Dedicated to Deposits: Deals, Data, and Discussion
Featured Savings Rates
Featured Accounts

Bottom 90% Share For First Time Only 49.6% Of All Pre-Tax Income-Top 1%-22.5%

Ally6770Ally6770912 posts since
Jan 16, 2010
Rep Points: 2,655
1. Friday, December 6, 2013 - 9:29 AM
Not surprising. "The top ten percent have 81% to 94% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and almost 80% of non-home real estate."

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
8
ShorebreakShorebreak2,621 posts since
Apr 6, 2010
Rep Points: 14,208
2. Friday, December 6, 2013 - 10:42 AM
Is there supposed to be something wrong with this?.  There will always be certain people who will account for most of the wealth just as we will always have the poor with us. 
2
paoli2paoli21,372 posts since
Aug 10, 2011
Rep Points: 6,011
3. Friday, December 6, 2013 - 11:38 AM
#2 Great article. Miss David Cay Johnston. Read him at the Times as well as Bartlett and Steele when they were at the Enquirer. See the article was written from Santa Cruz which my son said was the most beautiful place he had seen until he went to South Africa and saw their beaches. 

#3 I do not think that when the bottom 80% have had their wealth cut nearly in half in 27 years is acceptable. To state : There will always be certain people who will account for most of the wealth just as we will always have the poor with us" does not take into account how bad the wealth redistribution is now. Did you look at the charts let alone read the article link of #2?  To read this article and see the charts it is not something to be so nonchalant about. These statistics are similar to what has happened in other market crashes and depressions and in some cases these statistics are worse. 
6
Ally6770Ally6770912 posts since
Jan 16, 2010
Rep Points: 2,655
4. Friday, December 6, 2013 - 3:06 PM
#3  Now I know why Obama is getting away with his gigantic "Redistribution of Wealth" and why he will be able to continue to change our once great nation into what "he" prefers no matter the cost to the poor and middle class.  All I can add is that many of our posters on DA may feel the brunt of his "Redistribution" since they have spent most of their lives trying to amass wealth.  Wealthy people are very generous as it is but it looks like Obama is not satisfied with just going after the "Wealthy".  He wants to change things for everyone.  To each his own.  And yes I did read the article and the charts but charts can be made to state whatever the writer wants them to say.  I also don't believe everything I read.  I believe what I see happening in front of my own eyes to my once great nation.  Isn't freedom of speech wonderful?
3
paoli2paoli21,372 posts since
Aug 10, 2011
Rep Points: 6,011
5. Friday, December 6, 2013 - 3:27 PM
How The Affordable Care Act Pays For Insurance Subsidies : Shots - Health News : NPR

Looks to me like those that have the means finance the needs. Is there something supposed to be wrong with this?
2
jamesstewartjamesstewart15 posts since
May 22, 2011
Rep Points: 72
6. Friday, December 6, 2013 - 3:51 PM
Re: paoli2 @ 4. Friday, December 6, 2013 - 3:06 PM

Your blame game is especially weak when the facts prove just the opposite is true.  Please don't include this poster on DA with your perception of anyone "bearing the brunt of his redistribution". The growing income inequality in this country is in large part responsible for the lousy rates you are getting on your deposit accounts since economic growth is stifled when income is skewed to such an extreme to the top percent of households. 

"One of the most disturbing trends in this country is the rise of extreme wealth and income inequality.  America is rapidly becoming a country of a few million overlords and three hundred million serfs. Unfortunately, this issue has been politicized, which means that people don't think about the implications of it — they just start yelling. But extreme inequality is bad for everyone, even the overlords."

Wealth And Income Inequality In America - Business Insider
6
ShorebreakShorebreak2,621 posts since
Apr 6, 2010
Rep Points: 14,208
7. Friday, December 6, 2013 - 4:06 PM
Re: jamesstewart @ 5. Friday, December 6, 2013 - 3:27 PM

What's your point? We all provide subsidies in this country, one way or another, whether rich or poor. I provide tax credits to wealthy landowners through agriculture subsidies. I subsidize health care and benefits to military retirees and veterans through my federal income taxes. Even the poor subsidize state and municipal governments through the sales taxes they pay. The effort to downplay the "common good" of this country, divide the citizens of this country and denegrate the poor is a pure political powerplay and usually ends in disaster.
7
ShorebreakShorebreak2,621 posts since
Apr 6, 2010
Rep Points: 14,208
8. Friday, December 6, 2013 - 4:10 PM
6.  Ok you be concerned with your "facts" while I'll be concerned about the reality of what is happening in my country since Obama got in.  You and I are rarely going to agree on anything until you come to terms with what is going on in Washington.  I see nothing wrong with the percent of wealthy to others.  But for the wealthy, many would never have companies to work for.  Most wealthy people I know and have joined in civic activities with have been some of the nicest most generous people I know. 
4
paoli2paoli21,372 posts since
Aug 10, 2011
Rep Points: 6,011
9. Friday, December 6, 2013 - 4:23 PM
Re: paoli2 @ 8. Friday, December 6, 2013 - 4:10 PM

"I see nothing wrong with the percent of wealthy to others."

Then either you are in denial or part of the problem. Most probably both. You dismiss inequality by arguing, in effect, that a rising tide lifts all boats. The trouble is when a handful of yachts become ocean liners while the rest remain lowly canoes, something is seriously amiss.

 
7
ShorebreakShorebreak2,621 posts since
Apr 6, 2010
Rep Points: 14,208
10. Friday, December 6, 2013 - 4:49 PM
7. Sorry, I did get a bit off topic here. I just see this campaign against ACA a another example of keeping more wealth with the 10%.
6
jamesstewartjamesstewart15 posts since
May 22, 2011
Rep Points: 72
11. Friday, December 6, 2013 - 5:10 PM
Been picking up the mower before the storm shuts me in. I posted the expenses and how the healthcare plan would be paid for in a previous post. Here is another explanation with how it will be paid for. 

From 1960's to 1980 minimum wage was equal for a family of 3 to live in poverty. It barely is enough for one to live in poverty today. I just can't understand why others are against others having healthcare. Even when I was in high school the grocery store I worked for had healthcare for me. I even had dental. Paid holidays, double pay on Sunday's and triple pay on holidays including my birthday. I certainly cannot be the only one who remembers this. This was in the 50's. I want EVERYONE to have the same opportunity. When the wealthy are paying 1/3 of the taxes they were at that time I only see them buying more homes, and taking benefits and wages away. It  has been proven that when the wealthy have higher taxes they invest in their company or business and do not buy bigger boats, planes and more houses. 

The Cost Of Subsidies

But the authors of the Affordable Care Act didn't want the subsidies to become a drain on the Treasury and add to the deficits. So they included provisions designed to offset the cost of the subsidies.

MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who helped develop the law, says about half the costs are offset by projected savings in Medicare payments to insurers and hospitals. Another quarter is offset by added taxes on medical-device makers and drug companies.

"The other source of revenue is a tax increase on the wealthiest Americans," he says. "Those families with incomes above $250,000 a year will now have to pay more in Medicare payroll taxes."

Those provisions actually make the bill a net positive for the federal budget, "actually lower the deficit by about $100 billion over the next decade and by $1 trillion in the decade after."
4
Ally6770Ally6770912 posts since
Jan 16, 2010
Rep Points: 2,655
12. Friday, December 6, 2013 - 6:09 PM
Re:  #9  I am not in denial.  You just sound jealous of the wealthy.  I don't mine our government getting the wealthy to pay more of their share.  What I dislike is this attitude some posters (like yourself) seem to have about the wealthy.  The wealthy in our country are not the problem.  A President who has no idea how to follow our constitutional rules is.  It's his way or the highway.  If you truly think his ridiculous healthcare bill is the answer to our healthcare problems, you are really disappointing me. (Not that you care, for sure.)  I have a favorite speaker I listen to every evening on tv and this man is very inspirational.  He knows Obamacare is a fiasco and can see what it is and will do to our country.  Too bad I can't clone him!
2
paoli2paoli21,372 posts since
Aug 10, 2011
Rep Points: 6,011
13. Friday, December 6, 2013 - 6:14 PM
#11  You are still making excuses for Obamacare.  Now all we have to do is be around for another 20 years to see if all the excuses they are making for it work?   Sorry, that's too long for me to wait.  I'm hoping there are enough concerned citizens like myself who will vote the "right" people in office and give us a healthcare bill that is workable and won't bankrupt our nation even more than everything else Obama has done.  I will take leave of this very disheartening conversation or I will be driven to eat more fish and maybe endanger my life.  
2
paoli2paoli21,372 posts since
Aug 10, 2011
Rep Points: 6,011
14. Friday, December 6, 2013 - 6:44 PM
Re: paoli2 @ 12. Friday, December 6, 2013 - 6:09 PM

"You just sound jealous of the wealthy."

How do you know I'm not wealthy and part of the top 10 percent? Maybe even the top 1 percent? That would send your preconceived conclusions straight into the circular file, now wouldn't it?  
5
ShorebreakShorebreak2,621 posts since
Apr 6, 2010
Rep Points: 14,208
15. Friday, December 6, 2013 - 7:58 PM
Re #14:  Give it a rest.
1
paoli2paoli21,372 posts since
Aug 10, 2011
Rep Points: 6,011
16. Friday, December 6, 2013 - 8:22 PM
Re: paoli2 @ 15. Friday, December 6, 2013 - 7:58 PM

Uh, OK, what ever you say.  Don't make a scene please.
4
ShorebreakShorebreak2,621 posts since
Apr 6, 2010
Rep Points: 14,208
17. Friday, December 6, 2013 - 9:54 PM
xxx
2
paoli2paoli21,372 posts since
Aug 10, 2011
Rep Points: 6,011
18. Monday, December 9, 2013 - 9:45 AM
Shorebreak if you are, then you realize you are free to give additional $ to the Gov't at anytime, right?  You are also free to use your excess wealth to subsidize anybody you want for anything you want.  However, you seem to want to force others to do more so that you don't have to do as much.

And I don't know how many times I will have to share this point.  But I wouldn't mind paying more if controls were put in place for those that really have a need.  My wife has to work to afford some or our medical bills while people we know who are very low income drive around in a Cadillac SUV and all have iPhones.  Their medical is covered.  50% of their rent is covered. And they probably went out and bought an 80" smart TV on Black Friday, but I don't know that for sure.

And in order to fund even more medical for lower income folks, our premiums just went up as well as our deductible. My premium is about $1100/mo and I have a $9000 deductible.  Doesn't seem very affordable to me. 

So, I'm sorry.  I think I do enough already. 

Did you read over the weekend, they want to drop the limit on income that is taxed for social security? 

The country is in the biggest debt hole in history, yet all they can think about is expanding social programs.
2
ChrisCDChrisCD70 posts since
Nov 18, 2010
Rep Points: 457
19. Monday, December 9, 2013 - 9:53 AM
#18: Expanding social programs? Check this article out.

How to stick it to the poor: A congressional strategy - Yahoo News
2
jamesstewartjamesstewart15 posts since
May 22, 2011
Rep Points: 72
20. Monday, December 9, 2013 - 11:26 AM
to #18. If you know of abuses and don't report it they YOU are part of the problem.

Not sure  how you know what the deductibles are because they just got posted. Are you sure you are on healthcare.gov.? or did you get one scary letter from your insurance company telling you what you will pay. Don't fall for it.  Several people also got on the wrong site by using a search engine. This has been on the news. Things are just like when Part D started. Took 2 years for that site to get working 100%. 

I worked 2 jobs for 23 years because my husband could not work. We had 2 boys in college during many of those years. 
1
Ally6770Ally6770912 posts since
Jan 16, 2010
Rep Points: 2,655
21. Monday, December 9, 2013 - 11:27 AM
I couldn't follow all of the links in the article, but lets look at one.  Housing.  The article states 140,000 could face reduced vouchers.  Also used works like most likely.  The figure of 6% was thrown around as the amount that was cut.  It never say how many were actually ultimately affected.

It seems that with budget cuts (whether private or Gov't), they always cut the lowest salaried or most helped people most.  Instead of making the 6% cut the bad guy, which certainly seems like a reasonable figure when the Gov't is umpteen trillions in debt, make the people that are mismanaging the funds they have the bad guys.

How much is HUDs, budget?  How about the states that adminsiter the programs? Maybe the cuts should come to the executive salaries instead of the program it self?  Maybe the programs can do with less executive staff.

Of course, maybe there are a number or people that don't need or should have their rent increasted.  Just as you all seem to think I need to pay more taxes, well maybe they need to contribute more.  See my prevoius comment.

My budgest doesn't allow for printing of more $ to cover my short-falls.  I have to cut things out or reduce my expenditures.  Why is the Gov't any different?  You can't just keep taxing people to cover the Gov't short-falls.  You have to make cuts.

Just throwing figures around without actually looking at the hard data doesn't solve anything.
1
ChrisCDChrisCD70 posts since
Nov 18, 2010
Rep Points: 457
22. Monday, December 9, 2013 - 11:44 AM
Ally - I know my deductible because I don't qualify for ACA.  We just renewed our plan locking in the 2013 levels.  The 2014 costs are much worse.  Next year we will probably be forced out of our current plan and group becaue the costs will be too high.  So going along with what everyone loves to post:  I will most likely be losing my current plan and Drs. that we have had for over 20-years.

There is nothing in the laws that forbid someone from owning an iPhone and accepting gov't assistance so I'm not sure what you want me to report.   California use to have a vehicle value check before granting assistance.  The vehicle you owned could not be worth more than $xx (something like $6,000).  They recently dropped that requirement.  And even when they had it, people just worked around it by having the unmarried boyfriend/girlfrend put the car in their name.  Thus, it wasn't reportable even if was even being enforced by the agency, which often it wasn't. 

Gov't assistance doesn't force them to have a budget and doesn't look at what they are spending their $ on.  It should.  Accepting assistance should force you to have to deal with some instrusiveness.  It should be a little uncomfortable.  The Gov't has gone out of their way to make it easier and easier.  Food stamps aren't even Food stamps anymore.  Now they get a debit card. 

Ally - I have also worked two jobs quite often in my life.  I have six kids.  I have never taken Gov't assistance.  So Ally, do you think you need to pay more?  Do you believe you should be taxed more to pay for the healthcare of others?

When my wife and I had our first child, I didn't have a full-time job.  I did a paper route and found other work where ever I could.  She cut coupons and found sales where ever she could.  We did that for about a year until I found a full-time job.  I continued to do the paper route for about 15-years so that we could get a little ahead. 
1
ChrisCDChrisCD70 posts since
Nov 18, 2010
Rep Points: 457
23. Monday, December 9, 2013 - 1:13 PM
I had a route at 8 years old and worked in 2 stores at 15 while going to school. Got married at 18 and had over 30% saved for the downpayment on our house. Sorry you are going through this but with 6 kids and now qualify for a subsidy when there is a subsidy for a family of four making over $94,000 your family must have a very good income. I still use coupons and eat on $15 a week. I just took the turkey carcass out of the freezer making broth for turkey soup. 

My insurance went down $15. (supplemental through my husband's employer). 

I live on SS but don't have to. We already pay for others who don't have insurance because our premiums are higher. If the insurance is over 9% they don't have to buy insurance if they don't qualify for a subsidy. We already subsidize the insurance companies that have Medicare Advantage over $12,000 a year so they can have up to a 20% profit. The 80% of people on Medicare pay $36 a more in premiums to pay for the 20% who have Medicare Advantage. These subsidies are paid for by those making overf $250,000 and by a tax on Medical instruments who rent them instead of selling them. Why should companies and patients pay $7,000 to rent wheelchairs that cost less than a $1000? etc? I paid for something for my husband from a medical supply house that cost $200 and it quit working after 30 days and they would not stand behind it and I bought something that worked better from radio shack for $13. I certainly told the doctor about it and Hospice. They reccomend it also now. Harbor Freight carries it also. 

I want everyone who can to pay for health insurance. We already pay one way or another. 
2
Ally6770Ally6770912 posts since
Jan 16, 2010
Rep Points: 2,655
24. Monday, December 9, 2013 - 1:55 PM
My point isn't to get people to feel sorry for us.  We have done well.  We did (like you Ally) what it took to take care of our family.  And yes, my family (now) does make a very good income so we don't qualify for a subsidy.  Frankly, I don't really want to qualify.  My point is I believe people are doing more than enough already, rich or not. 

It isn't a revenue problem, it is a spending problem on the Gov't side and a spending problem for many of those seeking assistance who probably shouldn't be or shouldn't be seeking as much.

The super rich are free to do more if they like.  The even not so super rich are free to do more if they like.  We are all free to do more if we like.  The Gov't should stop telling us we have to do more.

Those seeking assistance are also free to earn more if they like.  They can take a 2nd or 3rd job to get ahead if they so choose.  Like you and me, Ally, they are free to do a paper route, mow lawns, paint curbs, cut coupons, trim trees, write on the internet, start a rate sharing site and make ad revenue, etc., etc, etc.  Assistance should not be comfortable so that just as I am being compelled to give more they are compelled to work harder.

I see too much of an attitude that people are owed something instead of the attitude of pulling yourself up and out of your current situation.

cd :O)
1
ChrisCDChrisCD70 posts since
Nov 18, 2010
Rep Points: 457
25. Monday, December 9, 2013 - 7:54 PM
Ally is a die-hard partisan, Chris, so arguing with her is a waste of time.
2
loulou544 posts since
Aug 3, 2010
Rep Points: 3,397
26. Monday, December 9, 2013 - 11:01 PM
#25. I was a republican township treasurer for 23 years until 2003  and  could no longer work 2 jobs and care for my husband. 
1
Ally6770Ally6770912 posts since
Jan 16, 2010
Rep Points: 2,655
27. Tuesday, December 10, 2013 - 12:39 AM
"I was a republican"

LOL
1
loulou544 posts since
Aug 3, 2010
Rep Points: 3,397
28. Tuesday, December 10, 2013 - 7:55 AM
Interactive map with age, income, county, insured, how many plans offered in each bracket etc. 

How does your county stack up on health insurance? Consult this interactive map. 

#27 Lou the position was an elected position and I won by double figures in every election. Never spent a penny in advertising but went house to house. I ran for office to fight the militia on the board. Was even threatened with a rifle by a 12 year old. I worked with the secret service, local police and county sheriff's department. I had 4 tires slit, while I was working at my other job and a lot of other things happened and had them prosecuted. I taped meetings, conversations etc. We got rid of them in the township gov. I retired before the next election to care for my husband and it was timed  before the next election so the board could appoint a new treasurer and the incombent would have a better chance of winning again. 
1
Ally6770Ally6770912 posts since
Jan 16, 2010
Rep Points: 2,655
29. Tuesday, December 10, 2013 - 10:41 AM
Ally, I am not particularly enamored with republicans but there is nothing you have said on this website which would even remotely identify you with the grand old party.
2
loulou544 posts since
Aug 3, 2010
Rep Points: 3,397
30. Tuesday, December 10, 2013 - 6:48 PM
When I ran as a republican I came from the party that had Ike and Jerry Ford. Our gov was George Romney, and Milliken. In the 80's everything changed in the party. I did not. I was raised in the worst part of town. I had a way to get out. The ladder seems to have been pulled up now and most people don't have a chance to do better for themselves. Like my husband used to say it isn't who you know but who knows you. 
1
Ally6770Ally6770912 posts since
Jan 16, 2010
Rep Points: 2,655
31. Tuesday, December 10, 2013 - 7:27 PM
Based on what you have said in your many posts, it is highly unlikely Jerry Ford would identify with your politics.
1
loulou544 posts since
Aug 3, 2010
Rep Points: 3,397
32. Wednesday, December 11, 2013 - 8:40 AM
The ladder has not been pulled out, they aren't climbing the rungs.  Too many seem to think they will some how magically be carried up it.  You have to get on the ladder and start climbing.  You may fall off.  You get on again.  That is how success is obtained, by not giving up whether you are Republican or Democrat.  The Gov't can't do it for you.  Matter of fact, most of the time their meddling just makes it worse.
1
ChrisCDChrisCD70 posts since
Nov 18, 2010
Rep Points: 457
33. Thursday, December 12, 2013 - 10:48 AM
#32 Wrong. When I was growing up minimum wage was equilivant to the poverty level for a family of 3. Not so by a long way now. That is why by 18 I was able to save over a 30% downpayment for our first  house. This is how I paid for my own clothes from 7th grade on. 

Example in 1965 minimum wage was $1.25 for a salary of $2600 working full time, while the poverty level for three was $2440. Today minimum wage is $7.40 (iwhere I live) for a full time salary of  $15392, while the poverty level for a family of 3 is $19,090.

The $7.40 is for my state. I understand the federal minimum wage is $7.25, for a full time salary of only $15,080 while the poverty level is $19,090.
2
Ally6770Ally6770912 posts since
Jan 16, 2010
Rep Points: 2,655
Reply