a recession. That's why corporate tax cuts usually have little or no effect during such periods because corporations want to maintain maximum liquidity by building up cash reserves.

By saving their money in a bank, or investing it in treasuries/bonds, they are indirectly helping people. They are providing liquidity for other people wanting to borrow. They aren't stashing it in some vault behind a painting.

[Jack Weber]

Unless of course they hang on to the cash, which is what usually happens during a recession. That's why corporate tax cuts usually have little or no effect during such periods because corporations want to maintain maximum liquidity by building up cash reserves.

It could be construed as a "Capital Strike"...Hoarding cash like that during hard economic times...

Edited October 1, 2011 by Jack Weber

[Jack Weber]

And this response reminds me of your "defense" of high paying union jobs during their work stoppages even though someone overseas can do the same job for pennies on the dollar.

So rich people just get their money and stuff it in a vault and from time to time go swimming in it like scrooge mcduck?

Free Marketeers...

Always defending thier upward wealth redistribution excercise...

[ToadBrother]

By saving their money in a bank, or investing it in treasuries/bonds, they are indirectly helping people. They are providing liquidity for other people wanting to borrow. They aren't stashing it in some vault behind a painting.

But they're not directly injecting large amounts of cash into the system, which is so often the claim for cutting wealth and corporate taxes. What you're basically advocating is a sort of trickle down economics. Cash hoarding at best only causes a small plus, and not the major one that is so often claimed.

Let me ask you, do you think having a large rich-poor gap is a good thing? Do you think having two groups increasingly isolated is a positive aspect of modern industrialized society? I mean, we don't even have the notion of noblesse oblige, we have the extremely wealthy and large corporations basically using your voodoo economics to basically lift themselves above and beyond the very societies that make their existence possible.

[Bonam]

Let me ask you, do you think having a large rich-poor gap is a good thing? Do you think having two groups increasingly isolated is a positive aspect of modern industrialized society?

No, it is not a fundamentally good thing. However, the solutions frequently proposed on the left (especially by people like jacee) are even worse, as they trample all over the rights of individuals and ensure that even should economic prosperity return, the society in question would remain a living nightmare.

You can tweak the tax code here and there as needed, close loopholes, tax capital gains as income, etc. But the fundamental hatred of the rich, the jealousy of the successful, that so many here seem to have, is far more ominous than any wealth gap.

[bush_cheney2004]

...You can tweak the tax code here and there as needed, close loopholes, tax capital gains as income, etc. But the fundamental hatred of the rich, the jealousy of the successful, that so many here seem to have, is far more ominous than any wealth gap.

Indeed, they may as well hate achievement in any context, from Neil Armstrong to Wayne Gretzky. They would replace the race to the top/bottom with universal mediocrity just to satisfy their smug but bankrupt sense of what is fair.

I was listening to Elon Musk on NPR this week and totaled up his achievements at age 40 (PayPal, Tesla, SpaceX). To think that some dolts would limit his (and others') potential to satisfy some misguided egalitarian dream is very ominous indeed.

Edited October 1, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[jacee]

Http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/powerinvestment_manager.htm

The higher we go up into the top 0.5% the more likely it is that their wealth is in some way tied to the investment industry and borrowed money than from personally selling goods or services or labor as do most in the bottom 99.5%. They are much more likely to have built their net worth from stock options and capital gains in stocks and real estate and private business sales, not from income which is taxed at a much higher rate. These opportunities are largely unavailable to the bottom 99.5%.

...

The picture is clear; entry into the top 0.5% and, particularly, the top 0.1% is usually the result of some association with the financial industry and its creations. I find it questionable as to whether the majority in this group actually adds value or simply diverts value from the US economy and business into its pockets and the pockets of the uber-wealthy who hire them. They are, of course, doing nothing illegal. the uber-wealthy who hire them. They are, of course, doing nothing illegal.

I think it's important to emphasize one of the dangers of wealth concentration: irresponsibility about the wider economic consequences of their actions by those at the top. Wall Street created the investment products that produced gross economic imbalances and the 2008 credit crisis. It wasn't the hard-working 99.5%. Average people could only destroy themselves financially, not the economic system. There's plenty of blame to go around, but the collapse was primarily due to the failure of complex mortgage derivatives, CDS credit swaps, cheap Fed money, lax regulation, compromised ratings agencies, government involvement in the mortgage market, the end of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, and insufficient bank capital.

Only Wall Street could put the economy at risk and it had an excellent reason to do so: profit. It made huge profits in the build-up to the credit crisis and huge profits when it sold itself as "too big to fail" and received massive government and Federal Reserve bailouts. Most of the serious economic damage the U.S. is struggling with today was done by the top 0.1% and they benefited greatly from it.

Edited October 1, 2011 by jacee

[cybercoma]

Yeah, jacee.... but they earned it.

[maple_leafs182]

No, it is not a fundamentally good thing. However, the solutions frequently proposed on the left (especially by people like jacee) are even worse, as they trample all over the rights of individuals and ensure that even should economic prosperity return, the society in question would remain a living nightmare.

You can tweak the tax code here and there as needed, close loopholes, tax capital gains as income, etc. But the fundamental hatred of the rich, the jealousy of the successful, that so many here seem to have, is far more ominous than any wealth gap.

I don't want state socialism, I don't want the government to redistribute wealth. The reason the gap has became so large is because the monetary system is fundamentally flawed. Having a central bank and fiat currencies favours the large government, banks and coprorations. The monetary system is at fault for stealing the wealth from the many and give it to the few. It has nothing to do with being jealous when the game is rigged.

[Moonlight Graham]

How am I being screwed? I buy inputs and products at market rate, how am I getting screwed there?

Those rich people provide capital for R and D, and providing liquidity in the bank with their deposits for people to get loans to grow their business's and buy things. Rich people also buy products and hire workers to help them make more money.

But then you believe that they stuff their money in a giant ass vault. That's the only way that they don't help anybody. You do realize they would be in rags if they didn't spend any of that money. But spending money means that someone else benefits as well, most likely somebody who is not rich.

Your can reverse your argument. If the non-wealthy have more money to spend, it makes the rich more money because the non-wealthy are buying the products & services produced by the wealthy.

This follows the concept of Fordism. Henry Ford obviously produced automobiles, but his worker's did not make enough in wages to be able to afford to buy the very products they produced, thus limiting Ford's consumer base & sales & stagnating Henry's profits. To combat this, Henry then increased his worker's wages so that they could actually afford to buy the cars they were pumping out. This obviously increased Ford's profits & number of cars sold, allowing Henry to have more capital to pump into R&D and invest in more factories etc. to employ more people, and thus produce more cars and make further profits, and the cycle continues and growth continues.

Wiki: "Fordism is the system of mass production and consumption characteristic of highly developed economies during the 1940s-1960s. The idea of Fordism was to combine mass production with mass consumption (high wages) to produce sustained economic growth and widespread material advancement. The 1970s-1990s have been a period of slower growth and increasing income inequality"

Everyone benefited in this scenario, and it worked because it was cyclical. It led to more goods and wealth for everyone, rich & non-rich. You can call it 'trickle up economics' if you will. What the wealthy don't realize these days is that in order to create profits & wealth, capitalism demands mass-consumption, but those that mass-consume (ie: the majority non-wealthy) need money in order to buy the products the wealthy create.

Edited October 1, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[cybercoma]

MG

There's also an argument to be made for money to be in the hands of more people, thus diversifying the base making decisions about what is worth producing. When disposable income is concentrated at the top, you don't necessarily get things produced that society wants. Instead, what is produced is what the most wealthy want, further complicating the lives of those at the bottom of the pyramid.

[ToadBrother]

No, it is not a fundamentally good thing. However, the solutions frequently proposed on the left (especially by people like jacee) are even worse, as they trample all over the rights of individuals and ensure that even should economic prosperity return, the society in question would remain a living nightmare.

You can tweak the tax code here and there as needed, close loopholes, tax capital gains as income, etc. But the fundamental hatred of the rich, the jealousy of the successful, that so many here seem to have, is far more ominous than any wealth gap.

But what you advocate would do little to alleviate the problem. Even with redistributive tax systems in most industrialized countries, the phenomena is wide spread. I'm not actually seeing you providing any solutions.

If there is anything to Marxism that was ever particularly true, it's that there have always been class struggles. The idea behind a redistribution of wealth is to try to even that out. Yes, it sucks that high income earners get to pay relatively high amounts of tax, but let's also remember they didn't gain or maintain their wealth in a vacuum, and that not every society through time has allowed such wealth accumulation to happen. Surely at the end of the day, whether we are the least of its members or the greatest, we do indeed rely upon the wider society, and I think that produces a debt.

[ToadBrother]

I don't want state socialism, I don't want the government to redistribute wealth

Every state throughout history has redistributed wealth. Even the Roman government gave out free bread to the people of the city of Rome, because when they didn't they got riots. That's a sort of primitive social services system, and very much cost the Roman treasury, and ultimately wealthier Romans. But the alternative was much more expensive.

. The reason the gap has became so large is because the monetary system is fundamentally flawed. Having a central bank and fiat currencies favours the large government, banks and coprorations. The monetary system is at fault for stealing the wealth from the many and give it to the few. It has nothing to do with being jealous when the game is rigged.

Oh give me a break. When most of the world was still on the gold, or at least precious metal standard, there were wide gaps between rich and poor. Please stop trotting out Ron Paul's junk economics and junk history. Medieval Europe didn't have our monetary system, and yet the gaps between the rich and poor were wide indeed.

[jacee]

surprisingly, Wall Street and the top of corporate America are doing extremely well as of June 2011. For example, in Q1 of 2011 America's top corporations reported 31% profit growth and a 31% reduction in taxes, the latter due to profit outsourcing to low tax rate countries. Somewhere around 40% of the profits in the S&P 500 come from overseas and stay overseas, with about half of these 500 top corporations having their headquarters in tax havens. If the corporations don't repatriate their profits, they pay no U.S. taxes. The year 2010 was a record year for compensation on Wall Street, while corporate CEO compensation rose by over 30%, most Americans struggled. In 2010 a dozen major companies, including GE, Verizon Boeing, Wells Fargo, and Fed Ex paid US tax rates between -0.7% and - 9.2%. Production, employment, profits, and taxes have all been outsourced. Major U.S. corporations are currently lobbying to have another "tax-repatriation" window like that in 2004 where they can bring back corporate profits at a 5.25% tax rate versus the usual 35% US corporate tax rate. Ordinary working citizens with the lowest incomes are taxed at 10%

I could go on and on, but the bottom line is this: A highly complex and largely discrete set of laws and exemptions from laws has been put in place by those in the uppermost reaches of the U.S. financial system It allows them to protect and increase their wealth and significantly affect the U.S. political and legislative processes. They have real power and real wealth. Ordinary citizens in the bottom 99.9% are largely not aware of these systems, do not understand how they work, are unlikely to participate in them, and have little likelihood of entering the top 0.5%, much less the top 0.1%. Moreover, those at the very top have no incentive whatsoever for revealing or changing the rules. I am not optimistic.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/investment_manager.html

To those who defend the system that allows a free ride to the richEST I would ask ...

- What solutions to the present situation would you propose?

- If the system as it is is so great, why do we need solutions to the current situation?