Labor Share of National Income!

zymurgy said:
that is nonsensical though

we went from spending $7 per person in 1910 to $20,500 per person today

we eliminated the check and balance against over spending

but all you can do is cry and whine about the group that currently does pay for the majority of this nonsense

Denmark also spends a ridiculous amount per person - but they actually make the lower middle class foot a larger portion of the bill and avoid currency debasement as a means
Click to expand...
Such a base and stupid reply.

That the elite pay most of the taxes is a natural extension of the FACT that they keep getting more and more of the wealth to horde.

When an countries "Economic output" is measured and it goes up and up and yet the percent of that NEW WEALTH generated going to the MC and below is plummeting while the percentage to the uber wealthy soars, creating trillionaires, and your point is to say 'ya but those trillionaires pay the most', then that creates an ever self sustaining loop.

As the MC below drop from 65% share of that wealth to 55% to 45% to 25% to 5% OF COURSE then the one making 95% is paying more.

To then use the 'they pay more' to justify it is just absurd.
 
As a segway to my above point i will add China is aggressively shifting wealth to the MC and below trying to mimic the huge benefits the US got post WW2 that saw the US emerge as the sole super power, both economic and militarily. I have many issues with China generally but they have figured out that they do not want to be like Russia pushing most wealth to oligarchs while presiding over a diminished oligarch nation, when they easily could be. Xi could arguably be much wealthier than Putin is reported to be but he would be over a weak nation and he wants a powerful China, and knows building the middle and lower class up is key to that.

China may ultimately fail due to other reasons but there is no denying the gains they have already made by focusing on the MC and below uplift.
 
QP! said:
that answer is not a short one but the quick and dirty is to revisit all such policies and laws, such as the ones i detailed above, that have been DELIBERATELY crafted, in many cases to shift income and resources and support from the work class and to push it up to the elite and corporations disproportionately with an eye to reversing those actions and laws.
Click to expand...
My first thought was that doesn't address globalization or technological advancement really in any significant way. We can talk about the tax code and redistribution but that's something separate.
 
cawacko said:
My first thought was that doesn't address globalization or technological advancement really in any significant way. We can talk about the tax code and redistribution but that's something separate.
Click to expand...
I am not sure what you are getting at.

I think both globalization and technology advancement and any such increase in disparity they may cause can and should both be addressed thru tax code adjustments.
 
QP! said:
Such a base and stupid reply.

That the elite pay most of the taxes is a natural extension of the FACT that they keep getting more and more of the wealth to horde.

When an countries "Economic output" is measured and it goes up and up and yet the percent of that NEW WEALTH generated going to the MC and below is plummeting while the percentage to the uber wealthy soars, creating trillionaires, and your point is to say 'ya but those trillionaires pay the most', then that creates an ever self sustaining loop.

As the MC below drop from 65% share of that wealth to 55% to 45% to 25% to 5% OF COURSE then the one making 95% is paying more.

To then use the 'they pay more' to justify it is just absurd.
Click to expand...
You completely avoided the point. This isn’t an argument about why the wealthy pay more. It’s about what happens to spending discipline when the people voting for more government increasingly don’t bear the marginal cost of it.


If “spend another billion” mostly means “send someone else the bill,” you’ve removed an important check on waste. Wealth inequality doesn’t make that incentive problem disappear.
 
zymurgy said:
You completely avoided the point. This isn’t an argument about why the wealthy pay more. It’s about what happens to spending discipline when the people voting for more government increasingly don’t bear the marginal cost of it.


If “spend another billion” mostly means “send someone else the bill,” you’ve removed an important check on waste. Wealth inequality doesn’t make that incentive problem disappear.
Click to expand...
You do not get to define the point in my thread when i create it and the OP.

If you want to make that secondary then make it clearly by spelling it out clearly and those who want to segue can and will.

this thread IS ABOUT why the wealthy DON"T pay more and instead are paying a declining share.

I am not arguing about who pays 'what part of the bill and am saying as the Nation generates more wealth how that is divided between labor and the elites has INCREASINGLY been dictated by the Politicians to push more and more up to the elites via legislation and tax code.

THAT needs to be fixed.
 
QP! said:
You do not get to define the point in my thread when i create it and the OP.

If you want to make that secondary then make it clearly by spelling it out clearly and those who want to segue can and will.

this thread IS ABOUT why the wealthy DON"T pay more and instead are paying a declining share.

I am not arguing about who pays 'what part of the bill and am saying as the Nation generates more wealth how that is divided between labor and the elites has INCREASINGLY been dictated by the Politicians to push more and more up to the elites via legislation and tax code.

THAT needs to be fixed.
Click to expand...
stfu

^that needs to be fixed. either ignore my posts, or not. but crying because you don't like the direction of the debate makes you a pussy
 
zymurgy said:
stfu

^that needs to be fixed. either ignore my posts, or not. but crying because you don't like the direction of the debate makes you a pussy
Click to expand...
I did not ignore your post but i get why a dimwit like you would not be able to follow a conversation.

You are not focused on the correct issue. The correct issue is the gov't actions and choices thru legislation and tax code that have DELIBERATELY pushed up an increasing share of National Income to the elites while deliberately taking it from the MC and below.
 
zymurgy said:
everyone pays a decling share you tool

we use debt now. on purpose
Click to expand...
hey simpleton. This thread about the PROPORTION paid by each as laid out in the OP.

Be less stupid...

1782401415066


The operative word there is "SHARE".

Learn what it means.
 
QP! said:
I did not ignore your post but i get why a dimwit like you would not be able to follow a conversation.

You are not focused on the correct issue. The correct issue is the gov't actions and choices thru legislation and tax code that have DELIBERATELY pushed up an increasing share of National Income to the elites while deliberately taking it from the MC and below.
Click to expand...

You’re still skipping the causal question.

You see “the poor and middle class have a smaller share” and immediately jump to “therefore government must redistribute more.”

I’m asking why they feel poorer after decades of government spending vastly more per person supposedly on their behalf.

If spending keeps exploding, debt keeps exploding, and the intended beneficiaries still feel increasingly squeezed, the problem isn’t simply that government hasn’t spent enough or taxed the rich enough. We’ve built a system that spends enormous amounts inefficiently, hides much of the cost, and then uses the resulting dissatisfaction as justification to spend even more.

That feedback loop is the issue you keep avoiding.
 
QP! said:
hey simpleton. This thread about the PROPORTION paid by each as laid out in the OP.

Be less stupid...

1782401415066


The operative word there is "SHARE".

Learn what it means.
Click to expand...

Your chart shows labor compensation as a share of economic output. I’m talking about who bears the cost of government spending and how much of that spending is simply pushed onto future taxpayers through debt.


And you’re still dodging the causal problem: government spends dramatically more per person, yet the people supposedly benefiting from all that spending increasingly say they’re falling behind.


Posting a labor-share chart doesn’t explain why. It just restates the symptom.
 
zymurgy said:
You’re still skipping the causal question.

You see “the poor and middle class have a smaller share” and immediately jump to “therefore government must redistribute more.”

I’m asking why they feel poorer after decades of government spending vastly more per person supposedly on their behalf.

If spending keeps exploding, debt keeps exploding, and the intended beneficiaries still feel increasingly squeezed, the problem isn’t simply that government hasn’t spent enough or taxed the rich enough. We’ve built a system that spends enormous amounts inefficiently, hides much of the cost, and then uses the resulting dissatisfaction as justification to spend even more.

That feedback loop is the issue you keep avoiding.
Click to expand...
No.

As i said, you came into my thread and demand i debate not what i laid out in the OP and instead debate another aspect you want.

Two things can be true at once.

- It can be true that increasing share of the National Income has been, via legislation and tax code, directed to the Elites by politicians and that has caused a ton of the current problems.


it can ALSO BE TRUE that...

- gov't spending, exploding debt, and other issues are at play and may even be a bigger factor.

But the second being true DOES NOT mean i cannot create a thread to discuss and am wrong to or that you get to demand i stop talking about the first point and only discuss the second.

As i said, if you want to foster talk on that segue issue, as happens in many threads, do so. I may even participate.

I created this thread to address the OP issue and will continue to do so since it is ACCURATE and TRUE.
 
QP! said:
No.

As i said, you came into my thread and demand i debate not what i laid out in the OP and instead debate another aspect you want.

Two things can be true at once.

- It can be true that increasing share of the National Income has been, via legislation and tax code, directed to the Elites by politicians and that has caused a ton of the current problems.


it can ALSO BE TRUE that...

- gov't spending, exploding debt, and other issues are at play and may even be a bigger factor.

But the second being true DOES NOT mean i cannot create a thread to discuss and am wrong to or that you get to demand i stop talking about the first point and only discuss the second.

As i said, if you want to foster talk on that segue issue, as happens in many threads, do so. I may even participate.

I created this thread to address the OP issue and will continue to do so since it is ACCURATE and TRUE.
Click to expand...
Yes, you can discuss whatever aspect you want.


And I can point out another aspect that undermines your conclusion. That’s generally how discussions work.


You don’t get to post an argument publicly and then declare every inconvenient response “off topic” because it isn’t the argument you wanted to have.

and you are a liar taboot. I demanded nothing.


“Two things can be true at once” is especially funny here, because that is literally my point.
 
zymurgy said:
Yes, you can discuss whatever aspect you want.


And I can point out another aspect that undermines your conclusion. That’s generally how discussions work.


You don’t get to post an argument publicly and then declare every inconvenient response “off topic” because it isn’t the argument you wanted to have.

and you are a liar taboot. I demanded nothing.


“Two things can be true at once” is especially funny here, because that is literally my point.
Click to expand...
it does not undermine my conclusion.



1782401415066


There simply is no case you can make that if you adjust the 'workers share' up to 65% instead of the 53% it has fallen to since 1945 that the wealth accrual that would have been made by the working class as that wealth was shifted from the elite class, would see them better off and more able to deal with challenges today.

So even in your argument that the systemic issues still exist, that DOES NOT change the FACT that the working class is better off in dealing with them.

there is no instance where a much poorer working class is better off dealing addressing or dealing with the systemic issues you want to highlight.

I created an thread and OP to discuss :

- the growing wealth disparity over the last few decades as outlined in the national income

That is true and factual and exists.

You do not want to discuss that and instead what the thread to be about :

- the much broader systemic issues that have created this situation

Which again can be true but in NO WAY make my premise or thread incorrect.
 
zymurgy said:
Yes, you can discuss whatever aspect you want. And I can point out another aspect that undermines your conclusion. That’s generally how discussions work. You don’t get to post an argument publicly and then declare every inconvenient response “off topic” because it isn’t the argument you wanted to have. and you are a liar taboot. I demanded nothing. “Two things can be true at once” is especially funny here, because that is literally my point.
Click to expand...

I don't expect the faggot to acknowledge any of that. Do you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top