Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, September 18, 2020

New data from the Census Bureau shows that the gap between the richest and everybody else widened to record highs in 2019.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Thanks capitalism.

The crash is coming.

#1 | Posted by Nixon at 2020-09-18 01:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

In France. (I've heard) There would be revolutions where the people would kill the rich and redistribute their wealth.

I think it's time for a modern day French Revolution.

#2 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-09-18 02:10 PM | Reply

More Winning! for Republicans.

If their voter base weren't George Carlin comedy material, they might one day notice that they are the butts of the joke....

www.youtube.com

#3 | Posted by Corky at 2020-09-18 05:08 PM | Reply

#3 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2020-09-18 05:08 PM | FLAG: So which wealthy person who 'stoled' from your income?

#4 | Posted by MSgt at 2020-09-18 10:17 PM | Reply

#4 | POSTED BY MSGT

*sigh*

---- what an idiot.

#5 | Posted by jpw at 2020-09-19 01:27 AM | Reply

"So which wealthy person who 'stoled' from your income?
#4 | POSTED BY MSGT AT 2020-09-18 10:17 PM | FLAG:

*sigh*
---- what an idiot.
#5 | POSTED BY JPW


Yikes! This is the average Republican voter in 2020?

#6 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-09-19 01:39 AM | Reply

- which wealthy person who 'stoled' from your income?

Never worry about my income.... the point, as G Carlin so eloquently noted, is that the big corps and billionaires own the resources, politicians, and laws that they have written for themselves.

The orange guy duped you into voting for him, prolly twice now, while he gave himself and them yuge tax cuts and you got diddley.

#7 | Posted by Corky at 2020-09-19 01:57 AM | Reply

Clown is just showing that the Dems are the party of Hate.

BTW, Dems are the Party of the Rich for some time now

they own

Tech
Music (except for Country)
Sports
TV
Movies
News Media

thehill.com

#8 | Posted by Maverick at 2020-09-19 11:13 AM | Reply

BTW, Dems are the Party of the Rich for some time now

they own ...

Well but that's all well and fine.

Trumpy trumps all of them because he owns the pandemic.

#9 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-09-19 11:26 AM | Reply

For the Drumpf Regime, this is not a bug, it's a feature.

#10 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2020-09-19 11:58 AM | Reply

No worries folks.

Trumpy's personal Economy is doing just fine thankfully.

#11 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-09-20 12:03 PM | Reply

"In France. (I've heard) There would be revolutions where the people would kill the rich and redistribute their wealth."

In France, they were starving.

In the US, everyone has gotten richer...some have just done so at a higher marginal rate.

And I've always wondered. Do you think the people who give a ---- about wealth inequality would prefer a system where the richest made less money, but so did they?

I think the answer would be no. But I'm not sure.

#12 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-09-20 01:55 PM | Reply

In the US, everyone has gotten richer...

All those people living on the streets and working multiple jobs to make ends meet will be happy you think so.

Might as well tell them how wealthy they are compared to people in Honduras. Right?

Anything else you feel like sharing?

Do you think the people who give a ---- about wealth inequality would prefer a system where the richest made less money, but so did they?

When was America great (When discussing wealth inequality)? In my opinion the 50s were due to the richest being taxed accordingly.

It allowed our nation to build new roads, bridges, schools, a nation.

Now. The richest are paying less than the poor. A lot of them aren't paying any taxes at all.

#13 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-09-20 02:07 PM | Reply

Dems are the Party of the Rich for some time now
#8 | POSTED BY MAVERICK

Says the guy who's going to vote for "billionaire" Donald Trump.

You're an idiot.

#14 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-09-20 02:09 PM | Reply

"All those people living on the streets and working multiple jobs to make ends meet will be happy you think so."

And that's different from yesterday, or last year, or ten years ago, or fifty years ago how?

Median household income is at an all time high. But wealth inequality and poverty are two very different things.

#15 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-09-20 02:34 PM | Reply

"When was America great (When discussing wealth inequality)? In my opinion the 50s were due to the richest being taxed accordingly."

And that's an opinion, but median household income in 1955 was $4,400 in 1955. In 2020$, that's $42,673. Median household income in 2020 was $63k. That represents a 48% increase in inflation-adjusted dollars.

And the rich were taxed at a higher rate, but they also enjoyed a system that allowed for many more deductions than you can take today. And who cares what the tax rates are when you can deduct more. The rich weren't supporting TRA 86, which reduced what could be deducted. They preferred the old system.

#16 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-09-20 02:41 PM | Reply

"Now. The richest are paying less than the poor. A lot of them aren't paying any taxes at all."

Here's a who's who when it comes to who is funding the government.

Top 1%: 38.5% of total federal income tax.
Top 50%: 97% of total federal income tax.
Bottom 50%: 3% of total federal income tax.

#17 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-09-20 02:45 PM | Reply

17

Be aware.....someone is going come along and call you a liar because you left SS out of those stats.

#18 | Posted by eberly at 2020-09-20 02:47 PM | Reply

Individuals pay other sources of Federal revenue than just the Federal income tax, MadBomber.

Do those ones too.

And then give us the share of wealth controlled by those percentiles, so we can see how fair the overall Federal tax burden is, okay?

Thanks in advance.

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-20 02:50 PM | Reply

Thanks in advance.

You're not going to get an honest answer for MythBomber.

He prefers half truths and cooked numbers to justify income inequality and the insane wealth of the 1%.

#20 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-09-20 02:55 PM | Reply

"Individuals pay other sources of Federal revenue than just the Federal income tax, MadBomber."

Are there any other sources that contribute to the continuing operations of the US government?

#21 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-09-20 03:02 PM | Reply

If I make less money for the benefit of the community, and so that everyone has healthcare, I win. I reject the traditional rat race, and I'm not "winning" it by any means. There still needs to be a carrot dangled in front of us, but an early death should not be the price for not grabbing the carrot.

And by "carrot" I mean the nutritious orange root vegetable, not something else. Ya pervs.

#22 | Posted by hamburglar at 2020-09-20 03:03 PM | Reply

"He prefers half truths and cooked numbers to justify income inequality and the insane wealth of the 1%."

What half truths? What "cooked" numbers?

#23 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-09-20 03:03 PM | Reply

World's richest 1% get 82% of the wealth'

In 2017 it calculated that the world's eight richest individuals had as much wealth as the poorest half of the world.

According to a 2020 study by the RAND Corporation, the top 1% of U.S. income earners have taken $50 trillion from the bottom 90% between 1975 and 2018.

#24 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-09-20 03:03 PM | Reply

"There still needs to be a carrot dangled in front of us, but an early death should not be the price for not grabbing the carrot."

And it sounds like you would be willing to make less or pay more for healthcare. After living in Europe, I think the US has to adopt a value added tax (like the rest of the developed world) before they even consider expanding social programs. But I think that any candidate who actually suggested that all Americans contribute to something like this would be a former candidate very quickly. The conservatives wouldn't like it due to the impact it would have on the economy, and the left wouldn't like it because it wouldn't uniquely punish the rich, but rather be a burden that society shared as a whole.

#25 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-09-20 03:09 PM | Reply

For 60 years the rich have been using their politicians and lobbyists to cut their tax rate down to nothing. Especially with the aid of a couple clever accountants.

MythBomber wants the poor to make up for it.

Why should the rich be taxed?

Their money is better off in hidden Panamanian bank accounts.

#26 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-09-20 03:14 PM | Reply

#18 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Eberly who never posts anything worth reading or discussing. Continues to be useless.

#27 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-09-20 03:15 PM | Reply

"After living in Europe, I think the US has to adopt a value added tax (like the rest of the developed world) before they even consider expanding social programs."

LOL dude.

"How You Gonna Keep 'em Down on the Farm, (After They've Seen Paree?)

You're such a trope. It's delightful.

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-20 03:15 PM | Reply

"World's richest 1% get 82% of the wealth"

World's richest 1%?

That's you, my friend.

Unless you're making less than $34k (2018$) per year, you're part of the global 1% of income earners.

#29 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-09-20 03:17 PM | Reply

"MythBomber wants the poor to make up for it."

How on earth could the poor ever make up for it.

You could bleed them dry and they still wouldn't make a dent. The bottom 50% of income earners only contributes 3% of the total federal income tax revenue. And that 50% includes households making more than $60k per year. Not really poor people.

#30 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-09-20 03:19 PM | Reply

"Why should the rich be taxed? Their money is better off in hidden Panamanian bank accounts."

I just showed you champ, they are being taxed.

They're paying both of our "fair shares."

But think of it this way. With the bottom 50% of income earners only shouldering 3% of the total federal income tax burden, what does your "right" look like?

A bottom 50% that contributes nothing? They're contributing almost nothing now.

#31 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-09-20 03:21 PM | Reply

"LOL dude."

Am I funny?

Maybe you have some thoughts on the VAT?

#32 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-09-20 03:23 PM | Reply

"How You Gonna Keep 'em Down on the Farm, (After They've Seen Paree?)"

Paris is not exactly an appealing capital. Not even really an appealing city. I'd take the farm.

Tell your friends that Prague is better.

#33 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-09-20 03:27 PM | Reply

"World's richest 1% get 82% of the wealth"
World's richest 1%?
That's you, my friend.
Unless you're making less than $34k (2018$) per year, you're part of the global 1% of income earners.
#29 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

^
LOL there you go again!
Income is not wealth. Wealth is wealth. You're conflating them, because your mythology demands it.
And it should be pretty easy to see that 1% of the global population is 78 million people.
And with 330 million people in America, at best, one in five Americans is in the richest 1%.

Figure 4 on this link has a pretty good picture of the global wealth distribution. The top 1% is fairly evenly distributed across North America, Europe, and even Asia-Pacific; with only Africa, India, and China really lagging. Though China is definitely pulling away from the bottom of the pack. www.vox.com

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-20 03:32 PM | Reply

I've heard that Paris is overrated. Would still like to see it, even if it's on my way to the French countryside or to Lyon, Marseille, or Nice. I'd go to a Paris Saint Germain soccer game and cheer against them.

#35 | Posted by hamburglar at 2020-09-20 03:32 PM | Reply

I just showed you champ, they are being taxed.

Who is?

Not the wealthy.

American billionaires paid less in taxes in 2018 than the working class, analysis shows " and it's another sign that one of the biggest problems in the US is only getting worse

www.businessinsider.com

The Rich Really Do Pay Lower Taxes Than You

Almost a decade ago, Warren Buffett made a claim that would become famous. He said that he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary, thanks to the many loopholes and deductions that benefit the wealthy.

www.nytimes.com

Amazon's $0 corporate income tax bill last year, explained

www.vox.com

#36 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-09-20 03:35 PM | Reply

I've heard that Paris is overrated.
#35 | POSTED BY HAMBURGLAR

I loved it. Went when I was 18 as a graduation present from my whole family.

It was spectacular.

Don't listen to other people. Just go.

#37 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-09-20 03:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Income is not wealth. Wealth is wealth. You're conflating them, because your mythology demands it."

OK.

Were we not talking about income inequality?

#38 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-09-20 03:40 PM | Reply

"Were we not talking about income inequality?"

Let's review:
You were commenting on: "World's richest 1% get 82% of the wealth."
You then switched from wealth to income.

You're that guy who secretly replaced the regular coffee with Folger's Crystals.

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-20 03:41 PM | Reply

"Who is? Not the wealthy."

So...not following.

Is the top 1% not paying 38.5% of the total federal income tax burden?

Is the top 50% not paying 97% of the total income tax burden?

Is the IRS lying?

#40 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-09-20 03:43 PM | Reply

Hey MadBomber,

On a global scale, an individual must have upwards of $744,400 in combined income, investments, and personal assets to rank in the top 1% of the world's wealthiest individuals. www.investopedia.com

Funny how $744,400 in wealth doesn't really look anything like $34K in income.

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-20 03:47 PM | Reply

"Is the top 1% not paying 38.5% of the total federal income tax burden?"

Is the federal income tax the only federal tax burden?

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-20 03:48 PM | Reply

"It was spectacular."

It's not.

It's OK. Once.

But if you're going to travel, Paris is the Branson Missouri of Europe. It's not bad, but it's not nearly as cool other cities.

I just got back from Berlin. I really liked it. Unless you're an art nerd, Paris has limited offerings.

Greece is still probably the most well rounded place I've been. You're young, so you'd appreciate the party scene. But is also has high alpine mountains and hiking, as well as crystal blue water beaches. We're actually toying with the idea of buying a house in Greece we liked it so much.

#43 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-09-20 03:49 PM | Reply

On a global scale, an individual must have upwards of $744,400 in combined income, investments, and personal assets to rank in the top 1% of the world's wealthiest individuals.

Yep.

#44 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-09-20 03:51 PM | Reply

"Funny how $744,400 in wealth doesn't really look anything like $34K in income."

"So, where do most Americans stand. Most Americans are in the top 1% of income globally. You are in the top 1% of income worldwide with an annual salary of ... drum roll please ...

$34,000."

www.greenbacksmagnet.com

#45 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-09-20 03:52 PM | Reply

"But if you're going to travel, Paris is the Branson Missouri of Europe"

LOL.
Are you thinking specifically of the Euro Disney part of Paris with this comment?

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-20 03:53 PM | Reply

"$34,000."

"The U.S. Census Bureau lists the annual median personal income at $33,706 in 2018.[3]"

So, just about half of Americans have incomes in the top 1%.

Meanwhile, for the top 1% by wealth: "According to a report from Bloomberg, the minimum requirement to gain entry into the top 1% club is an annual income of $515,371 as of 2017. That's a far cry from the annual income reported by the average taxpayer of $41,740. The outlet also reported that the wealth gap in the United States continues to rise, with about 1.5 million people falling into the top 1%. " www.investopedia.com

So, on the one hand you've got half the population.
And on the other hand you've got a half a percent of the population.
And MadBomber thinks these numbers can just be switched in and out as needed.

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-20 04:00 PM | Reply

MadBomber thinks these numbers can just be switched in and out as needed.

All he's got are half truths.

#48 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-09-20 04:09 PM | Reply

We're actually toying with the idea of buying a house in Greece we liked it so much.

#43 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-09-20 03:49 PM | Reply | Flag: Cognitive Dissonance

#49 | Posted by SunTzuMeow at 2020-09-20 05:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"So, just about half of Americans have incomes in the top 1%."

It's closer to 75% according to the article.

"Meanwhile, for the top 1% by wealth: "According to a report from Bloomberg, the minimum requirement to gain entry into the top 1% club is an annual income of $515,371 as of 2017."

That's for income, dude. In the US. Read the article.

#50 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-09-21 12:21 AM | Reply

"All he's got are half truths."

You keep saying this, yet you don't provide anything to back it up.

And it's not really me saying it. I'm simply posting the numbers I find. If you have different numbers, feel free to post them instead.

#51 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-09-21 12:23 AM | Reply

"Who is? Not the wealthy."

So when the IRS states that the top 1% of income earners is covering 38.5% of the federal income tax burden they're lying? Or they're not being truthful when they say that the bottom 50% is only covering 3% of the federal income tax burden?

3% dude. You couldn't really cut taxes for them if you wanted to.

#52 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-09-21 12:26 AM | Reply

You'd think that the 1% would be paying 99% of the taxes.

#53 | Posted by bruceaz at 2020-09-21 12:59 AM | Reply

Since 1975 The Top 1% of Americans Have Taken $50 Trillion From the Bottom 90%

This is not some back-of-the-napkin approximation. According to a groundbreaking new working paper by Carter C. Price and Kathryn Edwards of the RAND Corporation, had the more equitable income distributions of the three decades following World War II (1945 through 1974) merely held steady, the aggregate annual income of Americans earning below the 90th percentile would have been $2.5 trillion higher in the year 2018 alone.

time.com

The only funny part is that people like MB think they haven't had anything taken from them by the wealthy corps and individuals who own their own politicians that write these tax laws for themselves.

Oh wait, there is another funny part... skip to @ 7:00 if you must:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLODGhEyLvk&ab_channel=GeorgeCarlinOfficialYouTubeChannel

#54 | Posted by Corky at 2020-09-21 01:32 AM | Reply

www.youtube.com

#55 | Posted by Corky at 2020-09-21 01:33 AM | Reply

Is the top 1% not paying 38.5% of the total federal income tax burden?
Is the top 50% not paying 97% of the total income tax burden?
Is the IRS lying?

No, no, and no.

What's happened, by design, is a lot of social welfare has suddenly been intertwined with the income tax system. Back when we were growing up, if a family of five up the street had an income tax liability over the year of $1000, they paid income tax. If they also got $100/mo because they were poor and had three kids, did they still pay income tax? Of course they did.

Now the same situation answers "no", because their welfare check is intertwined with their tax return, so they get $200 back. Same for other kid-rearing subsidies, like Earned Income Credit, the Child Tax Credit (which was created, then spiked, then doubled, then doubled again), the Additional Child Tax Credit, the American Opportunity Credit, and the Lifetime Learning Credit. All of these can change the "pays income taxes on their 1040" list to the "doesn't pay taxes on their 1040" list. The system could just as easily pay welfare separately, but then the talking point would be a lower percentage, wouldn't it?

#56 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-09-21 01:56 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

VAT is a good idea. One of Madbomber's few good insights. He's correct that everyone should be contributing to universal healthcare and social programs. I would also cut the military by at least 60% to help pay for it too. I doubt MB would like that one though.

#57 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-09-21 04:28 AM | Reply

"You'd think that the 1% would be paying 99% of the taxes."

So...99% instead of 97%?

#58 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-09-21 10:40 AM | Reply

"The only funny part is that people like MB think they haven't had anything taken from them by the wealthy corps and individuals who own their own politicians that write these tax laws for themselves."

You'll need to explain to me how tax rates affect the value of labor. Whether the top 1% are taxed at 0% or 100%, I don't see how that affects how much I am going to get paid. Or those in the bottom 90th percentile. The Rand paper fails to address the changes in demand for labor, which is the single most significant contributor to stagnant wages for low and unskilled workers. In reality, I'm surprised they have done as well as they have.

#59 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-09-21 10:45 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

#56

So you're saying the IRS is lying. That's a bold accusation.

So what are the real numbers?

#60 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-09-21 10:49 AM | Reply

"I would also cut the military by at least 60% to help pay for it too. I doubt MB would like that one though."

60%

Is that an arbitrary number?

What were the planning assumptions that you used in coming to that number?

The other thing-people like the military. Most don't mind paying for it. Especially the top 1% who is shouldering just under 40% of that burden.

Not saying that they would mind a cut to the military...provided that the money was returned to them. They may not be as keen to give it away so someone else can have free healthcare. And if you implemented a VAT in the range of 20% or so, you might not need additional funding. I don't know if anyone has ever pulled that thread.

#61 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-09-21 10:52 AM | Reply

"You'll need to explain to me how tax rates affect the value of labor."

Okay:

A 25-yr old Trust Fund Baby gets $50,000/yr in dividends from Walmart. He pays no federal taxes.

A 50yr old janitor profits $50,000/yr via sweat-of-the-brow labor. He pays over $10,000 in federal taxes.

#62 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-09-21 12:35 PM | Reply

#62

Absolutely none of that had to do with the value of labor. Not a bit.

I'm still waiting on you to explain how the IRS numbers are fabricated, apparently as part of some nefarious scheme to disparage low income earners. When you're done with that, you can present the real numbers.

As always, please show your math.

#63 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-09-21 01:05 PM | Reply

"A 25-yr old Trust Fund Baby gets $50,000/yr in dividends from Walmart. He pays no federal taxes."

So...why would this individual not pay any taxes? Is that $50k not counted as income. And if not for him directly, than the trust?

#64 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-09-21 01:07 PM | Reply

Stastically speaking, both individuals would be in the bottom 50% of income-earning households, so neither would contribute to the continuing operations of the federal government.

#65 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-09-21 01:08 PM | Reply

"I would also cut the military by at least 60% to help pay for it too. I doubt MB would like that one though.

Is that an arbitrary number?"

pulled out of one's ass, of course.

If that were anywhere near realistic, someone would have at least proposed such an idea in the last 100 years.

#66 | Posted by eberly at 2020-09-21 01:10 PM | Reply

"Absolutely none of that had to do with the value of labor."

You don't think the relative tax rate of non-labor income changes the valuation of labor, from a post-tax earnings point of view?

Like, if you had two ways of getting income, and the two ways are taxed at different rates, you wouldn't prioritize the route that incurs lower taxes?

I thought you believed in rational choice theory...

#67 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-09-21 02:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"If that were anywhere near realistic, someone would have at least proposed such an idea in the last 100 years."

I'm actually not far off from effete when it comes to this.

In military units, you have ops guys and you have shoe clerks. The ops guys (that I know of) didn't really do any COVID mitigation stuff. The shoe clerks are still working one week on, one week off. Which says to me that you have 50% more people than you need to effectively do your job. Which means that taxpayer dollars are being wasted.

I've heard there are DoD employees at the Pentagon who haven't been in the office since March.

I feel like we might be able to cut those positions without compromising the mission. I feel like we kind of already have...they're just still getting an income from the taxpayers.

#68 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-09-21 04:01 PM | Reply

"You don't think the relative tax rate of non-labor income changes the valuation of labor, from a post-tax earnings point of view?"

No.

If I'm an unskilled worker, how does tax police influence my labor value? I'm open to any explanation you may have.

#69 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-09-21 04:02 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort