4 Shocking Examples of American Inequality

S

signalmankenneth

Verified User
America's middle class is further from the top than in all other developed countries.

http://www.alternet.org/print/economy/4-shocking-examples-american-inequality

Wealth8-620x324.jpg


2013-04-17-Income-Inequality.png


inequality.jpg
 
I read this and I just shake my head. From the article:

The Greatest Shock: How Little is Needed to Restore Some Sanity

""""Extreme inequality means that people without homes are freezing to death [9] in America. On a winter day in 2012 over 633,000 people were homeless [10] in the United States. Based on an annual single room occupancy (SRO) cost [11] of $558 per month, a little over $4 billion would provide shelter for every homeless person for the entire year.

The stock market [12] grew by $4.7 trillion [13] in 2013. A wealth tax of just a one-tenth of 1 percent (one dollar out of every thousand) would have provided the $4 billion needed to shelter every homeless American for 365 days.

But we have no wealth tax. And the wealth just keeps growing for the wealthiest Americans."""""


So they are suggesting we take money from every account in America that owns stock regardless of whether people sell or not if the market is up for the year? Do they plan on giving every account in America tax credits in a year the market is down as a whole?

I do not understand this thinking.
 
cawacko said:
I read this and I just shake my head. From the article:

The Greatest Shock: How Little is Needed to Restore Some Sanity

""""Extreme inequality means that people without homes are freezing to death [9] in America. On a winter day in 2012 over 633,000 people were homeless [10] in the United States. Based on an annual single room occupancy (SRO) cost [11] of $558 per month, a little over $4 billion would provide shelter for every homeless person for the entire year.

The stock market [12] grew by $4.7 trillion [13] in 2013. A wealth tax of just a one-tenth of 1 percent (one dollar out of every thousand) would have provided the $4 billion needed to shelter every homeless American for 365 days.

But we have no wealth tax. And the wealth just keeps growing for the wealthiest Americans."""""


So they are suggesting we take money from every account in America that owns stock regardless of whether people sell or not if the market is up for the year? Do they plan on giving every account in America tax credits in a year the market is down as a whole?

I do not understand this thinking.
Click to expand...

You know, cawacko, I am really a democrat no matter what some on here think. I actually think that in some situations, some could/should pay a bit more in taxes. I believe in safety nets for the poorest in our society. I believe strongly in public education and that it is still the best way out of poverty. But when I read that article and others like it I can't help but see a disdain and even an almost hatred between the lines for those who dare to have succeeded in this country and would like to keep most of what they have earned. I don't get that either. Guess that's why I've never been an Alternet or Moveon.org type of democrat.
 
cawacko said:
I read this and I just shake my head. From the article:

The Greatest Shock: How Little is Needed to Restore Some Sanity

""""Extreme inequality means that people without homes are freezing to death [9] in America. On a winter day in 2012 over 633,000 people were homeless [10] in the United States. Based on an annual single room occupancy (SRO) cost [11] of $558 per month, a little over $4 billion would provide shelter for every homeless person for the entire year.

The stock market [12] grew by $4.7 trillion [13] in 2013. A wealth tax of just a one-tenth of 1 percent (one dollar out of every thousand) would have provided the $4 billion needed to shelter every homeless American for 365 days.

But we have no wealth tax. And the wealth just keeps growing for the wealthiest Americans."""""


So they are suggesting we take money from every account in America that owns stock regardless of whether people sell or not if the market is up for the year? Do they plan on giving every account in America tax credits in a year the market is down as a whole?

I do not understand this thinking.
Click to expand...


After years of reading lefties like Desh, Darla, Rana, Mott and the other assorted moonbats, how can you not understand this thinking?

At their core, they were raised to believe that life is unfair and that the government should make it fair. They have no moral compass other than white men are evil and should pay.

It is no more complicated than that
 
taxes are not illegal.

they have been higher on the wealthy in the past and can be higher on the wealthy today if we chose it as a country.
 
cawacko said:
I read this and I just shake my head. From the article:

The Greatest Shock: How Little is Needed to Restore Some Sanity

""""Extreme inequality means that people without homes are freezing to death [9] in America. On a winter day in 2012 over 633,000 people were homeless [10] in the United States. Based on an annual single room occupancy (SRO) cost [11] of $558 per month, a little over $4 billion would provide shelter for every homeless person for the entire year.

The stock market [12] grew by $4.7 trillion [13] in 2013. A wealth tax of just a one-tenth of 1 percent (one dollar out of every thousand) would have provided the $4 billion needed to shelter every homeless American for 365 days.

But we have no wealth tax. And the wealth just keeps growing for the wealthiest Americans."""""


So they are suggesting we take money from every account in America that owns stock regardless of whether people sell or not if the market is up for the year? Do they plan on giving every account in America tax credits in a year the market is down as a whole?

I do not understand this thinking.
Click to expand...

Dunces don't think, they emote.
 
cawacko said:
I read this and I just shake my head. From the article:

The Greatest Shock: How Little is Needed to Restore Some Sanity

""""Extreme inequality means that people without homes are freezing to death [9] in America. On a winter day in 2012 over 633,000 people were homeless [10] in the United States. Based on an annual single room occupancy (SRO) cost [11] of $558 per month, a little over $4 billion would provide shelter for every homeless person for the entire year.

The stock market [12] grew by $4.7 trillion [13] in 2013. A wealth tax of just a one-tenth of 1 percent (one dollar out of every thousand) would have provided the $4 billion needed to shelter every homeless American for 365 days.

But we have no wealth tax. And the wealth just keeps growing for the wealthiest Americans."""""


So they are suggesting we take money from every account in America that owns stock regardless of whether people sell or not if the market is up for the year? Do they plan on giving every account in America tax credits in a year the market is down as a whole?

I do not understand this thinking.
Click to expand...

If you can't understand this thinking, I guess USC isn't the best school after all, is it? The state of Florida had such a tax on accumulated wealth over $300,000 until Jeb Bush eradicated it while he was governor. Sorry you can't understand that those with such wealth are better protected, have more direct contact with the government, which is there basically to protect and serve their interests, and get better services than the poor. As a result of this unacknowledged privilege they should be paying a small percentage of their accumulated wealth in taxes. Turning the US into a third world country is the other option and that apparently is the option you wish to see pursued. Sort of hypocritical for someone currently on the dole, don't you think. Are you turning your unemployment checks back in or are you keeping them cawacko, and why are you even on unemployment, I thought you were willing to work for nothing. If you accept full responsibility for your unemployed status why is it that the taxpayer is now supporting you?
 
Dantès said:
If you can't understand this thinking, I guess USC isn't the best school after all, is it? The state of Florida had such a tax on accumulated wealth over $300,000 until Jeb Bush eradicated it while he was governor. Sorry you can't understand that those with such wealth are better protected, have more direct contact with the government, which is there basically to protect and serve their interests, and get better services than the poor. As a result of this unacknowledged privilege they should be paying a small percentage of their accumulated wealth in taxes. Turning the US into a third world country is the other option and that apparently is the option you wish to see pursued. Sort of hypocritical for someone currently on the dole, don't you think. Are you turning your unemployment checks back in or are you keeping them cawacko, and why are you even on unemployment, I thought you were willing to work for nothing. If you accept full responsibility for your unemployed status why is it that the taxpayer is now supporting you?
Click to expand...

Another moron who doesn't know the difference between wealth and income and stupidly believes that it can be equitably redistributed by politicians who promise dimwits something for nothing.

Yay you dimwit.
 
Dantès said:
If you can't understand this thinking, I guess USC isn't the best school after all, is it? The state of Florida had such a tax on accumulated wealth over $300,000 until Jeb Bush eradicated it while he was governor. Sorry you can't understand that those with such wealth are better protected, have more direct contact with the government, which is there basically to protect and serve their interests, and get better services than the poor. As a result of this unacknowledged privilege they should be paying a small percentage of their accumulated wealth in taxes. Turning the US into a third world country is the other option and that apparently is the option you wish to see pursued. Sort of hypocritical for someone currently on the dole, don't you think. Are you turning your unemployment checks back in or are you keeping them cawacko, and why are you even on unemployment, I thought you were willing to work for nothing. If you accept full responsibility for your unemployed status why is it that the taxpayer is now supporting you?
Click to expand...

It's a beautiful day today Prak! National signing day. Even though we are still grabbing ankles thanks to the NCAA USC's class will be a good one. Oh I know in the elite liberal New York City circles you run in sports are beneath you but that's ok Prak, we still love you.

Sure, the stock market goes up $4 trillion on paper in a year we can easily take money from every account in America. Not a problem at all! In fact they ought to have you head up that position Prak!
 
the elitist corps of 'rulers' thanks you idiots for buying their bullshit arguments about pointing fingers and greediness as you apathetically ignore their participation.
 
leaningright said:
You know, cawacko, I am really a democrat no matter what some on here think. I actually think that in some situations, some could/should pay a bit more in taxes. I believe in safety nets for the poorest in our society. I believe strongly in public education and that it is still the best way out of poverty. But when I read that article and others like it I can't help but see a disdain and even an almost hatred between the lines for those who dare to have succeeded in this country and would like to keep most of what they have earned. I don't get that either. Guess that's why I've never been an Alternet or Moveon.org type of democrat.
Click to expand...

You are a Lefty! Really! But your name!.................heh.................

No one ever mistaked you for a Rightie...

Read more about the Great Depression to figure out what issues caused it. That is the great dividing line between the Left and the Right, reading.

Further, don't submit yourself to a party. It prevents you from thinking. You will end up submitting to a platform because you don't want your party to think less of you if you disagree with them. Single issue, single thought SHOULD be the American way.
 
StormX said:
The Myth of the "One Percent"

:rofl2:
Click to expand...

I applaud the Right actually bringing an argument to the table.....even when it's not theirs and it looks like a webcam recording a TV.

Hopefully you keep this new "research" thing going.

If you don't know how the Rich are staying rich with control then you are an idiot and you have never read a single thread I've made. But that's not your strong suit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top