Prioritizing government spending.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Nor did you answer mine. Again. Would it trouble you terribly to share this magical gold dust that you've stumbled upon that expert economists somehow have missed?

I already explained it; the difference between incomes is not as important as the income and quality of life for the poorer person. Perhaps you could share some of these 'expert economists' so concerned about income inequality.

Multimillionaires, for one. Now. Time to throw down the gauntlet because I'm sick of seeing this:

I defy you to name a single instance in history where someone refused to work to better their situation because of taxes. Just one.

Ok, first of all, it's completely logical. A person works x hours for y benefit. Now, you jack up the taxes and he now works x hours for y/2 benefit. Other uses of his time, like leisure (Which may have y/1.5 benefit), will look more relatively beneficial.

Secondly, just one instance? How about hundreds of millions?

Abstract

Americans now work 50 percent more than do the Germans, French, and Italians. This was not the case in the early 1970s, when the Western Europeans worked more than Americans. This article examines the role of taxes in accounting for the differences in labor supply across time and across countries; in particular, the effective marginal tax rate on labor income. The population of countries considered is the G-7 countries, which are major advanced industrial countries. The surprising finding is that this marginal tax rate accounts for the predominance of differences at points in time and the large change in relative labor supply over time.

Easy. He realizes that his employees can't get work anywhere else, so he cuts their benefits and pockets the difference.

So he cuts $99M worth of salary from his employees? And pockets the difference? That is so very absurd (how could he simply break contracts, why would employees keep working for him, etc.). Can you name one time something so extreme has happened?

CR

[jabarto]

I already explained it; the difference between incomes is not as important as the income and quality of life for the poorer person. Perhaps you could share some of these 'expert economists' so concerned about income inequality.

Paul Krugman, John Kenneth Galbraith, and Josepth Stiglitz are all Nobel Prize-winning economists and they all hold it to be important.

Ok, first of all, it's completely logical. A person works x hours for y benefit. Now, you jack up the taxes and he now works x hours for y/2 benefit. Other uses of his time, like leisure (Which may have y/1.5 benefit), will look more relatively beneficial.

Secondly, just one instance? How about hundreds of millions?

Or maybe our discrepancies in work hours are due to the quasi-religious reverence for hard work in this country? Because workers have been borderline brainwashed into accepting increasingly egregious working conditions because they don't expect any better?

So he cuts $99M worth of salary from his employees? And pockets the difference? That is so very absurd (how could he simply break contracts, why would employees keep working for him, etc.). Can you name one time something so extreme has happened?

He can break contracts because his employees have no bargaining power against him. And his employees would keep working for him because they need to eat.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Paul Krugman, John Kenneth Galbraith, and Josepth Stiglitz are all Nobel Prize-winning economists and they all hold it to be important.

Very well, care to provide links to their thoughts on the matter?

Or maybe our discrepancies in work hours are due to the quasi-religious reverence for hard work in this country? Because workers have been borderline brainwashed into accepting increasingly egregious working conditions because they don't expect any better?

No. What I have provided is a scientific study, backed by data, research, and analysis. What you have is two sentences of conjecture with no evidence except your assumptions about the ills of capitalism.

He can break contracts because his employees have no bargaining power against him. And his employees would keep working for him because they need to eat.

Like I said, just one example of that happening.

CR

[Beskar]

Like I said, just one example of that happening.

It has been occuring all over the world, in Europe as well. It is a common-fact.

You wanted just one instance right? How about this from a "Conservative"/buisness newspaper.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle7107299.ece

THE richest people in Britain have seen a record boom in wealth over the past year. Their fortunes have soared by 30% even though much of the UK is struggling to recover from recession and the near-collapse of the banking system.

Rich List, published today, reveals that the 1,000 richest people in the country increased their wealth by £77 billion last year, bringing their total wealth to £335.5 billion — equal to more than one-third of the national debt.

The number of billionaires has risen from 43 to 53, with nine seeing their wealth rise by £1 billion or more during the past 12 months.

More controversially, a host of City bankers and financiers have seen their fortunes rise sharply after the financial system was rescued from meltdown by taxpayers.

Good to know that the recession is good for the rich while us poor have to pick up the pieces they created.

[Crazed Rabbit]

It has been occuring all over the world, in Europe as well. It is a common-fact.

You wanted just one instance right? How about this from a "Conservative"/buisness newspaper.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle7107299.ece

No, I asked for a real life example of Jabarto's example:

Easy. He realizes that his employees can't get work anywhere else, so he cuts their benefits and pockets the difference.

What you provide is not what I was asking for.

Good to know that the recession is good for the rich while us poor have to pick up the pieces they created.

So you begrudge a person for making money in a difficult time? Could you illustrate how their wealth has hurt others? Lakshmi Mittal, made billions from the steel market. Do you think he fired people or hired more people? If they want money, they have to expand their companies, which means hiring people. What's so terrible about that?

CR

[Beskar]

So you begrudge a person for making money in a difficult time?

What a wording, far removed from reality.

This is the reality:
"Oh hello, we bankrupted your country, we put you out of jobs, made you have to suffer cuts and pay freezes, and we gain an increase of 33% in our back pockets."

What you provide is not what I was asking for.

Actually, a majority of the people on the Rich list have done that. I remember reading an article which said about the most of them. Also, everyone knows that lots of people have suffered pay freezes and cuts or losing their jobs, and everyone knows the rich have been getting richer. So even then, it is pretty obvious we aren't making things up.


On another note, I saw this and laughed:

If we took half of the wealth of these 1000 people as a one-off "downturn tax" , we could pay off the whole of the national deficit without raising taxes on the rest of us or cutting services, and it would not affect their lifestyle one bit. What does one person do with £22.4 billion anyway ?

[Crazed Rabbit]

What a wording, far removed from reality.

This is the reality:
"Oh hello, we bankrupted your country, we put you out of jobs, made you have to suffer cuts and pay freezes, and we gain an increase of 33% in our back pockets."

Please tell how the steel industry bankrupted your country.

Actually, a majority of the people on the Rich list have done that. I remember reading an article which said about the most of them. Also, everyone knows that lots of people have suffered pay freezes and cuts or losing their jobs, and everyone knows the rich have been getting richer. So even then, it is pretty obvious we aren't making things up.

Ah, so since someone, somewhere, is laid off while in a completely different industry someone makes money because their business is successful and not laying people off, it's obvious the rich are getting richer?

CR

[Beskar]

Please tell how the steel industry bankrupted your country.

Hmm... I think there was this quote.

More controversially, a host of City bankers and financiers have seen their fortunes rise sharply after the financial system was rescued from meltdown by taxpayers.

Steel where?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Hmm... I think there was this quote.


Steel where?

Steel as in the number one man on the list. Steel as in the I mentioned said man already. Steel as in I mentioned the industry he worked in already.

Now, either you explain how the steel industry contributed to the collapse or you acknowledge not all the 'rich', even in your fantasy world, aren't responsible for the crash. This was after you linked to the article to show that rich people were firing people and raising their salaries. Even in teh financial industry you haven't proven that.

As for people in the financial industry - how does that fact alone make them responsible for the crash? If they were CEOs of banks that were bailed out, that would be one thing, but were any of the hedge funds run by people on the rich list bailed out?

Maybe you can stop lumping all the 'rich' together and illogically cross referencing all their actions in order to fabricate crimes from thin air.

CR

[Beskar]

Actually, speaking of steel...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...edirectoldpage

Cutting 8000 jobs a year, even though they are experiencing very nice growth.

I believe there is also another article for another company which made big gains in fortune, by cutting wages and jobs.

Why you are defending the guilty? Everyone on the Rich list most likely commiting a crime or another anyway, may it be fraud, off-shore banking, tax evasion, etc. Some people say "oh, it is one law for the rich, another for the poor", but it is actually "no law for the rich" because the wealth brings power, and thus they can just go around the law.

[jabarto]

Very well, care to provide links to their thoughts on the matter?

I'd rather not have this devolve into a meaningless source war, thanks. Suffice it to say that Krugman's book Peddling Prosperity has an entire chapter dedicated to the topic.

No. What I have provided is a scientific study, backed by data, research, and analysis. What you have is two sentences of conjecture with no evidence except your assumptions about the ills of capitalism.

Okay, we'll talk facts, then. Fact: Productivity has increased over the last 30 years. Fact: The median wage has remained largely static over the same time frame. Clearly, the gains aren't going to the people doing the work. So how do you explain the fact that people are working harder to enrich the people above them with no benefit to themselves? Where's the incentive in that, hm?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Actually, speaking of steel...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...edirectoldpage

Cutting 8000 jobs a year, even though they are experiencing very nice growth.

I believe there is also another article for another company which made big gains in fortune, by cutting wages and jobs.

Ah, nicely done. However I just need to correct one bit:

Cutting 8000 jobs a year, even though is why they are experiencing very nice growth.

This guy has a lot of experience running steel plants, and given the successful history of his company we can deduce he knows what he's doing; the jobs he's cutting are likely unneeded. Not cutting some jobs could lead to cutting all jobs.

Why you are defending the guilty? Everyone on the Rich list most likely commiting a crime or another anyway, may it be fraud, off-shore banking, tax evasion, etc. Some people say "oh, it is one law for the rich, another for the poor", but it is actually "no law for the rich" because the wealth brings power, and thus they can just go around the law.

Sooooooo...just because they're rich they're guilty? No need for trials or evidence or convictions, just you proclaiming they're guilty because they're rich and you don't see how people can become rich without committing a crime? This presents an interesting look at how you think. The issue seems to be you don't think of 'the rich' as human like you would your friends and family.

In fact, you think of them as you accuse me of thinking about the poor. Perhaps your constant accusations about how I think of the poor are really you projecting your loathing of the rich onto me.

I'd rather not have this devolve into a meaningless source war, thanks. Suffice it to say that Krugman's book Peddling Prosperity has an entire chapter dedicated to the topic.

I've laid out my argument. You've said 'nobel prize winning economists' agree with you, but never quoted them or linked to them to explain your argument. I'm not asking for a source war, I'm just asking for an explanation of your position.

Fact: The median wage has remained largely static over the same time frame.

You've got an odd definition of fact (82% cumulative increase in median net compensation 1990 to 2008). Or an odd definition of static.

So how do you explain the fact that people are working harder to enrich the people above them with no benefit to themselves? Where's the incentive in that, hm?

Who says the average person makes only the average wage their whole lives? It seems more likely people start out below the average wage, then go above it as they work throughout their lives.

I think you ought to read the study I linked.

CR

[Ironside]

You've got an odd definition of fact (82% cumulative increase in median net compensation 1990 to 2008). Or an odd definition of static.

Thank you for the links. They are quite good.

Now could you please locate the place were they mention that those numbers are inflation adjusted?...

Now using this and adding the years together, the total inflation between 2000-2008 was 29,2%. The median salary increased from 20.957 to 26.514, a 26,5% increase. As you can see from the data, the average income has increased more than inflation during this time, but less than half of the US workers have gained on it.
The inflation 1990-2008 was 73,7%, so an increase there, but with the current development, more than half of the US population will be poorer 2020 than they were in 2000, while the "average american" will be richer than ever.

[Beskar]

Sooooooo...just because they're rich they're guilty? No need for trials or evidence or convictions, just you proclaiming they're guilty because they're rich and you don't see how people can become rich without committing a crime?

No, it is just a fact. I never said anything about no trials/evidence/convictions, the fact is, they can flaut past these things by legal loophoops, expensive lawyers who are experts in fiddling and other various means, which by all accounts makes them guilty, their power from wealth just makes them untouchable by the law, and even when they are, it is a minor slap on the wrist.

Just type "Rich" "fraud" "offshore banking" and various combinations of terms in any popular search engine of your choice.