American's 20 richest people have more money than half the population

[nate]

Yeah, they don't have half of the wealth in the country, they have more wealth than half of the population combined.

[Angelsjunky]

So let's go with less welfare. What then? How do you assist people who suffer from that? How do you work with poverty? Etc.

[Angelsjunky]

Yeah, they don't have half of the wealth in the country, they have more wealth than half of the population combined.

 

You're right.

[HeavenlyHalos]

Fortunately Bernie losing the nomination should close the book on Socialism in America.

 

Socialism has existed in this country for a long time. The military isn't going anywhere. I doubt Medicare and public schools are either.

[nate]

So let's go with less welfare. What then? How do you assist people who suffer from that? How do you work with poverty? Etc.

 

This is why you can't seem to grasp what people are saying to you in these threads.

 

The answer is simple.  You don't.  They will figure it out or fail.

[Angelsjunky]

This is why you can't seem to grasp what people are saying to you in these threads.

 

The answer is simple.  You don't.  They will figure it out or fail.

 

Why do you interpret disagreement with lack of understanding? That seems to be your defense mechanism: "He disagrees with me, therefore he is clueless."

 

Nate, I do know that is what you think, but I disagree. I think we can do better than that as human beings.

[nate]

Then why did you ask the question if you understood it?

[nate]

I think we can do better as human beings too.  I just don't think it is the governments place to do it.

[halobob]

Look at it this way. In some ways this forum is a microcosm of American politics, a tug-of-war between left and right (although I'd say Angelspin is more conservative than America as a whole, perhaps because of the OC demographic). Let's say I'm on one side of the aisle and you guys are on the other. I want progressive policies, strong social programs, etc, and you guys want laissez-faire libertarianism. So how do we compromise? We have to start with understanding each other, what we're really saying. All I get from you guys is, "You're wrong, I'm right." We'll never get anywhere that way.

 

Where's the middle ground? And, to be honest, I probably come across as more left-leaning than I am, because I over-compensate because of this forum. There are actually some areas where we broadly agree.

 

For instance, we all share a distaste for SJWs. We mostly share a dislike of establishment politics and the mixing of church and state. Most of us also broadly agree on social libertarianism. But where we disagree is on the scale of socialism to capitalism and the role of government. The main difference seems to be that most here want all capitalism, no socialism, and an almost complete lack of a federal government. I see a mix as being best, an integration, and that the role of government should be to serve and protect the people.

 

So let's say nate says "100 capitalism, 0 socialism," and I counter with, "How about 50-50," and he says, "No, 100-0." And so we're left at a stalemate (or a statenate?).

 

But the reality of the political situation is that we're never going to one extreme or the other. So how to compromise? And let's say we humor the "100-0" group, my question, again, is if we do that, how do we deal with the problems of poverty, health care, education, the environment, climate change, etc? "The market will decide" is not an answer, in my opinion. It is an extremism that will never fully see the light of day, so we might as well grow up a bit and try to find compromise.

We are already past the middle ground in your favor AJ...that's why we don't budge.  All the libs do is ask for more and more.  Compromise and give back to the conservatives what we have given the libs.  

[gotbeer]

3 pages already?

[mtangelsfan]

Why do you interpret disagreement with lack of understanding? That seems to be your defense mechanism: "He disagrees with me, therefore he is clueless."

 

Nate, I do know that is what you think, but I disagree. I think we can do better than that as human beings.

 

I agree, but you taking more money out of my pocket means I have less ability to help others.  I can help others my way where my money gets 90 cents to the dollar or your way where my money gets one cent to the dollar.

[Amazing Larry]

We are already past the middle ground in your favor AJ...that's why we don't budge.  All the libs do is ask for more and more.  Compromise and give back to the conservatives what we have given the libs.  

 

Exactly.

 

Socialist: "Give us 50% more of your money."

Libertarian: "Nah I think I'll keep my money."

Socialist: "Fine, then give us 25% more of your money."

Libertarian: "Like I said, I'm fine with keeping my money."

Socialist: "At least give us 20% more of your money."

Libertarian: "Dude are you deaf? I'm not giving you any more of my money."

Socialist: "You won't compromise and you're a partisan POS."

[Angelsjunky]

Then why did you ask the question if you understood it?

 

I guess I was in denial.

 

We are already past the middle ground in your favor AJ...that's why we don't budge.  All the libs do is ask for more and more.  Compromise and give back to the conservatives what we have given the libs.  

 

I'll bite. What have the conservatives given to the liberals? What exactly do you mean by this?

 

I agree, but you taking more money out of my pocket means I have less ability to help others.  I can help others my way where my money gets 90 cents to the dollar or your way where my money gets one cent to the dollar.

 

Which I agree with you in principle. But here's my problem with it: Two things, really. One, I don't mean to butter your corn, but I don't think the majority of people are as nice as you. Its like kids in a playground who don't know how to, or don't care to share. Maybe you'll give freely, but most won't. Two, there are simply certain costs to living in a country. I know you like usury fees, and maybe that's a good idea in principle, but I'm not sure if it could actually work. Whether we like it or not, we've gone the route of taxes. We also disagree with what should be include in what taxes pay for. I agree more with the Sandinavian/Northern European model, which gives a higher quality of life for more citizens, but with more taxes. To me that's more humane than our system.

[Jay]

The claim is that the top 20 individuals have greater net worth than the bottom 50% of the population (about 152 million people).

 

It should come as no surprise that the bottom 50% of the population have little or no net worth. 25% of those people are children, 8 million are unemployed.

 

As somebody else mentioned, if you redistribute the entire net worth of those top 20 to the bottom 152 million, it would be about $5000 per person.

 

Just more class warfare tactics.

[Tank]

LOL. Why do I bother?

 

exactly what i was thinking.

[Tank]

I agree, but you taking more money out of my pocket means I have less ability to help others. 

 

it also means you have less money to help yourself, and that can create it's own set of new problems.

[Tank]

AJ, at what point should people be responsible for themselves and where their life goes?

 

i think we could all universally agree here that there will always be a segment of society that just simply is not able to provide for themselves, through whatever circumstances that includes. i'm glad my tax money can be used in a meaningful way to help them with whatever programs that may include.

 

but what about able-bodied people who simply don't like to work, or aren't willing to gain more education, or won't work hard enough to get a promotion, or don't seek higher paying jobs? what about those who choose to make flipping burgers a lifelong goal? how much do you think gov't should dip more into your pocket and mine to help those who choose not to help themselves?

 

this is where i think you aren't connecting with a lot of us here.

 

if someone is willing to put in the time and effort to become a millionaire or billionaire, good for them! why should they then have to turn around and be required to give up more of their money just because they were willing to work hard enough to be successful?

 

if your issue involves those who royally screw the system by hiding their money off shore where it can't be taxed, or push congress to pass laws that let them off of their share of the tax burden, then let's have that discussion (and it's likely one where you'll find a lot more people who want to see that stop). but your insistence that success means being required to fork over the results of your effort isn't a logical path. 

[Adam]

Tank, you're forgetting one incredibly important thing.

 

 

Progress

[mtangelsfan]

I guess I was in denial.

 

 

I'll bite. What have the conservatives given to the liberals? What exactly do you mean by this?

 

 

Which I agree with you in principle. But here's my problem with it: Two things, really. One, I don't mean to butter your corn, but I don't think the majority of people are as nice as you. Its like kids in a playground who don't know how to, or don't care to share. Maybe you'll give freely, but most won't. Two, there are simply certain costs to living in a country. I know you like usury fees, and maybe that's a good idea in principle, but I'm not sure if it could actually work. Whether we like it or not, we've gone the route of taxes. We also disagree with what should be include in what taxes pay for. I agree more with the Sandinavian/Northern European model, which gives a higher quality of life for more citizens, but with more taxes. To me that's more humane than our system.

 

 

While I will always believe that a federal income tax is theft and immoral I can also understand that it will never go away.  That being said, there is absolutely no way anyone could ever convince me that I should give even more.  The feds took 40% of my profit sharing check.  I don't think they should get 50%

[HaloMagic]

While I will always believe that a federal income tax is theft and immoral I can also understand that it will never go away. That being said, there is absolutely no way anyone could ever convince me that I should give even more. The feds took 40% of my profit sharing check. I don't think they should get 50%

You think the federal income tax is immoral or income tax in general?

[mtangelsfan]

I can move to another state if I don't like the taxes they have.  It is way different moving to another country.

 

Also, at least I take a little piece of mind that state income tax stays more local and I might get 10 cents on the dollar instead of 1 cent.

 

In theory, I believe all income tax is theft.  

[halobob]

I guess I was in denial.

 

 

I'll bite. What have the conservatives given to the liberals? What exactly do you mean by this?

 

 

Which I agree with you in principle. But here's my problem with it: Two things, really. One, I don't mean to butter your corn, but I don't think the majority of people are as nice as you. Its like kids in a playground who don't know how to, or don't care to share. Maybe you'll give freely, but most won't. Two, there are simply certain costs to living in a country. I know you like usury fees, and maybe that's a good idea in principle, but I'm not sure if it could actually work. Whether we like it or not, we've gone the route of taxes. We also disagree with what should be include in what taxes pay for. I agree more with the Sandinavian/Northern European model, which gives a higher quality of life for more citizens, but with more taxes. To me that's more humane than our system.

Tax increases over Obama's term in office.  Hell even without the increases taxes were too high.  

[Angelsjunky]

Tax increases over Obama's term in office.  Hell even without the increases taxes were too high.  

 

Compared to what?

 

 

As you can see, taxes are way lower than most of the 20th century.

[Jay]

Those are just the highest and lowest marginal rates, not the rates most people pay.

[Angelsjunky]

OK, and....