Comments about ‘Gap widens between U.S. rich, poor as top 1 percent controls 25 percent of wealth’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Sept. 27 2011 9:36 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
DeltaFoxtrot
West Valley, UT

The rich's victory over the middle class is nearly complete, soon there will be none of us left.

Unless things change in a major way global class warfare is coming, and it isn't going to be pretty.

Fred44
Salt Lake City, Utah

After reading this article I can certainly see why the lower income folks need to pay more in taxes and the upper income folks need a tax break. I think we could conclude that the constant cutting of taxes for the wealthy, has not created a trickle down economy (shocking I know) but has created a trickle up economy. I am sure I am missing something or the article or the writer is a biased left wing liberal.

GuitarGuy
Layton, UT

This is what TeaPublicans want for America. An aristocratic class and a serf class. "Cut all federal welfare spending - that money could be used to subsidize mega corporations" they say. You're getting exactly what you wanted. Happy?

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

Now Thats Rich - By PAUL KRUGMAN - NY Times - 08/22/10

'Whats at stake here? According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, as opposed to following the Obama proposal, would cost the federal government $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years.'

Which is still better than:

"According to the Pew Economic Policy Group, an extension of all of the Bush tax cuts will cost $3.1 trillion over ten years, once the costs of servicing the debt are factored in."

The Bush tax cuts have been in effect since 2001.

Where, are the jobs?

Mukkake
Salt Lake City, UT

But we should tax all equally right? "Why Not Help All", right? And "progressives" are trying to instigate class warfare?

Face it, not everybody has equal opportunity, and its in the best interest of those on top to keep the rest on bottom.

The rich don't create jobs, they make money. Sometimes making money makes jobs, sometimes it cuts jobs and builds robots, outsources overseas, or just pays a non living wage because people should just feel fortunate to get whatever job they can take?

"Work two or three jobs", because you first job hires you as a contractor so they don't have to provide benefits, and the other two are part-time so they don't have to provide benefits. Most employers will just higher more part-time works so that they don't have to provide benefits. And the loophole stays open.

But we should thank them for all the opportunities they provide.

"Please sir, I want some more."

"More? MORE?!"

The audacity of the lower classes, they have such entitlement.

And people wonder why the French and Russian revolutions occurred...

FDRfan
safety dictates, ID

Kevin A. Hassett, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, told CBS news it is "immoral" and "unethical" for Democrats to push a "spread the wealth philosophy." "When you put a high top rate in it will cause economic damage, and that income damage will tend to impact people on the bottom end of the income distribution because they're the most vulnerable,"
The gap is widening. Only 25 years ago, the top 1 percent of the nation controlled 12 percent of the nation's wealth. Today, they control close to 25%

So according to Hassetts reasoning the people on the bottom should be better off today than 25 years ago. And the Republicans cannot understand why some people dont buy their logic.

Furry1993
Clearfield, UT

I'm waiting to hear the far right wingers and the tea party enthusiasts complain about THIS class warfare. Oh -- wait -- this class warfare benefits the "haves and have mores". Never mind; no complaints will be forthcoming. This benefits the "big guys", and not the "little guys."

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

The richest 10% of Americans pay nearly 70% of all income tax.

That would be OK

IF

the richest 10% used 70% of government resources.

But they dont.

For those who think the rich should be paying even more:

When is the next time you're going shopping?

Why do I ask?

I'm going to come with you.

And if you make more money than me I'm going to tell the cashier to total your

purchases and mine and then to make you pay for most of my groceries even if

you only bought a few things.

Why?

Because you make more, so you should pay for what I'm buying.

Also,

When is the next time you're going to buy a car?

Why?

I'm going to come.

And I'm going to buy a car too and tell the salesman that even if you buy a

civic and I buy an SUV you are going to pay for your civic and most of my SUV.

Why?

You make more money than me so you should pay for what I buy.

Makes sense

muncle37
SAINT GEORGE, UT

As an Income Tax Specialist, I can tell you that the propaganda concerning taxation is at its peak! Capital Gains taxation is a double tax that is hidden. We need Tax Incentives to bring Industries back to America. Instead the crippling taxes are forcing businesses to South America and India in droves.
Don't believe everything you read, this article had a nice twist that is very deceptive.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

I see nothing in the article nor any of the comments that say how taxing the rich more will help the handy-man raise himself out of the working poor and into the middle class.

So furry, here it is - all the article does is point out a disparity in wealth, a disparity that apparently is growing. What solution is offered? NONE other than "TAX THE RICH!!" But what does that do to improve the lot of the working poor?

Without articulating HOW taxing the rich (who are really the only ones being taxed on a federal level now anyway) will improve the lot of the poor or end the income and wealth disparity, the article is nothing but class-bating and class warfare.

Pagan,
you know where the jobs are, BO chased them offshore with the EPA, Obamacare, and the NLRB. I've told you the numbers many times already, how the number of jobs INCREASED by 8.8 million from 1/01 to 11/07 - none as blind as he who will not see.

Andy
Cottonwood Heights, UT

I recall an economics professor telling me one cause of the great depression was too much money was concentrated in too few hands. And those who had money could not spend it fast enough to sustain economic growth.

A second point: I think there are two different fights going on. One is the improper distribution of wealth, the other is the government's role in redistributing that wealth.

I am very conservative, but it still seems to me the wealth is getting too concentrated in too few hands. Should it be the government's role to redistribute it? Generally I would say no. But I am for a balanced budget and do not oppose new taxes on those who can afford it to bring the budget into balance. I think those taxes should be balanced with spending cuts.

One point that won't leave my mind is a large contributing factor to the wealth distribution came with the bail-outs. The risk-takers should have lost money in the market correction, but the didn't because the US Government wrote a check to cover the losses. That was the problem. Investors want to privatize gains and socialize losses, which is not fair.

xscribe
Colorado Springs, CO

@Chris B: What it really comes down to is whether or not you can afford to pay more in taxes, or whether you feel you need to keep all that extra money. In other words, if you are in the "rich" tax bracket that Obama wants to tax more, are you of the mentality of "I want to help those out who need it more than I because I can afford to pay more"? Or are you of the mentality of, "I need that extra money because I really don't have enough" (money)?

Some of us feel that we can afford to pay more in taxes to help out those who do not have it as well as we do. Bleeding heart liberal? Maybe so. But better than the alternative, in my opinion!

OHBU
Columbus, OH

Chris B,

Your logic is failed because you only think on the small, individual property level. A nation's wealth and resources belong to its people. How those resources are divided up is dependent on a social contract (the by-product of which is government). Starting from a small level, say 7 people work a farm together. They all work equal so they should receive equal, yes? The wealthy are not putting in more hours of work than the poor for the general welfare of our nation's wealth. While there are rich people putting in 80 hr workweeks, there are poor doing the same, and vice versa for lesser workweeks. Our current social contract essentially gives 80% of the food to one worker while letting the other six split the other 20%. Does that sound equitable? There are two ways of remedying the situation: rewrite the social contract (no inheritance [their children didn't work for the nation's prosperity, why should they benefit], land ownership, etc), or we can have those who benefit the most from the social contract (not government programs...the mistake of your logic) pay the most back.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

The richest 10% of Americans pay nearly 70% of all income tax.

That would be OK

IF

the richest 10% used 70% of government resources.

But they dont.' - Chris B | 10:11 a.m. Sept. 27, 2011

Short memory, Chris.

*'Bailout is law' - By Jeanne Sahadi - CNN Money - 10/04/08

'...historic plan to bail out the nation's financial system was signed into law by President Bush on Friday afternoon.'

*'Bush signs $17.4 billion auto industry bailout package' - By Nelson Ireson - Motor Authority - 12/19/08

*Bush signs $700 billion bailout bill AP Published by Denver Post By Tom Raum 10/03/08

WASHINGTON President Bush quickly signed into law a far-reaching $700 billion bill to bail out the nation's tottering financial industry...'

Continue to try and tell us of the plight of the 'poor little millionare' while America starves.

'Obama: Wall Street 'Arrogance and Greed' Won't Be Tolerated' - By JOHN HENDREN - 01/31/09

'President Obama, usually cool, was visibly angry in his weekly address, chastising corporate bankers for the second time this week for accepting taxpayer bailout money and then doling out $18 billion in bonuses.'

Mike in Sandy
Sandy, UT

I'm not rich enough or stupid enough to vote republican.
Neither are you.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

And the Tea Party / Republicans protect them.

I'm about 100% certain, Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck are part of the 1%...no wonder they tell their lemmings that the Re-Distribution of wealth is wrong.

If the Rich [let them eat cake] were better policing themselves about paying their workers more, creating jobs, and providing Healthcare...the Government would not feel a need to tax them more.

The Re-Distribution of Wealth is not happening in the public sector, time for the Government to step in and protect the PEOPLE of the United States.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

'Pagan,
you know where the jobs are, BO chased them offshore with the EPA...' - lost in DC | 10:22 a.m. Sept. 27, 2011

Is that why we lost over 1 million jobs on Bush's last year Lost?

Under George Bush:
In February,2008 63,000 jobs were lost, a five-year record.
In November 2008, over 500,000 jobs were lost, which marked the largest loss of jobs in the United States in 34 year

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that in the last four months of 2008, 1.9 million jobs were lost.

I enjoy people who 'blame Obama'...

for things that happened BEFORE he became president.

I'll keep asking. If the tax cuts were supposed to CREATE jobs, Republican party....

where, are the jobs?

Because nothing terrfies the Republican party more.

Than it's own track record.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

Re:mincle37
How is the capital gains tax double taxation when you only pay tax on the GAIN? Ronald Reagan believed capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income.

Businesses are going to So America, China and India due to WAGE RATES. They are also going there to take advantage of new markets.

At President Obama's town hall in Mountain View Doug Edwards, former Consumer Marketing Head for Google, now retired millionaire, stood and asked the President to raise his taxes to preserve Pell Grants, education funding and disaster relief, among other things.

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Pagan | 9:55 a.m. Sept. 27, 2011

The rich have it and the poor want it. Only problem is that the poor aren't willing to put forth the same effort that the rich did who earned it.

Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. -- Ronald Reagan

The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other. -- Ronald Reagan

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Pagan,
three of your cut and pastes are on the same thing - nice try spinning one thing into three. Almost as effective as making things up. You also - again - ignored the fact that BO lobbied and voted for ALL those things, so he is as guilty as bush.

and where do you think we'd be today if the financial system had not been bailed out?

BO's "anger" was all a show - he's been to wall street a few times at $35,000 per head fundraisers. Yep, some of that bailout money from those bonuses is right now in BO's campaign fund. But I guess since it's BO that you're ok with that kind of graft.

LDS Lib
what right have you to someone else's wealth? What gives you the right to go to someone who has taken significant risks and by hard work and maybe a little good fortune has more than you and say, "since you have more than me, I am entitled to be compensated - gimme gimme gimme"? What gives you that right? Where is re-distribution of income a right? Where has it ever been anything but dissincentive to work and fertile ground for graft?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments