Okay, Slip. That's a valid but slightly mis-characterized perspective. <gruff
I'll take the valid part and let the mis-characterization slide because it is only 'slightly'. next; But if we weren't here and making enough money to buy our expensive luxuries and pleasures, the elite wouldn't have the goose that keeps laying the golden eggs.<gruff Well that is still an aristocratic mechanism equal to raising farm animals for slaughter. What are you saying, that the means justifies the end because we live well in the interim of birth to slaughter? That we shouldn't have any qualms about someone coming over and taking part of our pay for digging a ditch in 95 degree sweltering heat after eating a baloney sandwich for lunch while they enjoy the best food in the comforts of air conditioned palaces with swimming pools, maids, butlers, chauffeurs etc. as a result of skimming off the wages of labor? The central idea of taxation should be for the advancement of the common good, the roads, schools, health and retirement, to name a few. What we have is bad roads, failing schools, a cripple social security system and a lot of sick people who can't afford to go to the doctor. We have people spending out of pocket over $300,000 for a meager home in a cookie cutter sub division while multimillion dollar salaries are awarded to bank executives living lavishly in excess. With that degree of profit it would be possible to have 2% mortgage interest rates. They would still be living well enough and people would have more to spend on 'basic' living. But the real issue is that keeping the populous below a certain economic level is crucial to maintaining the great divide. Naturally we are living better than 100 years ago and we are living better than 500 years ago, but we have industry and technology that we didn't have then. Our economic means and culture was extremely different. To present this better off than 100 years ago is not a valid comparison especially when you consider how much better off we "should" be. In essence you are saying it is really better for the ditch digger because he now has a gas powered machine to dig ditches instead a shovel. Whether we are better off today or not depends largely on who you ask. http://uspoverty.change.org/ .....give this one a scroll. Some Census stats amigo....... >>The official poverty rate in 2008 was 13.2 percent, up from 12.5 percent in >>2007. This was the first statistically significant annual increase in the >>poverty rate since 2004, when poverty increased to 12.7 percent from 12.5 >>percent in 2003. (((Shouldn't we be seeing a Decrease?))) >> In 2008, 39.8 million people were in poverty, up from 37.3 million in 2007 >> -- the second consecutive annual increase in the number of people in poverty. >> In 2008, the poverty rate increased for non-Hispanic Whites (8.6 percent in >> 2008 -- up from 8.2 percent in 2007), Asians (11.8 percent in 2008 -- up >> from 10.2 percent in 2007) and Hispanics (23.2 percent in 2008 -- up from >> 21.5 percent in 2007). Poverty rates in 2008 were statistically unchanged >> for Blacks (24.7 percent). >>The poverty rate in 2008 (13.2 percent) was the highest poverty rate since >>1997 but was 9.2 percentage points lower than in 1959, the first year for >>which poverty estimates are available. >>Since 1960, the number of people below poverty has not exceeded the 2008 >>figure of 39.8 million people.[1] >>The poverty rate increased for children under 18 years old (19.0 percent in >>2008 -- up from 18.0 percent in 2007) and people 18 to 64 years old (11.7 >>percent in 2008 -- up from 10.9 percent in 2007), while it remained >>statistically unchanged for people 65 years and over (9.7 percent) http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/index.html And that is 2 years ago...... but I don't really need the stats, I can see it with my own eyes. People are struggling to make ends meet while your illustrious top percentile have more than they know what to do with. Really gruff, after all these years and all the money that has been given up to the coffers, should we all be living much better today? Is there "any" excuse for poverty in a wealthy country? Unless you think incompetent and selfish leadership, corruption and greed are excuses. The bailouts were a sham. Wouldn't "buying" vehicles for people who don't have transportation to and from work, single parents without cars etc. be the same as bailing out the auto industry? But no that was too easy so what happened was the poor ditch digger schlep's money got handed over to the fat cats who patted themselves on the back with huge bonuses. Well we all know the stories except for those who are so busy digging ditches and still don't have enough money to buy a television or radio. If you call married couples having to move in with their parents and parents having to move in with their kids for economic survival doing better than 100 years ago I'd say it is illusory at best. Why can't everyone have an egg? The opportunities to accede to the lofty levels of living are few and far inbetween and impeded by heavy taxation from the top to the local level. Even city government has learned how to get a piece of everyone's action. How much of a paycheck is lost to taxation? You should know better than anyone gruff. After the feds, the state, the county and the city comes the sales tax, vehicle tax, fuel tax, food tax, property tax..........what's left?
