dagblog - Comments for "We should be humbly thanking the super-rich, not bashing them"

There was a U.S. version in

artappraiser — Wed, 20 Nov 2013 16:56:47 +0000

In reply to We should be humbly thanking the super-rich, not bashing them

There was a U.S. version in WaPo yesterday:

Government is not beholden to the rich
By Robert J. Samuelson, Opinion Writer, Washington Post, Nov. 19, 2013

[....] What we actually have is government that’s beholden to the poor and middle class. It redistributes from the young, well-off and wealthy to the old, needy and unlucky. To be sure, Washington is awash with lobbyists who do secure tax breaks, congressional preferences and regulatory advantages for wealthy clients. But these triumphs — often cited to prove the system’s “unfairness” — are small potatoes in the larger scheme of things.

This is no secret. But now a report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) makes the point with a deluge of data.

The report — called “The Distribution of Federal Spending and Taxes in 2006” — shows where government’s money comes from and where it goes. The CBO divides the population into elderly (65 and over) and non-elderly households. They’re respectively 15 percent and 85 percent of the population. The non-elderly are also examined by income, from the poorest to the richest fifth. Here’s what the CBO found (The year 2006 was the latest for which detailed data were available): [....]

We all would be. Albuquerque

trkingmomoe — Wed, 20 Nov 2013 11:12:03 +0000

In reply to Garbage. First off its a myth

We all would be. Albuquerque NM had election yesterday and Dems did well and a abortion denying law was defeated. Populism is taking root on the local level and that is a good sign. Maybe I will live long enough to see the oligarchy and rent seekers lose ground.

Garbage. First off its a myth

ocean-kat — Wed, 20 Nov 2013 06:27:43 +0000

In reply to We should be humbly thanking the super-rich, not bashing them

Garbage. First off its a myth that money doesn't buy happiness. I can only guess that some rich asshole came up with this theory to stop the poor from stringing him up by the neck off the nearest lamp post and taking his ill gotten wealth. Most of the population would be happier with more money. I'd sure be happier with $500, $1,000, or more money every month. Spending $1,500 to replace my broken and battered truck with a truck that's a little less broken and battered is a major purchase for me. While Koch, Adelson, and others spend hundreds of millions to buy themselves politicians and its just pocket change to them.

Of course the rich pay most of the taxes. They own most of the country.

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2010, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 35.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 53.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 89%, leaving only 11% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.1%

We should thank them for owning 90 to 95% of the wealth of the country because they're paying most of the taxes? If they owned everything and we were all slaves they'd be paying all the taxes. Should we thank them for that too?

I wouldn't have any problem stringing up a few of these assholes and their bought and paid for lackeys in congress too. That's not hyperbole. If the mob was storming the palace gates I'd be there with my pitchfork.