Despite all the loud talk of the “1 per cent” of Americans who, according to a recent study, receive about 17 per cent of the income, a percentage which has more than doubled since 1979, the existence of a very small group of very rich people has never bothered Americans. But the fact that some 20 per cent of Americans now receive some 53 per cent of the income is devastating.What?! "It seems..."? It doesn't seem that way to me! I'm securely in the "upper middle class" as Applebaum describes it, yet I don't see myself as easily grasping the things on that list of what it takes to feel you're doing "minimally 'well.'" Why would people distributed throughout the middle class feel left behind because they can't get all that? Applebaum seems radically out of touch with reality. Do people even want McMansions anymore? The professors I know seem to love modest-sized houses when they have a nice design and some pretty gardens. And I don't know anyone who comfortably shells out cash for college tuition. And who are these people who think it's necessary to get over to Europe in the summer?
I would argue that the growing divisions within the American middle class are far more important than the gap between the very richest and everybody else. They are important because to be “middle class”, in America, has such positive connotations, and because most Americans think they belong in it...
“Middle America” also once implied the existence of a broad group of people who had similar values and a similar lifestyle. If you had a small suburban home, a car, a child at a state university, an annual holiday on a Michigan lake, you were part of it. But, at some point in the past 20 years, a family living at that level lost the sense that it was doing “well”, and probably struggled even to stay there. Now it seems you need a McMansion, children at private universities, two cars, a ski trip in the winter and a summer vacation in Europe in order to feel as if you are doing minimally “well”. ...
Applebaum poses what she must think is a ponderous question:
[I]f Americans are no longer “all in the same boat”, if some of them are now destined to live better than others, then will they continue to feel like political equals?They? Why is she saying "they"?! I'd say we will go on as we always have. We look at those who have more, make some choices, and do what we can. Some of us get motivated to work harder at making money, and maybe we succeed and maybe we don't. Some of us decide not to work so hard but to control our covetousness and develop our capacity to love what we have. (Why not leave Europe to the Europeans and buy an annual pass to your state's parks and value the beauty of the landscape you live in? That's what Meade and I do.) And, yes, some of us fall prey to bitterness and cynicism, and if that happens, we can either perceive this state of mind as our own character flaw or plunge deeply into blaming others.
We're a diverse bunch, we Americans. But I think most of us understand the way we are equal in America. We have equal rights and equal opportunity. We have never had equal economic outcomes, and very few of us have ever believed in the kind of politics that say we need equal economic status to feel like political equals.
217 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 217 of 217One of the "Right from God as Holy Truth" beliefs of rightwingers and of course their wealthy donors is the Screed that tax cuts or the wealthy "jobs creators" class causes growth and massive job creation. Saint Reagan PROVED it!
Alas, it appears that only certain tax cuts at certain times work, and the rest of the time they are a banquet for plutocrats that create no growth or jobs...only debts to China to pay off later.
"Republicans favor tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, but these had no stimulative effect during the George W. Bush Administration and Obama Administration, and there is no reason to believe that more of them will have any today," writes Bruce Bartlett. He's an economist who worked for Republican congressmen and in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
On the other hand, despite the screams of free traders that Smoot-Hawley and all tariffs are the Devil's handmaiden - tariffs created US industries and grew jobs. The Tariff notion against China's destruction of industries is not just a Romney and Trump idea - it is spreading fast to Europe, Africa, and Latin America which have all seen jobs and local economies centering on 2-3 domestic industries destroyed by lowest bid global labor.
The rise in the U.S. trade deficit with China between 1997 and 2006 has displaced production that could have supported 2,166,000 U.S. jobs directly and cost another 1.8 million in jobs losses related to loss of economic money multipliers in excess of the jobs created by more disposable income from cheap ChinaStuff.
Of course China would retaliate and continue to insist it has the right to dump, currency manipulate, engage in intellectual property theft, and produce under dismal environmental and workers rights conditions. Even buy less Boeing jets.
But if the world says enough! - China with its lopsided balances would be the loser in any trade war. A whole different circumstance than with the balanced trade conditions tariffs did not help in, in the Great Depression.
You seem to be fixated on a child's suicide Mitzie.
Is that a personal story you are relating.
Did your non-existent daughter suffer from PTSD?
Or did she off herself because you are her mother?
Now that we can believe.
A child's suicide, what child, your imaginary son Audie Murphy? You are Sixty Grit, that is pretty obvious.
It's actually been interesting to see the lengths you will go to Sixty. Dontcha have anyone to love ya? No wonder. People who were never loved grow up a sick twisted people, I actually feel sorry for you, well no maybe I don't.
Not you, Michael. J was yapping about 401ks, the Koch Brothers & Rush paying capital gains taxes, the middle class maybe getting a few sheckels more and I couldn't understand what he was talking about.
Since:
Most of our middle-class monies are in our retirements accounts and we don't pay any capital gains at all. Any middle-class person in a 401K avoids those too low capital gains taxes for decades, EXCEPT those evil, rich guys who trade in taxable, and pay all those nasty cheap capital gains as they go along.
IF anything, he should be yelling at we bourgeois who avoid paying those nasty taxes for decades.
"I say we make a lot of stuff like video games etc and that is what a lot of people are buying today."
We're attracting quite a bit of these guys away from the US to Montreal and Vancouver. Montreal gives big tax breaks.
:)
In general I'd say Germany is an excellent model for keeping/ helping industry.
HHHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
No.
@ Michael and Seeing Red
Capital gains taxes affect not only individual investments, but also mutual funds and yes, even 401ks which consist of tax deferred mutual funds in that the impact of capital gains taxes will change or affect the way the fund managers trade.
The frequency of trading or the choices that they make may be altered when cap gains are higher than when lower and the investments they chose to 'turn' will be affected by capital gains which are passed on to the share holders......no matter what their tax status is at the time.
Capital gains in a mutual fund can be a killer if you don't pay attention and buy a fund loaded with cap gains (short term and long term) near the end of the year. This is why your advisor, or yourself if you are trading solo, should be aware of not just the share prices but also any embedded cap gains.
Just a thought.
I am afraid you misinformed Inspector Cuntseau . I am not and I have never been Sixty Grit. He is a good man and knows a phony liar when he sees one. He is not afraid to call you out. I admire him.
But don't fear. You are a protected species here along with J and your other alter ego Jeremy. You drive up hits and comments for the Althouse woman. She loves that.
401k's are not directly affected by cap gains since all gains are deferred and treated as ordinary income when withdrawn....but the rate of cap gains has an effect.
God. I'm glad I don't do this anymore.
Seeing Red. J knows absolutely norhing about economics and his quick trips to Wiki are just enough to salvage some vocabulary that is strung together incoherently. The left has always been a place that prides itself as being above business and thus leftists are poorly equiped to discuss finance. They have a sting of slogans which change slightly with the times but they dont know what they mean. Thus when you read one of their comments on rating agencies you can immediately tell they are faking because they cannot distinguish between ratings on tranches within a security or the implications of risk that those tranches
represent. When challenged they resort to ad hominem or retreat to a different topic. Unfortunately they are only parroting what they have learned from their instructors in college or the blogs of the left which are also challenged on business topics.
DBQ. Thanks for the clarification. I dread the compulsary unloading of my retirement accounts even as i continue to work and end up in a high bracket.
Thus when you read one of their comments on rating agencies you can immediately tell they are faking because they cannot distinguish between ratings on tranches within a security or the implications of risk that those tranches
represent.
Righto. This is when you know you have an 'advisor' and not just a product pusher. When he/she can explain CMO's, how they work, what tranches are and lets you know what level tranch you actually own and how much risk you are taking on.
I stopped selling Fannie and Freddie years ago (about 2007-8) when they started offering teaser rates and step rates. It smelled! And when I looked at the underlying investments in the tranch...uh oh. Risky risky. Even IF there was an implied government backing.
Once again. So glad to be out of the biz.
try to be relevant and stop insulting people. Whatever language you would use to someone in your home or your community is the language you should use here. If you have so much aggression that you have to hide behind a keyboard and utter obscenities, scatological, homophobic and sexist humor, and cruel insults, it might be time for some therapy before you seriously hurt yourself or someone else.
NY - not sure who you are talking to there. The most obvious recipient of your advice would be J, but he seems to be gone. Plus, my memory is that you seem to tend to fall on the same side of the political line as he does.
With J gone, the discussion seems to have calmed down a bit.
Applebaum doesn't have a clue what reality is. Few people anywhere near the Beltway do.
That's right, sorepaw the terrorist aka Byro Bendapen--IPs already been traced. Wait n see, you braindead LDS yokel. Po' lil J**ey
lets hear yr explanation of Maxwell's demon, genius and "Pynchonian". a googlin' time
Most interesting.
When Mitochondri-Allie mentioned Dr. Deborah Frisch, J launched into denouncing me again, and babbling about the imaginary Byro to boot.
Since I'd started inquiring about Dr. Frisch, J had been consistently avoiding any references to me.
Mito hit a nerve.
For sure, if J really thinks I'm Tyrone, or a Mormon, or from Sacramento, J is as serious a whack-job as Dr. Frisch.
He’s had a very successful blogging career over the past year and has taken off for quite sometime, but now he’s back and ready to start blogging. volunteer peru
Post a Comment