What a great video.
What a great video.
Oh yes the Tea Party has a problem with the elite ruling class?
As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%.
the rate of increase is even higher for the very richest of the rich: the top 400 income earners in the United States. According to an analysis by David Cay Johnston -- recently retired from reporting on tax issues at the New York Times -- the average income of the top 400 tripled during the Clinton Administration and doubled during the first seven years of the Bush Administration. So by 2007, the top 400 averaged $344.8 million per person, up 31% from an average of $263.3 million just one year earlier (Johnston, 2010). (For another recent revealing study by Johnston, check out "Is Our Tax System Helping Us Create Wealth?").
How are these huge gains possible for the top 400? It's due to cuts in the tax rates on capital gains and dividends, which were down to a mere 15% in 2007 thanks to the tax cuts proposed by the Bush Administration and passed by Congress in 2003. Since almost 75% of the income for the top 400 comes from capital gains and dividends, it's not hard to see why tax cuts on income sources available to only a tiny percent of Americans mattered greatly for the high-earning few.
STart at 4 Minutes 33 Seconds.
Christine ODonnell's plan to put a 2-year freeze on Capital Gains taxes which almost exclusively affect the wealthy.
Yeah! Way to go Tea Party! Take that right to the elite ruling class and shove it up their ass! shove what? more monmey of course!
EXHIBIT C: Look who pays the bills.
It's easy to pay most of the bills when you own nearly all of the wealth. In fact, that's expected.
We call those types parasites.
Socialism, and Communism, solidifies existing classes. It's true that we have a "wealth" problem in the USA, but this is BECAUSE of socialism. This used to be the course of things:
- Man invents something, or is an entrepreneur, and strikes it rich (goes from dirt poor to extremely wealthy)
- Children grow/shrink wealth moderately, but otherwise the wealth remains stable.
- Grandchildren squander it, and go broke. Go to step 1) as someone else fills the vacuum with their great invention, or service.
Problem now is that government regulations prevent step 3 from happening. Too. Big. To. Fail. Not to mention government "incentives," and "picking winners" who are, oddly, already from the wealthy that W.W.W rails against.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|