Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Sunday October 29 2017, @08:01AM   Printer-friendly
from the goose-and-the-golden-egg dept.

Wealth inequality stands at its highest since the turn of the 20th century - the so-called 'Gilded Age' - as the proportion of capital held by the world's 1,542 dollar billionaires swells yet higher. The report, undertaken by Swiss banking giant UBS and UK accounting company PwC, discusses the roles technology and globalization play in the status quo, and appears two weeks after the IMF recommended that the rich should pay more tax to address the enormous disparity.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by davester666 on Sunday October 29 2017, @09:11AM (21 children)

    by davester666 (155) on Sunday October 29 2017, @09:11AM (#588972)

    Trump is fighting hard to pass tax cuts for the middle class.

    Of course, Trump considers himself and his family "middle class", so he's fighting for tax cuts for people who have between $50 million and $5 billion dollars.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday October 29 2017, @10:00AM (20 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 29 2017, @10:00AM (#588981) Journal

    Those tax cuts will get the administration in a deeper budgetary black hole.

    Yeah, I know, I know... he promised he'll plug the tax loopholes, I don't see that he did and I don't think he will do it soon. Anyone knows something to the contrary?

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 29 2017, @11:27AM (19 children)

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Sunday October 29 2017, @11:27AM (#589004) Homepage Journal

      This is true but it amuses me that it's D voters who are suddenly concerned with the deficit. They're damned sure not bothered by it when it comes to social spending.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Sunday October 29 2017, @12:50PM (2 children)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 29 2017, @12:50PM (#589021) Journal

        At least you can see a silver lining the black cloud (but, warning [despair.com], "lightning kill hundreds of people each year who are trying to find it").

        Does it feel good to you to live on the money of you kids/grandkids, with lesser benefits for you?

        that it's D voters who are suddenly concerned with the deficit.

        Given I'm in Australia and there's a big fuss here for a deficit peaking in 2017 at 18% of GDP [wikipedia.org], I find absolutely insane to run a country at a deficit of 106% [wikipedia.org] and with policies which are likely to increase it ("giving a combined total gross national debt of $19.8 trillion or about 106% of the previous 12 months of GDP"). You live on an outlandish alien planet, buddy.

        And you know what? Most of the USians don't even get the level of basic services available in Australia. Your "games" are fundamentally rigged: I recently used health care as an example [soylentnews.org] - USians pay 3 times more on health care than other countries and benefit of a mediocre level of it in comparison with these countries.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 29 2017, @01:13PM (1 child)

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Sunday October 29 2017, @01:13PM (#589027) Homepage Journal

          Oh, I didn't say I'm in favor of deficit spending. I'm not remotely. I just find it amusing that both sides are ready to mortgage the nation's future but only get butthurt when the other side is doing it.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @06:08PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @06:08PM (#589147)

            The two sides advance two halves of the real agenda and disrupt each other's fake agenda. Trying to change the system through politics is like trying to break in a house from the main, reinforced, door. Look how Linux briefly disrupted the system. Being stealthily adopted because it was too convenient to pass up. Somehow we need something similar to help retain control of our own lives, which is all the game is about.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @03:18PM (8 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @03:18PM (#589052)

        You're an idiot. It's always been the Democratic voters that were concerned about the deficit. Who precisely do you think voted for the idiots that blew up the national debt? Here's a hint, the idiots that blew up the debt all had Rs attached to their names.

        The GOP has been using dynamic scoring for decades as an excuse for irresponsible tax and spending policies that were designed to reduce the amount of taxes paid by corporations and the wealthiest. The increased tax receipts never materialize and there's no effort made to bring the revenue in line with spending. We're currently around $20 tn in debt because the GOP hasn't figured out how to run a balanced budget.

        At least the kinds of spending that the Democrats support would cause the economy to grow, unfortunately, it's largely on things like infrastructure and education which would make it harder for the GOP to keep lying to the voters.

        • (Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 29 2017, @04:06PM (7 children)

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Sunday October 29 2017, @04:06PM (#589070) Homepage Journal

          You either haven't been paying attention or are refusing to believe the truth despite overwhelming evidence. Obamacare was the biggest corporate boondoggle in American history (and the biggest bit of deficit spending) and sucking the life blood from the middle class and giving it to the poor destroys the economy rather than helping it.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Sunday October 29 2017, @04:34PM (3 children)

            by fyngyrz (6567) on Sunday October 29 2017, @04:34PM (#589088) Journal

            [Obamacare (etc.):] sucking the life blood from the middle class and giving it to the poor destroys the economy rather than helping it.

            No. The poor don't keep any significant amount of the the money that goes to medical care – or for anything else, either. Think.

            That money goes directly into the pockets of the insurance companies, to the medical care establishment, and in the case of non-medically related social spending, it goes to grocers, landlords, etc. as well as some of it eventually getting collected at various levels, again, as taxes. Not to the poor. It merely goes through the poor's hands. Quickly. Very quickly. Sometimes, as with insurance, it never even sees their hands.

            Almost all of the actual money that social spending consists of lands primarily in the hands of the middle and upper class. In so doing, it significantly drives large sectors of the economy.

            There's no question that all of this sort of thing is straight-up redistribution, and you can certainly construct a fact-based gripe out of that, but the idea that social spending is "given to the poor" represents an extremely poor understanding of what is actually going on.

            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 29 2017, @05:06PM (2 children)

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Sunday October 29 2017, @05:06PM (#589114) Homepage Journal

              That money goes directly into the pockets of the insurance companies, to the medical care establishment...

              That's what I meant by corporate boondoggle, yes. Good to see you understood.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 30 2017, @04:27PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 30 2017, @04:27PM (#589506)

                One guess as to which group required changes to the ACA which turned it into the current shitshow. Obviously it didn't go far enough into the shit spectrum and thus why we have the worst proposals trying to be forced through now. Sadly for the evil stains on humanity the regular people have a limit to how much wool can be pulled over their eyes.

              • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Monday October 30 2017, @05:02PM

                by fyngyrz (6567) on Monday October 30 2017, @05:02PM (#589532) Journal

                That's what I meant by corporate boondoggle, yes. Good to see you understood.

                Boondoggle. Well. That's an interesting epithet to throw at funding medical facilities and services. I see military adventurism that way (not capacity, just the absurd uses to which it's often put), but not medical services, or most social services in general, unless they proactively interfere with an individual's personal liberties – offering assistance is almost always fine, using force is usually not.

                When less money goes into the pockets of the medical establishment, its economy slows down, and such a consequence is a Very Bad Thing. And the subsidies provided by the ACA represent a significant portion of that income now, income that has been used to expand and bolster medical facilities and services. You understand both these issues, right?

                Just a couple posts upthread, you were indicating a perception that this movement of money "destroys the economy rather than helping it." The fact is, you had it backwards: It helps the economy at large – the medical sector of the economy is a very significant one. This costs money. The money is redistributed from the taxpayer into the medical establishment, while benefiting those who need healthcare. This certainly produces pain in the pocketbook of taxpayers, but that's not even close to the same as "destroys" the economy."

                Someday, when you need the medical establishment, you may come to appreciate how robust it is. Or perhaps instead you may regret how robust it isn't if the current crop of anti-social services naysayers have their way long-term. Or – heaven forfend – you find yourself in the lower ranks of income earners and you need health care, and your favorite politicians have decided you don't "deserve" it.

          • (Score: 2, Interesting) by redneckmother on Sunday October 29 2017, @04:38PM (1 child)

            by redneckmother (3597) on Sunday October 29 2017, @04:38PM (#589092)

            While I agree that "Obamacare" is / was a boondoggle, many of its failings are due to all the amendments that had to be negotiated in order to get the legislation to the President's desk. The involvement of commercial insurance corporations is, in my view, the biggest problem. The money was sucked from the 99% and given to the 1% (not the poor). Massive waste of funds - it could have been much less expensive with much better coverage and less red tape.

            Trickle-down economics leaves the 99% yellow and wet.

            Yeah, I'm over-simplifying, but really don't want to waste time discussing it any more.

            --
            Mas cerveza por favor.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 30 2017, @01:07AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 30 2017, @01:07AM (#589275)

              I wish there was more of this in the (meta)thread.

              The discussion at the other site was, surprisingly, better that what appears here.
              I liked the way werepants started. [slashdot.org]

              kilfarsnar [slashdot.org] was really good as well.

              -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @05:27PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @05:27PM (#589131)

            Worse than that, since Obama made health insurance mandatory, the poor can't afford to pay the deductible to even use that insurance. So they essentially still have no insurance but they have to pay for it anyway.

      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday October 29 2017, @04:03PM (6 children)

        by sjames (2882) on Sunday October 29 2017, @04:03PM (#589069) Journal

        What's funny is the Rs keep cutting taxes at the top but not cutting spending, then they wonder where this deficit came from. nda like the way they started out talking big about replacing Obamacare with something better the instant they had control. Now they're just trying to kill Obamacare and replace it with nothing. It's a plan so bad they can't even get all of the Rs on board.

        Democrats = tax and spend. Republicans = don't tax but keep spending.

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 29 2017, @04:12PM (5 children)

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Sunday October 29 2017, @04:12PM (#589072) Homepage Journal

          You're wrong on the Republican plans for Obamacare (do a bit of research) but that's not especially important since I doubt they'll get their shit together long enough to pass anything at all. The important thing is you at least see that Democrats are "Tax and Spend More" while the Republicans are "Tax Less and Spend the Same". Both fuck us just as hard as a nation.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday October 29 2017, @05:02PM (4 children)

            by sjames (2882) on Sunday October 29 2017, @05:02PM (#589107) Journal

            If I'm wrong, where is this amazing Republican solution? The deadline for this year came and went and they haven't managed to do a damned thing but make some noise. The best evidence suggests that the grand plan is to do nothing until they lose their majority (because of doing nothing), then retroactively blame the Democrats.

            For all of his many faults, the only time in the last 40 years or more we had an actual balanced budget was under the Clinton administration.

            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 29 2017, @05:11PM (3 children)

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Sunday October 29 2017, @05:11PM (#589118) Homepage Journal

              There isn't one everyone agrees upon but there are several that different factions are pushing. Note I did not say that they had their shit together. I'm pretty sure I said the opposite.

              You're right on the budget but Bill can't really take credit for that. That was the insane growth of the 90s that would have happened with or without him filling the coffers faster than congress could empty them. I'll grant you that he did fuck things up economically less than most though.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @06:53PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @06:53PM (#589166)

                It doesn't exist, the one they had was a $600bn set of tax cuts to the wealthy at the expense of the debt and the people's medical care.

                They've had years to develop a plan for what they'd replace Obamacare with and they haven't been able to come up with anything at all. They could have come up with something in those years that might have been able to satisfy enough people to get the votes, but the fact of the matter is that they didn't even start working on it until after Trump was elected. They did the drafting in secret and the ultimate result was that they didn't have the votes to pass it because they were so focused on fucking the poorest Americans over in order to give a massive tax break to the wealthiest.

              • (Score: 3, Interesting) by sjames on Sunday October 29 2017, @07:09PM (1 child)

                by sjames (2882) on Sunday October 29 2017, @07:09PM (#589169) Journal

                You have to admit though that the last big push on healthcare was just a rollback and all of them are just variations on Obamacare lite.

                As far as government involvement goes, the biggest single anti-market rule is the ban on Medicare negotiating drug prices. That's not something the Ds cooked up. It's not just that the Rs don't have their shit together, they just don't have any ideas to solve the problem (I wish they did). That or they don't have the will to solve the problem.

                • (Score: 2) by GlennC on Sunday October 29 2017, @07:54PM

                  by GlennC (3656) on Sunday October 29 2017, @07:54PM (#589185)

                  There is another option you may have missed.

                  They may not see it as a problem at all...after all, it doesn't affect them or their friends.

                  --
                  Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.