Obama Sends $3.7 Trillion Budget to Congress

[tater]

What % of the wealth any group owns doesn't matter. It's a meaningless statistic, and the government should be blind to it. The distribution of income is not mandated by the Constitution.

Money is not a zero-sum game over time, the money supply grows. People in every bracket live different lives than when I was a kid in the 1970s. If you wish to say that X% more wealth is controlled by the top 1%, and is "gone" from the lower %s compared to some point in history, then demonstrate how this has impacted lives. You cannot complain that the poor cannot afford, say, broadband, when in the 70s there was no such thing in the first place. If home ownership numbers are different, if the square feet per capita is different, cell phone ownership (only the super rich had car-phones in their limos in 1970 (if even that)), etc, ad nauseum, then you cannot compare economic figures WRT to lifestyles (all that matters) over time without converting this increase in "value" into dollars.

I'll argue that even the poor wage earners are better off now than in 1971 (or '61, or '51) using any reasonable measure of how they live, and what they have.If they have better lives, then they "earn more" even if the % of wealth they own doesn't show this.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by tater

What % of the wealth any group owns doesn't matter. It's a meaningless statistic, and the government should be blind to it. The distribution of income is not mandated by the Constitution.

A meaningless statistic? WHAT? It's not a meaningless statistic. It means the erosion of the middle class and the birth of the modern aristocracy who rule not by title and wealth, but now purely by wealth and the power that comes from it.
It's not some thing we can just ignore...it is a fundamental change in our society from a nation of middle class, to a plutocracy where you are either a lord or a surf. It's even a change in our tax system, where now most of the governments revenue will HAVE to come from the people at the top because they have most of the cash.

If Congress ignores this they are plain stupid. Tax wise, and economy wise, large percents of the money in so few hands is a disaster. Simply put, theres no distributed safety net. If for some reason the rich stop spending at the rate they do the economy is Sunk.

[August]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

It's even a change in our tax system, where now most of the governments revenue will HAVE to come from the people at the top because they have most of the cash.

The people "at the top" have always supplied most of the governments revenue. Try seeing past your Democrat propaganda for once.

All that stuff you just is nothing but partisan posturing.

liberals democrats liberals democrat liberals....my country?????
partisan posturing eh

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by August

The people "at the top" have always supplied most of the governments revenue. Try seeing past your Democrat propaganda for once.

fair enough. But now it's going to come even more so from the top. Try seeing past your republican agenda for once too.Things go both ways you now. Something about glass houses and what not. It's funny how the republican party is planning to screw the middle class and you all eat out of your palms. and when I say planning I mean that.

You know that new roadmap tax idea?

yeah, middle class pays on average $900 more in taxes while the top percent get hundreds of thousands to millions back. It would stack on top of the bush tax cuts and bring the official max to 25%. But effectively after itemizing and deductions its actually a lower effective rate than the middle class.

[August]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

You know that new roadmap tax idea?

That's all it is, just an idea, and given the Dems fixation on it's probably been spun beyond recognition.

On the other hand your party has already enacted tax increases cleverly timed to hit post presidential election that will have the middle class paying far more.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by August

That's all it is, just an idea, and given the Dems fixation on it's probably been spun beyond recognition.

On the other hand your party has already enacted tax increases cleverly timed to hit post presidential election that will have the middle class paying far more.

far more? you sure? Im sure everybody would take an increase across the board if anything. Because frankly we can't pay for the programs we all want without either getting rid of them, or increasing taxes. At least were not handing more and more money to the richest of us.

and spun out of proportion? I read an independent report that was the source of everything I said.

[August]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

At least were not handing more and more money to the richest of us.

Handing the rich more money? Do you actually believe that tripe?

Allowing people to keep more of their own money is not the same thing as handing them money.

[VipertheSniper]

Assuming the government is working with all the money people get at the end of the year refunded, how much interest do you think they make? Just enough to process the filings for refund, more than enough or less than enough?

I don't know if it's even possible to answer this question with any sort of accuracy, but it'd be interesting to know.