Offline
I agree quite a bit with Lager's earlier assessment and also with Goose's other topic on the real problem being mobility to get to a better status which also ties in with Lager as well.
One thing I want to point out in addition is that this topic of the wealthy owning a large portion of total wealth in the US is NOT just a new thing although I grant with the changes in how business is done (outsourcing, automation, etc) as well as things like the 2008 crash there has been a big change in status of the middle class especially. As an example of the ebb and flow of the top percentage of wealthy people and what they controlled, here is a good article.
Here is one excerpt
Twentieth Century Beginnings
The increase in concentration of wealth by 1912 had increased twofold. The top 1 percent of U.S. households owned 56.4 percent of wealth. Hitting historical levels, the top 10 percent owned 90 percent of private wealth at the time.
Last edited by tennyson (4/18/2015 10:42 am)
Offline
You see, what bothers me about this is that all the talk about a rising tide lifts all ships, and politicos yapping about strengthening our middle class, and the esteemed middle class being the backbone of our economy, etc. The reality is that the deck is stacked in favor of the very wealthy. And, guess what, with very few exceptions these extremely rich families are NOT letting anything "trickle down" for the benefit of others or the general health of the economy. They hide the money at Bank Julius Baer in the Caymans. They establish businesses offshore to avoid taxes. And some have gone so far as to renounce their U.S. Citizenship and establish residency in a foreign country where they have to spend 180 days a year (who's counting) to avoid U.S. taxes. Meanwhile, the vaunted middle class has continued to lose purchasing power due to stagnant salaries in relation to the cost of living. The following article emphasizes this fact:
5 States Where the Middle Class Is Being Destroyed
The economic wounds of the financial crisis and Great Recession are evidently deeper than anyone has realized, despite the fact that nearly every economic indicator is showing significant progress. Case in point: the shrinking middle class. We’ve been hearing about how the middle class has been in trouble for years now, and while there’s been plenty of evidence to back those claims up, new data is showing just how deep and widespread the damage is.
Pew Charitable Trusts, through its Stateline blog, has found that the middle class has shrunk in every single state between the years of 2000 and 2013. Naturally, some states have been hit harder than others, but this new insight does indicate that there was truly nowhere to hide from the economic downturn that began in late 2008. The fall in middle class ranks was also accompanied by drops in median income in most states as well.
“Analysis shows that in all 50 states, the percentage of “middle-class” households — those making between 67% and 200% of the state’s median income — shrunk between 2000 and 2013,” Stateline writes. “The change occurred even as the median income in most states declined, when adjusted for inflation. In most states, the growing percentage of households paying 30% (the federal standard for housing affordability) or more of their income on housing illustrates that it is increasingly difficult for many American families to make ends meet.”
It’s definitely not a pretty picture.
But which states have seen their middle class households decline by the largest percentage? Read through the next few pages to see, as we’ve ranked the top five according to percentage drop in middle class households, based off of Pew’s data.
5. Nevada: -5%
The rural, vast, western state of Nevada has seen its middle class population decline by roughly 5% over the past decade and a half. In 2000, 53.6% of the state’s population lived in middle class households, and that percentage had been reduced to 48.8% by 2013. Nevada did experience huge swaths of home foreclosures during the financial crisis, as many people found their mortgages underwater. Cities like Reno and Las Vegas are economic powerhouses for the state, mostly dependent on tourism dollars. Of course, when the economy took a turn for the worse, a lot of that revenue dried up as people went into savings-mode.
4. Vermont: -5%
Somewhat surprisingly, Vermont’s middle class families took a big hit over the past several years. Like Nevada, the percentage of middle class households statewide declined by 5%, from 52.4% in 2000 to 47.4% in 2013. Vermont’s case is a little different from others on this list in that it is not home to huge industrial centers, or sprawling suburbs filled with foreclosed homes. What it does have is a lot of senior citizens who felt the crunch particularly hard, as well as ever-increasing costs of living, pushing some families out of the middle class.
3. North Dakota: -5.1%
North Dakota’s middle class households declined by 5.1% between 2000 and 2013, from 52.6% to 47.5%. Given that North Dakota’s economy has been said to have been booming over the past several years, thanks to huge upticks in oil and natural gas production, it’s interesting to see that that prosperity has apparently not been shared equally. The biggest issue? Big increases in living costs, including educationand healthcare. But things have been getting better recently, and it’s likely that North Dakota will be able to reverse this trend in coming years.
2. Ohio: -5.2%
Ohio — with its industrial rust-belt cities, manufacturing hubs, and large number of union workers — saw its middle class household makeup drop by 5.2% between 2000 and 2013. There are a lot of reasons Ohio took a huge hit, and the state itself seemed unfortunately perched in a position in which it had a lot to lose. Many manufacturing jobs based in cities like Cleveland have been shipped overseas, and the decimation of unions has also played a big part as well. Just look at a comparison of adjusted median incomes: In 2000, it tallied up to more than $56,400. In 2013? Only $48,000.
1. Wisconsin: -5.7%
The clear winner (or loser) in the race to the bottom has been Wisconsin, losing 5.7% of its middle class households since 2000. Average median income has dropped by roughly $9,000 annually, and costs of living have gone up as well. There have also been many political battles that have not worked in the middle class’s favor. Governor Scott Walker gutted many of the state’s unions — which has a big effect on the middle class — and all signs seem to indicate that he will aim to implement similar policies. Like Ohio, Wisconsin’s makeup was particularly vulnerable to a recession, and the proof is in the numbers.
My Take
The clear root cause of the situation we find ourselves in is due to an out of control tax system. It is large, cumbersome, too complex, and full of loopholes that favor those who really don't need a break. The middle class continues to fall apart. If the middle class is, indeed, the engine of our economy, something needs to be done with the tax code--both business and individual taxes--to right the system and make it fair and equitable for all. If we don't (and I highly question the ability and will of our current group of legislators to tackle any important issues and strive for resolution) our economy will eventually fail.
Last edited by Rongone (4/18/2015 12:33 pm)
Offline
But, how do you take the middle class to those jobs that they now can make a good living doing ? Those old good paying manufacturing jobs are NOT coming back. Even where manufacturing has once again gained a foothold in the US, the type jobs that used to pay well are being replaced by automation. As I pointed out in another thread, this type of problem (automation replacing workers) is also a problem for countries like China, etc that manufacturers used to count on for cheap labor. A robot can work 24x7 churning out products.
The good paying middle class jobs more and more are requiring a different skill set and that is what we need to be helping out with and that includes non-manufacturing jobs as well. The kids at least are being exposed to computers and advancements that will hopefully help them compete in this rapidly changing world.
Let's say we totally do away with the income tax and only relied on a sales or consumption tax. It still would require that a middle and lower class have the skills necessary to allow them to succeed financially.
As an aside, I believe today that the most burdensome Federal level tax on most Americans is the Medicare/SS tax as I believe I have read somewhere that the top 20% or so of wage earners pay about 94% of all federal income taxes.
Offline
tennyson wrote:
But, how do you take the middle class to those jobs that they now can make a good living doing ? Those old good paying manufacturing jobs are NOT coming back. Even where manufacturing has once again gained a foothold in the US, the type jobs that used to pay well are being replaced by automation. As I pointed out in another thread, this type of problem (automation replacing workers) is also a problem for countries like China, etc that manufacturers used to count on for cheap labor. A robot can work 24x7 churning out products.
The good paying middle class jobs more and more are requiring a different skill set and that is what we need to be helping out with and that includes non-manufacturing jobs as well. The kids at least are being exposed to computers and advancements that will hopefully help them compete in this rapidly changing world.
Let's say we totally do away with the income tax and only relied on a sales or consumption tax. It still would require that a middle and lower class have the skills necessary to allow them to succeed financially.
As an aside, I believe today that the most burdensome Federal level tax on most Americans is the Medicare/SS tax as I believe I have read somewhere that the top 20% or so of wage earners pay about 94% of all federal income taxes.
Then, from your perspective, we're doomed.
Offline
More stats on exactly who benefits from this attempt at repealing the estate tax:
Why Do Republicans Want to Repeal the Estate Tax?
The Republican-controlled House has accomplished one of its longtime goals by voting to repeal the estate tax last week. The vote was obviously partisan, with only seven Democrats voting to repeal the estate tax and three Republicans voting against it. But why are Republicans so adamant to repeal the tax?
Protecting the wealthy
Democrats main criticism of repealing the estate tax is that it seems to fall in line with stereotypical Republican policies that protect the rich. The estate tax only applies to the wealthiest 0.2% of Americans, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Only two out of every 1,000 people who die will owe any estate tax. According to the Washington Post, the first $5.43 million of any estate is exempt from taxes. (And for couples, it’s the first $10.86 million.)
Once an estate is larger than that though, it is taxed at a rate of 40%, racking up a lot of money for the federal government. Repealing the estate tax would increase the deficit by $269 billion over a decade, according to The Hill. The estate tax will affect 5,400 estates in 2015, projects the Joint Committee on Taxation.
The morality of taxes
Republicans are playing emotionally when appealing for support to repeal the tax, arguing that it doesn’t only come after the wealthy, but rather affects small businesses and farms. According to Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), “the vast majority of our members in the Republican conference have never had the opportunity to stand up for small businesses who are threatened by the death tax everyday.”
“Can you imagine working your whole life to build up a family-owned business or a farm, and then upon your death, Uncle Sam swoops in and takes nearly half of what you spent a lifetime building up for your children and grandchildren?” said Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas), the bill’s sponsor.
Truly that sounds bad, but the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates only 0.6% of farms have to pay an estate tax. The Washington Post also asked the office of Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who is sponsoring of the Senate version of repeal, about the farms, and “Thune’s staff conceded that they could not identify a single farm that had been sold because of the estate tax, but they said some farms had to sell acreage in order to pay the tax.”
Though Republicans are rejoicing, the bill may not make it much further, as the bill might not have the votes to get through the Senate, and the White House will most likely veto the measure.
Offline
Rongone wrote:
tennyson wrote:
But, how do you take the middle class to those jobs that they now can make a good living doing ? Those old good paying manufacturing jobs are NOT coming back. Even where manufacturing has once again gained a foothold in the US, the type jobs that used to pay well are being replaced by automation. As I pointed out in another thread, this type of problem (automation replacing workers) is also a problem for countries like China, etc that manufacturers used to count on for cheap labor. A robot can work 24x7 churning out products.
The good paying middle class jobs more and more are requiring a different skill set and that is what we need to be helping out with and that includes non-manufacturing jobs as well. The kids at least are being exposed to computers and advancements that will hopefully help them compete in this rapidly changing world.
Let's say we totally do away with the income tax and only relied on a sales or consumption tax. It still would require that a middle and lower class have the skills necessary to allow them to succeed financially.
As an aside, I believe today that the most burdensome Federal level tax on most Americans is the Medicare/SS tax as I believe I have read somewhere that the top 20% or so of wage earners pay about 94% of all federal income taxes.
Then, from your perspective, we're doomed.
Not if you read what I though we need to do as a nation.
Offline
Pretty good post from rongone. Expresses my view on the issue, too.
Offline
Much ado over nothing
Offline
Goose wrote:
Much ado over nothing
Unless your taxes go up to fill the hole.
Offline
Rongone wrote:
Goose wrote:
Much ado over nothing
Unless your taxes go up to fill the hole.
Much ado about nothing because they likely don't have the votes in the Senate, the President would veto it anyway, and keeping or dropping the estate tax is a side show that does not address any of the big problems we face.
I suspect that the GOP hopes this dies in the senate and House members can tell their base that they fought the good fight.
Having this bill sitting on the President's desk would be a godsend to the Dems with 2016 approaching.