My statement is made under the pretense that the "working class" do not share the same growth ratio as the capitalist stake holders, nor should they. There can be no doubt that the income or bottomline has risen compared to the past. But also must note that several decades ago, a family typically only required a single working person to sustain a reasonable living, now that women are expecting equality and also working, society now prices the cost of living accordingly to dual income families. So in effect, single working people without above average incomes are put in a harder position through the fault of no one. I have zero problems with the "rich", when I say rich I mean minimum net worth of 10million. paying less taxes on a percentage basis, my problem is with the government charging so much on everyone else. the government needs less money. A lot of people saying government should not be run like corporations, I disagree with it. If a government is run like a proper corporation it would be better for all, when a corporation expects to profit, they are expected to invest and take on risk. the government takes on virtually no risk and only demands profit. If they are run properly, all basic fundamental needs of citizens should be free, healthcare, education(all levels, not including proprietary information), basic infrastructure(energy,water/sewage,roads/rails), basic banking(basic saving/lending, nothing related to commercial risk). Their role should be the absolute development and maintanence of the capital infrastructure, where commercial risk/intellectual based businesses can thrive.
Are you sure about the last bit ? Issue seems more like the government beeing allowed to go on showing deepening losses, whereas if run like a corporations it would need to swing back to profit to perdure- I'm not convinced that would translate into free education and healthcare to all, nor do I wish for it actually.
Forcing a government to take on fiscal responsibility, will cause immediate suffering. that part cannot be avoided. but all goals of a nation are progressive, you cannot achieve it instantly, you need to build the system one step at a time to accomondate the goals. when I said free education and health care for all, I meant for citizens, not illegals. they are neccessary to maintain a bottom line for people, it is an inevitability that industries adapt to the future and some people will be left behind, without the infrastructure to support those people during times of transition will only strain the system for longer periods of time.
If you fail, you start to make excuses. If you live your life around your excuses, no government structure in terms of wealth redistribution will satisfy you. Those are my own words, copyright pending.
You're going to have to define "proper corporation". Enron was a "proper corporation". Worldcom was a "proper corporation". AIG was a "proper corporation". HP, a "proper corporation", just sent tens of billions up in smoke by unmaking "strategic" acquisitions. I fail to see how having a gov't run like "proper corporations" such as those would be a benefit to anyone. It is an absolute myth that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector. Small companies, like small gov'ts, can be efficient. Large companies, like large gov'ts, are rife with waste and till-dipping for personal gain.
Dude, honestly, take your 30 minutes and retract that statement stat - it will be just our little secret. The facts will truly embarass you.
There is nothing to retract. Large organizations are inherently wasteful, whether they be private or public. Wherever money accumulates, the human nature Greed Toll will be paid.
LOL. the wealth transfer is only from the poor to the rich. The better question is, why should the growing wealth transfer from the poor to the rich continue?
And yet what has happened to government spending? What has happened to regulations? Both have gone through the roof over the time period you are taking. What does that say? As government becomes bigger, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the middle class disappears. This is the only objective conclusion you can come to. And it makes sense. The rich use regulations in order to protect themsevles from competition. They make sure that small companies do not come into existence, because they have to spend millions on regulations. They make sure that they get the licenses to operate the business. And guess who gets all the fat contracts that come from government spending? It's not you and me. It's the guys who pal around with the government elite. IE the rich. If you want the income gap to SHRINK then you must shrink the size and power of the government, you must REDUCE regulations you must reduce government spending.
Did you even look at the graph? Even middle class is down 10% in buying power over 40 years. Wait I forgot. If you're able to buy a refrigerator you are not 'poor'. LMAO.