American Dream Movement

[Rusakov]

http://weku.fm/post/former-obama-adviser-brews-different-tea-party

Any thoughts? I feel like this is something worth looking at.

[Thu'um]

eh, jobs are good, but taxing out the upper class will prevent them in building the market with their own money.

["User"]

eh, jobs are good, but taxing out the upper class will prevent them in building the market with their own money.

You know, as much as I lean to the right on most issues in politics. I'm going to have to disagree with this assessment, the rich are just dumping their money into investments for the time being because of the economic uncertainty. This goes with banks and other corporations as well - everyone is too nervous right now to take that chance on hiring or expanding. :/

[Thu'um]

You know, as much as I lean to the right on most issues in politics. I'm going to have to disagree with this assessment, the rich are just dumping their money into investments for the time being because of the economic uncertainty. This goes with banks and other corporations as well - everyone is too nervous right now to take that chance on hiring or expanding.

true, but in the US the upper class are already having the taxes put on their shoulder, it makes it very hard to hire and expand.

["User"]

Compared to other Western countries the upper class in the U.S. pay like...nothing in taxes. In Canada the highest tax bracket is no where remotely close to $250,000...not to mention things in the U.S. are cheaper on average than in Canada.

[Thu'um]

Compared to other Western countries the upper class in the U.S. pay like...nothing in taxes. In Canada the highest tax bracket is no where remotely close to $250,000...not to mention things in the U.S. are cheaper on average than in Canada.

My neigbor only keeps 30% of what he makes, the rest is taken by the gov, and i'm not including the bills or anything.

But another probelm with the west is alot of our industry is gone. we are no longer self sufficent

[Psygonis]

It's not (only) "upper" people (and I think the "actual" upper class, even with taxes "put on their shoulders" is still upper for a good reason...) that need to have their contribution to the country increased, it's the companies that make huge profits from these "dormant" wealths.

Entities, whatever they are, making money over money in a closed loop shall pay to help their countries! Even a small amount of these profits, given the scales would be a huge source of investments into public infrastructures.

["User"]

My neigbor only keeps 30% of what he makes, the rest is taken by the gov, and i'm not including the bills or anything.

But another probelm with the west is alot of our industry is gone. we are no longer self sufficent

How much does your neighbour make?

Also, a big part of the U.S. ecomony for decades and decades has been manufacturing seeing as the country doesn't have THAT many natural resources. When corporations outsource those jobs to other countries it hurts the U.S. This is why I dislike unions because they are a reason why companies put their new jobs overseas. Unions need to understand the concept of globalization and realize that things aren't what they used to be in the 21th century but that's another rant for another time.

[Thu'um]

It's not (only) "upper" people (and I think the "actual" upper class, even with taxes "put on their shoulders" is still upper for a good reason...) that need to have their contribution to the country increased, it's the companies that make huge profits from these "dormant" wealths.

Entities, whatever they are, making money over money in a closed loop shall pay to help their countries! Even a small amount of these profits, given the scales would be a huge source of investments into public infrastructures.

ia gree, but taxing severly isn't good either.

and user he makes 100,000 a mounth

["User"]

ia gree, but taxing severly isn't good either.

and user he makes 100,000 a mounth

And he ONLY pays 30% to the government? Wow....

In Canada if you made, lets just say, $200,000 a year almost HALF of that would go to the government. Proves my point that even rich Americans don't really pay anything in taxes compared to most countries in the world...and when they complain about it that just makes me laugh...

[Psygonis]

The actual unexploited pool of money lies in the universe of banking and trading (which is the one with the most aggressive lobbying power). But well, it's not so soon that any liberal (or mildly socialist) government would do anything about that... :/

[Thu'um]

And he ONLY pays 30% to the government? Wow....

In Canada if you made, lets just say, $200,000 a year almost HALF of that would go to the government. Proves my point that even rich Americans don't really pay anything in taxes compared to most countries in the world...and when they complain about it that just makes me laugh...

no, he only keeps 30%

["User"]

no, he only keeps 30%

Sorry, I misread. He probably has other expenses than that don't involve the government then. Because I know for a fact that the U.S. government doesn't take 70% of what a rich person makes...

[Rusakov]

I'm surprised that the discussion has been about taxation only. There's more to this movement than that.

The "American Dream Movement" has three major policy planks. The group proposes raising taxes on the wealthy to Clinton-era levels, responsibly drawing down of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and investing in public infrastructure to combat unemployment.

[Psygonis]

Well... Drawing down of the wars is not something new, and investing into public infrastructures is a direct potential outcome of the higher taxation, so...

["User"]

Oh for sure there's a lot more to this movement than just tax increases - which the GOP haven't budged on since this whole debt debacle came to prominence.

I'm watching all this play out on CNN right now, some people have preferred that I post most positive news topics in the Pub and I might just do that depending on the outcome in the House of Reps tonight. :P

[Rusakov]

You know, as much as I lean to the right on most issues in politics. I'm going to have to disagree with this assessment, the rich are just dumping their money into investments for the time being because of the economic uncertainty. This goes with banks and other corporations as well - everyone is too nervous right now to take that chance on hiring or expanding.

Not to mention the fact that more and more companies are outsourcing these days. Increased taxes on the rich and then utilization of the revenue for job programs might be the only way out for the time being.

[DZComposer]

I highly doubt this guy pays 60% in income taxes. Also, there are so many tax loopholes these days that if this guy is paying his full tax rate, then he has an incompetent accountant.

Taxes on individual income are lower in the US than they have been since the institution of an income tax, and those times weren't bad at all, especially between WWII and the Reagan presidency. The big disasters have occurred when the top tax rates were low.

Also, the claim that personal income taxes prevent hiring is bogus.

Anyone whose business makes enough money to be in a high bracket would be stupid to not incorporate. Thus, the corporation is a separate entity. Because of this, the company's finances are separate. If the boss takes out $150,000 from the business for his salary, the company pays him $150,000 regardless of what the individual tax rate is. In fact, the higher the top tax rates are, the less attractive it is to take $300,000+ out of a business annually. That money gets left in the business and can be used for other purposes. Since the money is separate, personal tax rates mean nothing to ability to hire.

The claim that taxes prevent investment is also false. History in the US shows this is not the case, as do the current situations in other countries. What it does do is curb what I like to call "casino investing," which is putting money into high-risk financial products, mostly derivatives, that do not provide for anyone other than the investor if they go up. Mortgage backed investments did nothing to prevent the housing crisis that led to the 2008 crash. In fact, they were a cause of it.

We have agreed as a society to pay people on an inherently unfair basis: That some labor is more valuable that other labor. Progressive tax policy is important to make sure that those that are on the low-end can afford the basic needs. It also provides a backstop for hard-times. Some of the greatest entrepreneurs in US history had to seek government help at times.

Next topic I saw: Unions

Everyone loves to beat up on unions. People think that unions make more than they should. There was a time in this country, once again between WWII and the Reagan presidency, where most blue-collar jobs had similar pay and benefits, union or not, and that was because unions were strong. You could raise a family on a union job.

You weren't rich, but you could afford a house, a decent car, and a couple of kids. THIS is what the "American Dream" was. Now, it has been warped into "maybe someday you'll be Bill Gates."

The main expense on union employees is not salary, but rather health benefits. Health insurance costs have been steadily increasing for the past 30 years, and over the last decade they have skyrocketed.

Employers don't want to pay this, and the unions still wanted good health insurance for their workers, not the crap insurance that drops you when you get sick. So, the unions took cuts. But it wasn't enough, and through lobbying and smear campaigns, unions have been severely crippled.

To save money on labor, companies pushed to outsource labor via free trade agreements. The absence of tariffs meant large companies could build overseas and then import. This is not trade. Trade is where you trade one country goods for goods.

The solution is two-fold:

1. Bring back tariffs, especially on goods that could easily be made in the US. This removes the incentive to outsource labor.

2. Single-payer healthcare. This takes the cost of insurance away from employers, and allows unions to fight for better wages rather than better benefits.

The corporate elite won't like either of them, but it is for the good of all.

In the end, the US doesn't have a spending problem. It has a priorities problem. We'd rather spend our money on tax cuts for the rich and unneeded wars than spend it on infrastructure and education.

We have high unemployment, and a hell of a lot of crumbling infrastructure. IE: There is work that needs to be done and people that need work to do. These two problems can be solved with the same solution.

Unemployed get some work rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure, they then have money, which they spend at business, which grow due to increased business and hire more people.

Unemployment is a self-feeding cycle that must be broken by government spending. Sadly, the political climate believes spending is a bad thing in hard times, and even more sadly, we're going to have to learn this lesson the hard way.

[kkstarfox]

I think, as I have always thought, that government spends more time talking than doing. Yes, plans from both parties sound well and in good in theory but in execution stink like a skunk.

What I have read, studied, and observed about America and capitalism over the years has pointed me to one fact: It is American capitalism that makes the World Economy run. If it wasn't for our capitalism, all these socialist states wouldn't function very well. That sounds asinine and prideful, one because yes I am an American and two i have no direct evidence to support my claim. But that is what I believe.

I also believe that the vast majority of America, and people in general would rather receive hand outs from the government then go out and work. If more people worked, more jobs would open. Why? When you have more money, from work, you have more money to spend. Thus, we see its a self sustaining circle. When you take money from the rich, and give it the people who do nothing but sit at home and receive hand outs, you aren't doing anything but throwing money on the fire. hell, even in the Great Depression, when FDR gave people money, he made the work for it. CCC and such had to build roads by hand! COuld you imagine telling unemployed Americans today that they have to earn their unemployment?

Money, is a concept. It is used for trade. IN the old days, before coinage a man would trade a loaf of bread for a pound of hay for his animals. Money is now the trade good. You get paid for adding in the system, adding your sweat, your time, and the work of your hand. All the government has succeeded is keeping the week alive, and encourage the destruction of the system. Lets take from those who do work, LETS TAKE EVEN MORE. Taking money from those who work discourages them from doing so. Giving money to those who don't work, encourages them to do so. DO you see a problem here....? Honestly- Its baffling to me! Its a law of science! You don't get something from nothing! Energy doesn't cease to exist. So why should it apply to human nature?

The American dream, to me, hearing it from my father who would work 16 hours+ a day to put food on the table for him and his, would tell me the American dream is not getting every new gadget on the street. Its not being the kid with the golden watch and the 1000 GB iPod. Its about having enough to feel comfortable so you (or I) can work on those things that really matter. Human happiness. Human happiness is derived, to me, from good times with friends and family. With love. Not money. But yes, its also having sufficient, that if you save up, you can buy that special gift for yourself or some one else. Its that hard work, that sweat, that time you spent, that makes it the gift so much more valuable.

Yes, some of these corporations have a lot of money. They earned it. They no how to keep it. But when you get to many heads, and they all try to take control of the feet, things stumble and crash. That's what happens with these corporations. This is what happens when government gets too involved. All the different heads try to cease control of the feet and the world crash down on there head. There should be a flat tax rate for everyone, 10% of your increase that pay period. That way no one is cheated, that way there is no favorites, that way there is less complications.

A final thought, majority rule is tyranny by the masses. If 6/10 people decide to kill an innocent man, who has been proven innocent, is that right? No. But the masses agreed it is so! Well there are some things, like life and liberty that have there own intrinsic value. And the ability to say what you do with your time and hard earned money, I believe, is one of those.

[Rusakov]

Is there any particular reason why you think people would rather not work?

[Psygonis]

Well, the not working part of it and still getting money can be an appealing factor for some people!

The thing is to find a balance between making financial help an non-viable alternative to work (so people still try hard to get back working) and not letting geniunely "workly-challenged" ones in unacceptable living conditions... :/

[unoservix]

Unemployment benefits are no substitute for employment. It is a particularly pernicious myth that you can live high on the hog just by suckling the government teat and therefore the government teat is an incentive not to work.

Well, you can't. Different states have different rules, but none let you just sit on unemployment forever. Eventually they will kick you off and you'll be on your own.

And either way, unemployment benefits are structured to provide you with enough money to cover basic survival necessities. But we do not aspire to simply survive; we aspire to live, and derive meaning and enjoyment in our lives at least partially through the acquisition of more money than it takes to merely survive. This is why we do anything from buying video games to saving up for our children's college costs. Unemployment benefits do not do that, but society has still taught us all that that is what we must do, so no, there is no incentive to stay on unemployment indefinitely. Especially not with our big honking social stigma against people who are on the dole.

Besides which, when there are more people looking for work than there are jobs for them to do, some people are going to wind up on unemployment anyways. Simple arithmetic.

[Rusakov]

As far as taxation goes, I think that new brackets should be made for incomes above 250K so they can be taxed accordingly.

Also, I found the Facebook page for the American Dream Movement. It leans left so for those of you who don't agree with it might not want to visit it.

http://www.facebook.com/RebuildTheDream

[DZComposer]

I think, as I have always thought, that government spends more time talking than doing. Yes, plans from both parties sound well and in good in theory but in execution stink like a skunk.

What I have read, studied, and observed about America and capitalism over the years has pointed me to one fact: It is American capitalism that makes the World Economy run. If it wasn't for our capitalism, all these socialist states wouldn't function very well. That sounds asinine and prideful, one because yes I am an American and two i have no direct evidence to support my claim. But that is what I believe.

So, you claim that to be a fact, and then reveal that you are not only biased, but you don't have any real evidence to back it up in the same paragraph. That means you are alreadys tarting on a weak foot.

I also believe that the vast majority of America, and people in general would rather receive hand outs from the government then go out and work. If more people worked, more jobs would open. Why? When you have more money, from work, you have more money to spend. Thus, we see its a self sustaining circle. When you take money from the rich, and give it the people who do nothing but sit at home and receive hand outs, you aren't doing anything but throwing money on the fire. hell, even in the Great Depression, when FDR gave people money, he made the work for it. CCC and such had to build roads by hand! COuld you imagine telling unemployed Americans today that they have to earn their unemployment?

Except the problem is that is not what happens. Unemployment payments are too low for someone to live like a king on. In fact, there are many cases where people have to turn down COBRA health insurance after getting laid-off because the COBRA costs more per month than the unemployment assistance.

Also, there is the fact that there are more people looking for jobs than available jobs. Eliminating unemployment benefits in that situation is a recipe for disaster.

I don't disagree that the government should hire people for public works projects, though. I made that point in my last post. But public works projects and unemployment insurance are not mutually exclusive.

Money, is a concept. It is used for trade. IN the old days, before coinage a man would trade a loaf of bread for a pound of hay for his animals. Money is now the trade good. You get paid for adding in the system, adding your sweat, your time, and the work of your hand. All the government has succeeded is keeping the week alive, and encourage the destruction of the system. Lets take from those who do work, LETS TAKE EVEN MORE. Taking money from those who work discourages them from doing so. Giving money to those who don't work, encourages them to do so. DO you see a problem here....? Honestly- Its baffling to me! Its a law of science! You don't get something from nothing! Energy doesn't cease to exist. So why should it apply to human nature?

The problem is that most of the people who are on government assistance DO WORK. The problem is that their jobs do not pay a living wage. But I'm guessing you're against a minimum wage, too.

Also, comparing economics to physics is a faulty analogy. Physics is a science. Economics is not. Economics is a theoretical, opinion-based, field. Physics has practical tests that back up the theories.

I don't like living in a country where not making enough money is a capital offense. (And it is, people die everyday because they cannot afford what would save their lives)

Social Democracy is not about "take take take" but rather about making sure everyone has the basic means of survival. Pure capitalism doesn't care about everyone, only those who have enough money to participate.

The American dream, to me, hearing it from my father who would work 16 hours+ a day to put food on the table for him and his, would tell me the American dream is not getting every new gadget on the street. Its not being the kid with the golden watch and the 1000 GB iPod. Its about having enough to feel comfortable so you (or I) can work on those things that really matter. Human happiness. Human happiness is derived, to me, from good times with friends and family. With love. Not money. But yes, its also having sufficient, that if you save up, you can buy that special gift for yourself or some one else. Its that hard work, that sweat, that time you spent, that makes it the gift so much more valuable.

I don't entirely disagree. The problem is, money is required for the basic needs. When the price of the basic needs goes up, and wages do not, you have a problem.

Everyone deserves a fair chance, and the current system does not provide a fair chance.

Yes, some of these corporations have a lot of money. They earned it. They no how to keep it. But when you get to many heads, and they all try to take control of the feet, things stumble and crash. That's what happens with these corporations. This is what happens when government gets too involved. All the different heads try to cease control of the feet and the world crash down on there head. There should be a flat tax rate for everyone, 10% of your increase that pay period. That way no one is cheated, that way there is no favorites, that way there is less complications.

Ah, the flat tax. While it sounds so fair on paper, when you look at the reality of it, it is not so fair.

If you make $22,000 a year, which is the poverty line. At your 10% tax rate, you pay $2,200 in taxes.

If you make $2.2Million a year, which would classify you as a billionaire, you pay $220,000.

Here is why this is unfair. While the proportions are the same numerically, $2,200 is a lot of money to someone who only makes $22,000 a year. Enough that it probably would affect their ability to buy food or pay rent. To a billionaire, $220,000 is not so much. In fact, our billionaire still takes home about $2million after tax.

Then, there's the Hard Work Fallacy. The Hard Work Fallacy states that if you work hard, you will succeed in America. It's a fallacy because you can find plenty of people who work really really hard who fall close to or below the poverty line of $22,000.

I bring up the Hard Work Fallacy to show that the way wages are paid is inherently unfair. But, we as a society agreed that some labor is worth more than other labor. This is why we have a progressive, marginal, tax system. Only those who can afford to pay income tax, and those who can afford more pay more. It flattens the income curve a bit, and allows the government to provide services to everyone, including the wealthy.

A final thought, majority rule is tyranny by the masses. If 6/10 people decide to kill an innocent man, who has been proven innocent, is that right? No. But the masses agreed it is so! Well there are some things, like life and liberty that have there own intrinsic value. And the ability to say what you do with your time and hard earned money, I believe, is one of those.

You assume there is such thing as objective morality. There is not. When it boils down to it, societies create their own moralities. You only need to look at other cultures to see this.

[Rusakov]

A list was posted on their site recently.

http://contract.rebuildthedream.com/

Thoughts on it?