derpdeederp: error 303: Eh. Not having tens of millions of people die and thousands of cities in ruins probably helped propel us into being a global leader.

But, yeah, high tax rates didn't exactly stifle growth either.

At the very least let's start taxing capital gains as income.

Why do you hate retirees?

Don't be fatuous.

Cubicle Jockey: I_Am_Weasel: Begging the question, just what was $1.00 worth in 1955, November 5th to be precise.

Per the Breton Woods Agreements, one dollar was worth 1/35th an ounce of gold on 11/5/55.

=P

Why use precise tools like that when you can look at Lou's cafe in Hill Valley, see that coffee was 5 cents, and extrapolate that a farking Mocha-Doucha-Latte at McCrap-e today is a buck, then a dollar was worth 20 times what it is today.

error 303: Eh. Not having tens of millions of people die and thousands of cities in ruins probably helped propel us into being a global leader.

But, yeah, high tax rates didn't exactly stifle growth either.

At the very least let's start taxing capital gains as income.

I don't know about it being the same as income. But some sort of progressive taxation is called for. In fact I would like zero tax on capital gains under 50K. This could actually drive middle class people into the small business, and capital markets.

relcec: supply and demand as expressed in the u.s. labor force. more people (immigration) competing for less jobs (automation, globalization) and you get paid less, but the man keeps significantly more.
but you knew this.

[www.migrationinformation.org image 600x471]

[www.ssa.gov image 640x304]

All very interesting, and none of it explains why the wealth gap is greater. It explains why wages are stagnant, and yet the wealth at the top is soaring. Look at tax policy, specifically in the year 2000, as a clue.

derpdeederp: Yah, had nothing to do with the shift from labor to capital goods producing things in the 80's and 90's from the boom in computers and robotics.

I don't get it. You're saying that computers - which benefited everyone in terms of productivity, scaling upwards the more employees/products a given business had/controlled - mean that the 1% could hoard the gains? That's fair in your mind?

That's sort of the problem. Those with the means to do anything about the ~400:1 ratio of CEO "compensation" to Regular Joe's "salary" are too busy claiming they "earned" the right to screw us because computers.

Computers that we still work on, and still use to make profits for the 1%. Computers that many in the 1% would be up shiat's creek without, and who rely on us $20/hr Working Suckers to fix, maintain and upgrade. Computers whose systems and applications are built by many of those same $20/hr folks in the Lunchpail Brigade, and for whom the added productivity of centralized, automated systems does nothing extra, while making their bosses a mint.

You know how celebs at awards shows like to throw a bone to the crew in their "thank you" speeches? Howzabout the CEO class throws us working stiffs in IT, so responsible for this "shift from labor to capital goods producing things in the 80's and 90's from the boom in computers and robotics" (copied directly - I think you mean a "shift from labor to automation" for short) a "thank you" in the form of 2 or 3% of those income gains over the last 30 years?

Then throw that same bone to the other groups of people whose "increased productivity" also meant HUGE gains for the top of the chain and nothing for the people at the bottom of it. Like the ubiquity of cell phones making it easier for employees to be reached anywhere, instead of having to wait for a return call or until vacation's over.

coeyagi: Why use precise tools like that when you can look at Lou's cafe in Hill Valley, see that coffee was 5 cents, and extrapolate that a farking Mocha-Doucha-Latte at McCrap-e today is a buck, then a dollar was worth 20 times what it is today.

Did Lou sell coffee in 32 oz buckets?

Vlad_the_Inaner: coeyagi: Why use precise tools like that when you can look at Lou's cafe in Hill Valley, see that coffee was 5 cents, and extrapolate that a farking Mocha-Doucha-Latte at McCrap-e today is a buck, then a dollar was worth 20 times what it is today.

Did Lou sell coffee in 32 oz buckets?

True, ok, Lou sold an 8 oz. cup vs. let's say 20 oz. for McDonald's, so 20 times / 2.5 times volume differencial and you get 8 times.

Jacobin: Arkanaut: Rising tide lifts all boats.

What if you don't have a boat?

What if ...

relcec: coeyagi: relcec: supply and demand as expressed in the u.s. labor force. more people (immigration) competing for less jobs (automation, globalization) and you get paid less, but the man keeps significantly more.
but you knew this.

[www.migrationinformation.org image 600x471]

[www.ssa.gov image 640x304]

All very interesting, and none of it explains why the wealth gap is greater. It explains why wages are stagnant, and yet the wealth at the top is soaring. Look at tax policy, specifically in the year 2000, as a clue.

wait, you don't understand that when labor cost (generally the largest cost) goes down at an already profitable enterprise that leaves more profit for the owner/operator?

also Carter cut capital gains from 49% to 28% (a 42% cut), and the Clinton cut them from 28% to 20% (another 28% cut).
Only then did bush cut the capital gains taxes from 20% to 15%, which was actually a 25% cut. if you want to look at the tax side of things, you need to look a lot further back than the 2000s. and you need to look at your own political heroes. you're too stupid to be in here discussing this.

Sorry, I do get that, but you have a graph up about men vs. women wages, then you say "the man" instead of the proper "The Man", so I got sidetracked. Um, tax policy too, but hey, your heroes are complaining about regulation so why don't you go drink their tears, bro?

Philip Francis Queeg: Jacobin: Arkanaut: Rising tide lifts all boats.

What if you don't have a boat?

[static.theurbn.com image 430x355]

Steal paint and graffiti the roof. Nice role model

tenpoundsofcheese: oh look, subby can't read.

or does subby not know that there is a difference between the 1% and the top .01% ?


geesh.

I believe the 1% would include the .01%.

Philip Francis Queeg: Why should the CEO and other upper management get a cut of it? If the CEO wants more than 15 times what the average worker makes, just find someone else. Why isn't that money just given to the shareholders or reinvested into the business instead?

The company just laid off all those people, we can't risk losing our main job creator now. In fact, let's lay off another 5%, so we can up his bonus package. Please don't leave us, mighty job creator.

Seriously though, it's vulture capitalism, which is just the modern repackaging of feudalism. The people at the top live by a completely different set of rules, and those rules seem to compel them to squeeze every last cent out of every situation ruthlessly and methodically. People who aren't already wealthy exist solely to be trampled and bled dry.

derpdeederp: Im not stating that the current income/wealth distribution is "Fair", Im just saying that it happened from real changes in the economic model over the time period that the article is looking at and was not some big scary "oh no they made it unfair for me" conspiracy of those in power.

So it's ok. Bad things are happening, and they've known about it for some time, and they didn't feel like doing anything about it and let it happen, so everything's fine because they didn't really see it happening at once.

derpdeederp: And you know what, when we have the next big technological advancement the economic model will change again and new people will become super rich and then that technological wealth will eventually spread to other segments of society.

The poor child asks why it should matter to him if newer and faster phones are available when he can't afford them in the first place.

You are assuming that the advance in technology improves the lives of those living at the same time just by the virtue of existing. If he's poor and can't afford it, it really doesn't help his situation if it exists.

GoodyearPimp: The answer is clearly more tax cuts.

Negative rates, preferably. The government gives you rebates for accumulating wealth! Oh wait, done already.