HeloDude Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Words... There's little arguing that the wealth gap between the top 10% and bottom 10% (or even bottom 80-90% for that matter) has widened over the years. Look at the stock market booms in the mid/late 90's, around 2006-2007, and the one over the last 1-2 years--if you had your money in the market odds are you made some good cash, especially if you bought low. But little is stopping even the young Airman from living below his means, saving money/putting some away in the market, taking advantage of opportunities (free school, etc), and then bettering himself in the long-run. Will he ever be in the top 1%?...doubtful. Will be in the top 20%, definitely a possibility if he plays his cards right. Same can be said with the poorest of Americans even if they don't join the military. If they live below their means, take advantage of the opportunities (scholarships, government aid and grants, etc) and is always trying to live below their means and doesn't get himself in trouble (substance abuse, run-ins with the law, knocks a chick up) then he can definitely better himself as well. Sure, he'll have to work harder for it than someone born to a family where both parents make $100K+, but the fact is that the guy who started off poor can definitely improve his life. Hell, today the government gives out quite a bit of welfare (subsidized, and for the very poor, free healthcare), so they have that going for them as well, though I think that keeps in the lower class. Check out the table: It shows how the wealthy is increasing their wealth at a greater pace after the last 2 recessions..but it is also showing that there is growth outside of the 'top 1%' (skip to the very end if you're not seeing my point). No doubt the last few years have been tough, especially for the folks at the bottom, but unfortunately that's what happens with a weak recovery. Also, we have spent TRILLIONS of dollars on the 'War on Poverty' only for the poverty level to be documented as mostly un-changed. That being said, those 'living' in poverty are much better off than they were 40 years ago. Here's an interesting chart done by PA's Dept of Welfare which shows that in some cases, there is definitely a reduced incentive to better yourself. And with the top wage earners in the US paying the most taxes, the country would be worse off if that wealth was truly 'spread around' with our current tax system. The Dems and the GOP are all about the corporate welfare--funny, under President Obama the richer are getting richer than they were before and the income gap is ever increasing...though like I said, the bottom half of the people still live better today than they did 40 years ago. I think the late Margaret Thatcher explains liberalism and socialism pretty well and better than I ever could: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzz Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 (edited) WaBoom my remarks weren't pointed at you, I've seen this video passed around for months about people complaining about how unfair it is that these people are rich and they shouldn't have all this money. Edit that being said I'm under no illusions that my military job will make me rich nor will my dad working the corporate grind ever be anything but your avg. well off middle class family. Just because you are working your ass off in whatever job you are doesn't mean it will someday make you a millionaire it may if you manage to climb the corporate ladder. However having a revolutionary idea and a lot of risk usually (Microsoft, Apple, Facebook ect.) makes those people the wealthy. Yeah does your Ivy League, family with connections leg ups help? Sure but for everyone person you point out with that had those advantages there's another that didn't. Edited October 16, 2013 by Fuzz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeloDude Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Results of the "War on Drugs". Is that a liberal war? Liberals have yet to get rid of it when they have been in charge...though I'll at least hand it to Washington and Colorado for legalizing marijuana...step in the right direction, but yes, definitely still a 'war on drugs' on the State level as well as the National level. Conservatives/Republicans are no better when it comes to this issue, and I would argue that they are usually much worse. But to answer your question directly, it's the liberal's war too if they don't stop it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brewskis Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Just an opinion based on some graphical study, but over the past 50 years, the size and scope of the Federal government has only gotten larger. With this increase in size and scope, more and more regulation agencies have been created to oversee private industries. I'm obviously a free-market capitalist to the extreme, but I personally believe it is the increased presence of government in business that has been a driving factor in wealth inequality. Those that can afford to get preferential treatment (e.g. tax breaks/incentives) get hooked up while the small businesses don't. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmacwc Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 (edited) Life isn't fair There is no justice She won't take it in the butt But seriously, life isn't fair, get over it. A government entity trying to make it fair is like letting everyone trying their hand at landing a 737 with 90 PAX on board, it doesn't make sense. Edited October 16, 2013 by matmacwc 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Life isn't fair There is no justice She won't take it in the butt I thought you were talking about BQZip's mom for a second there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe1234 Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Life isn't fair There is no justice She won't take it in the butt But seriously, life isn't fair, get over it. You know what? You're right. Life really isn't fair. When the American government passes the law for Obamacare and your ideological compatriots try every trick in the book possible to keep it from happening, yet it still does, I suppose that isn't fair. Having to pay higher taxes to support the poor isn't fair to you, either. The government intruding on private enterprise certainly isn't fair to business owners and CEO's. But, that's the way it is. And the fact that it will only continue to get less fair as time goes on is perhaps the greatest travesty of all. You see, fairness is a matter of perspective. So, the people making it fairer for themselves and less fair for you seem to be winning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmacwc Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Mark the day Joe, I agree with you. I think they should have passed a budget.....oh wait, Demos in the Senate won't do that, a CR and let OCare take effect in all it's glory. The bill will be gone by next summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hueypilot Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 (edited) These figures were compiled using Blue Cross premium prices in Arkansas, comparing Obamacare-approved plans with a non-Obamacare plan that is still available to buy (but those buying that policy will still be fined). Shows you how it will impact people who aren't low-income or poor, and how it will impact older people who make decent livings but aren't rich. You can't avoid the math, folks. Anything the government charges you over and above the non-Obamacare plan premium is a tax to pay for the subsidized plans. Edited October 16, 2013 by Hueypilot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vertigo Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 I thought you were talking about BQZip's mom for a second there... No, she definitely DOES take it in the butt. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moosepileit Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 You see, fairness is a matter of perspective. So, the people making it fairer for themselves and less fair for you seem to be winning. That attitude defines all the bad stereotypes I could ever waste my breath or keystrokes by tossing toward your general direction. Congratulations, YOU are part of the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17D_guy Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 That attitude defines all the bad stereotypes I could ever waste my breath or keystrokes by tossing toward your general direction. Congratulations, YOU are part of the problem. Wait.. he's part of the problem for pointing out that "fair" is a matter of perspective? Not the people "making it fairer" for themselves (R or D)? Or you just mean all liberal thoughts, and/or thoughts you don't agree with, are the problem? Of course this happened - The GOP changed House rules so only the Majority Leader can bring up bills that would end the shutdown. They removed that privilege from the rest of the Reps. Guess it's a good thing the Senate will get some work done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pawnman Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 M2-How is our system working out right now? Honest question. I think the way our system started out was the way to go, but over time corporations have gotten so big and seem to be all inter-connected that it skews the system. I agree that we should encourage success and 100% socialist systems don't work. Would a hybrid system be better? I don't know, but what is happening in this country is disturbing which is why I posted the video. It wasn't a commentary on wealth re-distribution, just a break down of where the money actually resides. What the means, I will let others judge. But I will say this final point. That curve can only get so bad and distorted before a crisis will bring it down. Reading a book (The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy) about societies and generational cycles. Seems based on history a Crisis Period is right around the corner. Our politicians are all corrupt, the system is not made for you and I and something has to give. Our social safety net is beyond broken and if no one has the balls to fix that part of our economy, I fear a severe recession/depression is imminent. Well, tough to say since we have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. No wonder so many major corporations refuse to repatriate foreign profits or move their HQ overseas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longhorn15 Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 I don't know why people think government intervention is the solution to inequality, big government is the CAUSE of inequality. Welfare state policies (supported in both sides of the aisle) have encouraged a culture of dependency on gov't that ensures that more and more people will become dependent on the state. Why would someone work for minimum wage when if decreases their quality of life compared to not working? The increase in welfare, food stamps, long-term unemployment, and "disability" is a documented fact. increased corporate regulation has raised the bar to starting businesses and made it tougher to complete with established powerhouses. Corporations now spend hundreds of millions of lobbyists because they know political influence is as important as having a good business model. Any doubts, research Microsoft's habits when they were fighting monopoly charges. They didn't used to spend money on lobbyists, now they do. How about GE, you can undercut your competition if you get your friends in washington to pass tax breaks/incentives specifically to help your business, thus artificially increasing profits. How about fielding new medical equipment techniques? Good luck getting through the FDA. Not to mention the billions of our tax dollars on the failed business models of "green" projects. Government power is the problem, not the answer. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moosepileit Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 (edited) The ACA is a mandate. It is also a rediculously expensive step to socialized single payer. Soon docs will know what it's like to be an airline pilot! It will take your social security from you if you are say under about age 50, in my opinion, but you will keep paying FICA and pay for more expensive healthcare, of lesser quality and access, for those that have worked their life to have access to it. I was no fan of the inflated healthcare costs to give all access to at least the emergency room. I am no fan of the lack of tort reforms driving up an increment to healthcare. Since congress couldn't actually work the problems, just kick the can, it's a hollow loss and hollow victory. Unless you really travel the world, you don't know of the dollar's true decline in the last 10 years. You won't see it in your stock portfolio directly, but if you take your nice 10-20% gains and do not realize it is in part because the dollar is falling so you get more of them and are at the real average 7% gains- stay in school. The slick trick is dropping folks off full-time employment to avoid the ACA burden on employers; dropping the growth of private sector core businesses will hide in the shadows. You'll see the military shrink to a police force again, and stay there, in the next few years. Making a full time work week around 32 hours will be the final move to socializing the sheeple- of which the vocal four or so here might catch on at some point. If you lived the 32 hour work week under "this sequestration", you can only imagine what the more vocal sections of the work force will dredge up when it hits them. There won't be enough disposable income to grow the middle class or move around big business. Killing the true middle class will make us look like every other country. (edit you to "your" and expense to "expensive", plus a few cogency clean-ups. Getting lazy w/ a real keyboard and no autocorrect!) Edited October 17, 2013 by moosepileit 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeloDude Posted October 27, 2013 Share Posted October 27, 2013 Mom, 4 kids dead in Brooklyn stabbing Shame to hear...and this is barely making the news. Had the murderer used an AR-15 instead of a knife, then this would be front and center in the headlines and politicians would be using it to further an ideological agenda. Just something to think about... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hueypilot Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 On the subject of taxes, I ran a calculator to see where I stand WRT to next year's filing...I only claim my wife and I for withholding purposes (my wife withholds at the single rate) and we have three kids and it appears that despite that, we will owe around $6,000 next April! First time ever that I've had to owe taxes since I always over estimate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17D_guy Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 On the subject of taxes, I ran a calculator to see where I stand WRT to next year's filing...I only claim my wife and I for withholding purposes (my wife withholds at the single rate) and we have three kids and it appears that despite that, we will owe around $6,000 next April! First time ever that I've had to owe taxes since I always over estimate... This is due to the ACA, or some other change?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hueypilot Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 No, it's paying what civilians pay. I'm an ART and no longer get a third of my pay exempt from taxes (BAH, etc). Myself alone, I make $124,000 and with our kids and all, the tax I had to pay was $12,000. Add my wife's $56,000 and the tax liability jumped to $26,000. Yes, a $14,000 increase on that last $56k. We were not prepared. The Bush tax cuts were repealed and child tax credits have shrunk and effective tax brackets have grown. I can probably whittle some of it down, but the only way we can keep up is to claim zero dependents on our W-4s and look forward to an extra $500 a month in tax deductions to avoid getting jumped again...which we probably will because who the hell knows what this health law is going to bring in new taxes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pirate Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 I've had to write that check before....a few times. It's painful. Like you said the only way to keep up is to file as single with no dependents. If you or your wife have a deferred tax 401k, max it out. The amount that goes into retirement will come off the top so you will not have as much income hitting the higher brackets. You want to minimize the dollars getting hit in the 25% and 28% brackets. You'll with not have to pay SS tax above 113K. If you pay into it after that point because you are getting paid under two different pay systems, one as a civilian and a second reservist/guardsman you will get that money back when you file in April. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeloDude Posted December 27, 2013 Share Posted December 27, 2013 Continued from my rant in the RIF and Retirement Cuts threads: And for everybody else, Congressmen and Senators are politicians, pure and simple. There's a reason a vast majority of them will follow their party line and then blame their vote on something else...our very own 'Congressman' just did this a couple days ago. Politicians are concerned about retaining their seats, and their party politics and personal ideology sometimes conflict with their priority of retaining their seats, though the 3 are fairly interconnected. This unfortunately is nothing new...though it seems to be getting worse in recent years (though I'm sure it's cyclical to a certain degree). Chang said it correctly (unfortunately)--we serve our senior officers and they serve our politicians, pure and simple. Liquid has more or less said the same thing. I do not feel we are truly here to support and defend The Constitution...and if someone can show me otherwise, then I'd love to hear the argument (when have we picked The Constituition over our politicians?...or have our politicians always followed The Constitution?). Our elected President, whoever it is at the time, can do whatever he (or a future she) desires with our military and if the other politicians do not desire or have the strength to stop him/her, then we do what we're told, regardless of what The Constitution says...so to backpedal slightly, our politicians follow The Constitution when it suits them, on both sides of the aisle (ie structure of the Congress, etc). We have referes who are the federal judges (most notably SCOTUS) but the majority of them are almost as ideological as the politicians...hence why we have a lot of 5-4 decisions, typically following the same ideological trend of what President nominated them. It took me a while to fully understand and accept all of this, and though it made me sad, it provided some clarity to a highly dysfunctional situation. This all being said, we as military members do a pretty good job at breaking things when our politicians tell us to do so, and it can be effectively argued at times that by doing so, we have kept citizens safer. So if you're upset with how Congressman voted, don't be. The country (which includes us) have allowed the politicians to do what they're doing. Our problem in this country stem from the people, not the politicians. If I missed the boat, then I welcome someone to set me straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTB Posted December 27, 2013 Share Posted December 27, 2013 So if you're upset with how Congressman voted, don't be. The country (which includes us) have allowed the politicians to do what they're doing. Our problem in this country stem from the people, not the politicians. Agree to some extent. When 'we' re-elect members of congress with proven track records of poor votes, 'we' are to blame. However, when we elect representatives based on a platform, only to have them vote differently, THEY are to blame and it's up to us to get them OUT of congress at the next opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeloDude Posted December 27, 2013 Share Posted December 27, 2013 Agree to some extent. When 'we' re-elect members of congress with proven track records of poor votes, 'we' are to blame. However, when we elect representatives based on a platform, only to have them vote differently, THEY are to blame and it's up to us to get them OUT of congress at the next opportunity. Even if what you say is true (debatable), check out the re-election statistics for incumbents seeking re-election in the House. It all comes back to the people. We (as in the vast majority of the population) are the problem and the politicians are just the large symptom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HossHarris Posted December 27, 2013 Share Posted December 27, 2013 "All the politicians are awful, just awful lying crooks" "Except mine, he's wonderful and has done so much for my district" Rinse, repeat x 500 million. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeloDude Posted December 27, 2013 Share Posted December 27, 2013 "All the politicians are awful, just awful lying crooks" "Except mine, he's wonderful and has done so much for my district" Rinse, repeat x 500 million. Exactly...though I don't think there are 500 million registered voters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now