Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The rich already caused on Great Depression. They will cause another simply be getting too damn rich. The die-hard conservatives will swear it's not true. But then again, they didn't predict this crisis on the air in the fall of '05'. I did.

Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 18, 2011, 11:20 a.m. EST by ModestCapitalist (2342)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I know that last comment in the title seems arrogant. That's not how I intended it. There are some great free thinkers on this site. Die-hard conservatives are not free thinkers. They are partisan puppets with absolute tunnel vision. When they are finished reading this, they will STILL swear that the rich aren't to blame. They will STILL swear that we need to lower their taxes. They will STILL swear that OWS is dead wrong on every issue.

DIE-HARD CONSERVATIVE PARTISAN PUPPETS.

And now for the ugly truth. America's wealth is STILL being concentrated. When the rich get too rich, the poor get poorer. These latest figures prove it. AGAIN.

According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 98 percent of Americans, saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively.

The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion. In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009.

Overall, the economy has shed 5.2 million jobs since the start of the Great Recession in 2007. It’s the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930’s.

Another word about the first Great Depression. It really was a perfect storm. Caused almost entirely by greed. First, there was unprecedented economic growth. There was a massive building spree. There was a growing sense of optimism and materialism. There was a growing obsession for celebrities. The American people became spoiled, foolish, naive, brainwashed, and love-sick. They were bombarded with ads for one product or service after another. Encouraged to spend all of their money as if it were going out of style. Obscene profits were hoarded at the top. In 1928, the rich were already way ahead. Still, they were given huge tax breaks. All of this represented a MASSIVE transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Executives, entrepreneurs, developers, celebrities, and share holders. By 1929, America's wealthiest 1 percent had accumulated 44 percent of all United States wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes were left to share the rest. When the lower majority finally ran low on money to spend, profits declined and the stock market crashed.

 Of course, the rich threw a fit and started cutting jobs. They would stop at nothing to maintain their disgusting profit margins and ill-gotten obscene levels of wealth as long as possible. The small business owners did what they felt necessary to survive. They cut more jobs. The losses were felt primarily by the little guy. This created a domino effect. The middle class shrunk drastically and the lower class expanded. With less wealth in reserve and active circulation, banks failed by the hundreds. More jobs were cut. Unemployment reached 25% in 1933. The worst year of the Great Depression. Those who were employed had to settle for much lower wages. Millions went cold and hungry. The recovery involved a massive infusion of new currency, a public works program, a World War, and higher taxes on the rich. With so many men in the service, so many women on the production line, and those higher taxes to help pay for it, some US wealth was gradually transferred back down to the majority. This redistribution of wealth continued until the mid seventies. By 1976, the richest 1 percent held  less than 20 percent. The lower majority held the rest. And rightfully so. It was the best year ever for the middle and lower classes. This was the recovery. A partial redistribution of wealth.

  Then it began to concentrate all over again. Here we are 35 years later. The richest one percent now own 40 percent of all US wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes are sharing the rest. This is true even after taxes, welfare, financial aid, and charity. It is the underlying cause. If there is no redistribution, there will be no recovery. 

Note: A knowledgable and trustworthy contributor has gone on record with a claim that effective tax rates for the rich were considerably lower than book rates during the years of redistribution that I have made reference to. His point was that the rich were able to avoid those very high marginal rates of 70-90% under the condition that they invested specifically in American jobs. His claim is that effective rates for the rich probably never exceeded 39% and certainly never exceeded 45%. My belief is that if true, those effective rates for the rich were still considerably higher than previous lows of '29'. Also that such policies still would have contributed to a partial redistribution by forcing the rich to either share profits and potential income through mass job creation or share income through very high marginal tax rates. This knowledgable contributor and I agree that there was in effect, a redistribution but disagree on the use of the word.

     One thing is clear from recent events. The government won't step in and do what's necessary. Not this time. Book rates for the rich remain at all time lows. Their corporate golden geese are heavily subsidized. The benefits of corporate welfare are paid almost exclusively to the rich. Our Federal, State, and local leaders are sold out. Most of whom, are rich and trying to get even richer at our expense. They won't do anything about the obscene concentration of wealth. It's up to us. Support small business more and big business less. Support the little guy more and the big guy less. It's tricky but not impossible.

For the good of society, stop giving so much of your money to rich people. Stop concentrating the wealth. This may be our last chance to prevent the worst economic depression in world history. No redistribution. No recovery.

Those of you who agree on these major issues are welcome to summarize this post, copy it, use any portion, link to it, save it, show a friend, or spread the word in any fashion. Most major cities have daily call-in talk radio shows. You can reach thousands of people at once. They should know the ugly truth. Be sure to quote the figures which prove that America's wealth is still being concentrated. I don't care who takes the credit. We are up against a tiny but very powerful minority who have more influence on the masses than any other group in history. They have the means to reach millions at once with outrageous political and commercial propaganda. Those of us who speak the ugly truth must work incredibly hard just to be heard.

22 Comments

22 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by randart (498) 12 years ago

It is only common sense that if there is a healthy middle class of people then all people do better. For some reason the wealthy can't understand this simple fact. Greed gets in the way and they rationalize that it isn't them who are doing it it is the other guys.

Humans have a unique talent for repeating the same mistakes repeatedly. There will be another great depression very soon and it will be very bad. Why the wealthy don't understand this eventuality is beyond my comprehension.

That old bumper sticker that says "He who dies with the most toys wins" is the philosophy of the wealthy. Unfortunately it will be an attitude that will cause extreme strife in the entire world.

It might be time to think that this will happen and that our time has run out. I wish with all my heart that this will not be the end result but humans have proven that they will ALWAYS repeat their mistakes. Maybe we can set the groundwork for those who will survive the coming of the depression so that they can make provisions that it never happens again.

[-] 2 points by FalseFlag (121) 12 years ago

Consumable wealth for living expenditures must be limited. The richest person can consume only 20 times the poorest. Wealth which is spend for consumption should be redistributed. Bill Gates, Obama can only consume 20X when a janitor consumes 2X, safety net is 1X which is enough for shelter, food, health, education. If you want more than that, want a car, and travelling, you should be working to earn more than 1X, anybody who can work should get at least 2X which can lead to home ownership if spend wisely. Safety net, 1X, should allow people to grow intellectually so they can still give back to society however they like. Everybody owes to society all the time. Personal consumption can not go over 20X, because if you build a mansion, you rule, and we are no longer equal politically. Your wealth and economic power will give you connections and political power. Society invests in social, economic, politic infrastructure, create more social and humane contract for society. Bill Gates can spend 20X a year, and can have as much investment money as possible. Nobody can have a chunk of this world, the world is holly and precious. The most productive, talented and hard worker can earn 20X max, when a burger guy earns 2X, and unfortunate can have safety net of X. People do science and contribute to society based on love for humanity, justice, truth, knowledge. The system is same because Bill Gates can have unlimited resources but can only consume 20X, so his home is maximum 20 times larger than a burger guy's home. We owe our lives to every living creature who existed, suffered through time through existence, we owe ourselves to other human being who creates the gene pool, the society and the possibility of existence of us. We owe our lives to all other people around the world. We can not become kings and queens through corrupt organizations such as states. States are for to level the field, to bring justice and equality. State can not become center of power. It will be corrupted. One simple legislation can bring you this new world which will transform your lives and the world. Economic system will be more productive. What do you say?

[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

I agree with all of your concepts except for one. I don't believe any man or woman can 'earn', is worth, or should be allowed by society to hold a personal fortune anywhere near the size of Gates'. Regardless of how they spend it.

The richest one percent own 43% of all financial wealth in America. That's way too much.

[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

Don't believe this outrageous crap about the rich paying 37% of the taxes in America and the poor paying none. It's a trick. A spin on statistics to make it seem as if the rich are overtaxed. They aren't. But they damn well should be. We're in this mess because of them.

Be careful when you hear or read anything regarding the PERCENTAGE of OVERALL FEDERAL INCOME taxes paid by any particular group, it's a terribly misleading statistic. The rich pay a larger PERCENTAGE of OVERALL FEDERAL INCOME taxes now than 10 years ago because they have a larger PERCENTAGE of OVERALL INCOME in America now than 10 years ago. That statistic regarding 37% of Federal Income Taxes is one of the most misleading in the history of propaganda.

When you account for all FEDERAL, STATE, and LOCAL taxes and fees, the middle class actually pay about the same rate (as a percentage of income) as the rich. The difference is within 5 percent. It shouldn't be that way. The rich should pay a MUCH higher rate simply because they are horribly over-paid. We aren't. They own 43% of all financial wealth in America. We share the rest. But it gets even more disgusting. The devil is in the details.

Corporate profits have been partially subsidized with federal, state, and local revenue. This benefit has been hoarded at the top. Business managers make up the largest group of one percent club pigs. Plus 1/2 of the market is owned by the top 1%. Their record territory dividends have been partially subsidized by federal, state, and local revenue. The benefits have not been shared proportionally with the little guy. The lopsided division of growth across quintiles proves it. 

The highest percentile has grown more than 10 times faster than the middle percentile over the last 30 years. This is true EVEN AFTER taxes. When you account for inflation and the actual cost of living (tied to record high profits in energy, finance, and healthcare), the middle class have actually lost relative buying power while the top 1% have drastically increased their income and bottom line wealth. 

In 1976 (when their taxes were much higher), the top one percent reaped 9 percent of all private income and held less than 20 percent of all private wealth in America. Now, they reap 21 percent of all private income and hold 40 percent of all private wealth. Meanwhile, the lower majority (those who are still employed) are working more hours and have less to show for it.

Just to make it crystal clear: The rich do not pay 37% of all taxes. They never have. They pay roughly 37% of all FEDERAL INCOME TAXES which account for less than 1/2 of total government revenue. The rest is drawn from a number of sources and across income levels. The rich harp on this 'Federal Income Tax' statistic because it leads people to believe that they pay 37% of ALL taxes. They don't. Their share as a group represents just over their share of income. The difference is within 5 percent. In fact, the 2nd percentile actually pays a slightly higher rate on average than the top percentile. 

If the rich want to pay a lower share of the taxes in America, then they should get themselves a lower share of the income in America. In other words, don't be so rich to begin with. After all, this obscene concentration of wealth actually CAUSES economic instability. It CAUSES poverty. It will CAUSE the next Great Depression.

No more excuses.  

RAISE THOSE GOD DAMN TAXES ON THE RICH!

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 12 years ago

Thank you!

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

You're welcome.

[-] -1 points by Jflynn64 (337) 12 years ago

So Paulson didn't short the market in 2005?

Did you say don't be so rich to begin with? So don't strive to achieve?

How does being rich cause poverty?

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

Read it again. Next.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 12 years ago

You keep copying and pasting the same thing. Do you have a blog, are you a real economist or is this just a side show? Let me read your book so I can understand this.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

First, look up the definition of Communism.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 12 years ago

I'll get right on it. So your a communist. Oh this is good.

[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

Here is a list of the top ten companies that not only paid little or no taxes but got huge corporate welfare from we the people.

1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings. Note: This claim was made by Forbes.com in April of '10'. Shortly after, they published a followup article which included a rebuttal by Exxon Mobil. Forbes.com did acknowledge a mistake based on incorrect line items filed by Exxon Mobil. http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2010/04/07/exxon-says-it-does-pay-u-s-income-taxes

2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 12 years ago

@ MC : Gr8 Post but "I did" = Hubris ! ;-( & Max Keiser { http://rt.com/programs/keiser-report/ } and my friend's Dad [et al !!] might disagree with you !!! verbum satis sapienti ;-)

[-] 0 points by Ecco (0) 12 years ago

So the rich pay 37% of a little less than half of government revenue, ergo the 1% pay roughly 18% of all government revenue? Is that right?

[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

They pay roughly 37% of Federal Income tax. Overall, they pay somewhere between 22% and 28% of all personal taxes. Their share of personal income in America was 24% in 2007. It's higher now.

[-] -1 points by Tinhorn (285) 12 years ago

So 1% pays over a quarter of the entire tax in the country?

[-] -1 points by danmi (66) 12 years ago

When there is no growth (jobs) then America gets poorer. That is what is going on now, we need growth

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

Growth is fine as long as the benefit isn't paid from the top down. We tried that.

[-] -1 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 12 years ago

Who believes this stuff? I think to the OP it is just an effort to promulgate the leftist "big lie", in which logic, history, reality and politics are bent to whatever end to writer wishes to achieve.

I understand the reasoning; repeat something often enough and it becomes reality for some but what astonishes me is the crudeness of the attempt. Who is the target audience? Is it to shore up indoctrination for the weaker leftists? Is it an attempt to convert the non-political?

How effective is an amalgam of dozens of lies, many ridiculous on the most casual examination, in convincing anyone with a triple digit IQ that this is a serious attempt at analysis? Where is this stupidity coming in? Is it the stupidity of the OP? Is it the presumed stupidity of the intended audience?

Am I trying to find logic where there is none? Maybe these things are written just because it feels good to try to draw others into your particular madness and if you find agreement you find the approbation your madness feeds upon.

At any rate, I'm pleased you folks aren't embarrassed to write this stuff down, it's actually very helpful.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

Stupid huh? No logic? Well, then. Consider this.

Albert Einstein went on record with very similar views in May of 1949. Look it up.

Then consider this.

Mariner Eccles went on record with very similar views. Do you know who Mariner Eccles was? I'll give you a clue.

Mariner Eccles was the Chairman of the Federal Reserve under FDR. He compared the economy to a game of poker. He basically said that the Great Depression was caused by the winning player (the rich) holding too many chips.

Now, consider this.

"The income gap between the rich and the rest of the US population has become so wide and is growing so fast that it might eventually threaten the stability of democratic capitalism itself."

Do you know who said that? I'll give you a clue.

Allen Greenspan said that testifying before congress. Do you know when? I'll give you a clue.

Spring of '05'. Two and a half years before the Great Recession. That's when.

Robert Reich, Richard Wolff, Paul Ryan (Yes, that Paul Ryan. He had no choice. He was confronted on the issue in April of this year. In order to avoid being humiliated, he acknowledged the truth.), Paul Krugman, and just about every professor of economics understands the relationship between the concentration of wealth and economic instability. I'm no professor but I'm no fool. It's simple math. I understood the issue in the fall of '05' when I predicted this crisis and the coming depression on talk radio.

Next.

[-] -1 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 12 years ago

Well, you've inadvertently answered my primary question.

Do you think misquoting, misrepresenting and certainly misunderstanding various individuals really makes you look any better? You make no attempt to intellectually defend your ridiculous statements, I guess you are dimly aware it would only serve to make you look even sillier.

Carry on.