A Nation of "Haves" and "Have-Nots"?

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

A Nation of "Haves" and "Have-Nots"?
Far More Americans Now See Their Country as Sharply Divided Along Economic Lines
by Jodie T. Allen, Senior Editor, Pew Research Center and Michael Dimock, Associate Director for Research, Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
September 13, 2007

Over the past two decades, a growing share of the public has come to the view that American society is divided into two groups, the "haves" and the "have-nots." Today, Americans are split evenly on the two-class question with as many saying the country is divided along economic lines as say this is not the case (48% each). In sharp contrast, in 1988, 71% rejected this notion, while just 26% saw a divided nation.

Of equal importance, the number of Americans who see themselves among the "have-nots" of society has doubled over the past two decades, from 17% in 1988 to 34% today. In 1988, far more Americans said that, if they had to choose, they probably were among the "haves" (59%) than the "have-nots" (17%). Today, this gap is far narrower (45% "haves" vs. 34% "have-nots").

CONTINUED: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/593/haves-have-nots

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 628 • Replies: 19

No top replies

I agree and it is entirely the fault of the politicians in Washington who have approoved a tax plan that favors the hi net worth sector and corporations . These same people are still calling for a repeal of the Estate TAx which will only widen the gap and totally eliminate the middle working class.

This is what they in Washington want, a 2 class system when "them" holding all the marbles. That includes all Democrats and Republicans.

0 Replies

How does having an estate tax or not hurt the middle class?

It's not like they get the money from the estate, it goes into the coffers of the government who turn around and spend it on pet projects.

0 Replies

If we have such a 2 class system then how come I can go into an apartment building that I know is section 8 housing and install an HD cable box on someones 40" flat screen LCD tv? If they can afford a TV like that then how come they can live in section 8 housing?

I go into people's houses and apartments and see that they can't afford much but they have a nice TV nice car or truck and I not installing the cheap cable service, I'm installing the 2nd best or best cable package we have.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

How does having an estate tax or not hurt the middle class?

It's not like they get the money from the estate, it goes into the coffers of the government who turn around and spend it on pet projects.

A repeal of the Estate Tax would hurt the middle class by keeping the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few "aristocrats" which in turn provides them more leverage and power to diminsh the effectivness of the middle class.

Remember, the Estate Tax has been and always should be a "social tax". That was the design when the founding fathers made the then "Inheritance Tax" the first tax this nation ever levied in 1792 (or so).

0 Replies

We are indeed heading pell mell for a two class system in which the middle class will be as extinct as the neandathal man. Thanks in most part to globalization. The jobs and industries that were the strenght and fodder of the middle class are rapidly disappearing off shore.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

We are indeed heading pell mell for a two class system in which the middle class will be as extinct as the neandathal man. Thanks in most part to globalization. The jobs and industries that were the strenght and fodder of the middle class are rapidly disappearing off shore.

"Globalization" as you call it is a result of US GOVERNMENT rules favoring the hi net worth individuals and Corporations.

Can we agree on that?

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

au1929 wrote:
We are indeed heading pell mell for a two class system in which the middle class will be as extinct as the neandathal man. Thanks in most part to globalization. The jobs and industries that were the strenght and fodder of the middle class are rapidly disappearing off shore.

"Globalization" as you call it is a result of US GOVERNMENT rules favoring the hi net worth individuals and Corporations.

Can we agree on that?

Absolutely!

There's no reason Corporations should enjoy the rights they do - except for the fact that the Robber Barons wrote the laws guaranteeing their rights in perpetuity...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
How does having an estate tax or not hurt the middle class?

It's not like they get the money from the estate, it goes into the coffers of the government who turn around and spend it on pet projects.

A repeal of the Estate Tax would hurt the middle class by keeping the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few "aristocrats" which in turn provides them more leverage and power to diminsh the effectivness of the middle class.

Remember, the Estate Tax has been and always should be a "social tax". That was the design when the founding fathers made the then "Inheritance Tax" the first tax this nation ever levied in 1792 (or so).

So, instead of a cat getting 12 million dollars, the cat would only get 6 million and the government would get 6 million, right? How does this help the middle class?

I guess the people that make the food for the cat, the people that transport that cat food, the people who make the paper for the bags the cat litter comes in, the people who groom the cat, the people that take care of the cats lawn, the people that shop for the cat, the people that take care of the house for the cat, etc all suffer becuase the cat did not get the full inheritance... But, because the government got a large payday, the Las Vega History Museum can be improved...

Explain to me again how this helps the middle class?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

woiyo wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
How does having an estate tax or not hurt the middle class?

It's not like they get the money from the estate, it goes into the coffers of the government who turn around and spend it on pet projects.

A repeal of the Estate Tax would hurt the middle class by keeping the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few "aristocrats" which in turn provides them more leverage and power to diminsh the effectivness of the middle class.

Remember, the Estate Tax has been and always should be a "social tax". That was the design when the founding fathers made the then "Inheritance Tax" the first tax this nation ever levied in 1792 (or so).

So, instead of a cat getting 12 million dollars, the cat would only get 6 million and the government would get 6 million, right? How does this help the middle class?

I guess the people that make the food for the cat, the people that transport that cat food, the people who make the paper for the bags the cat litter comes in, the people who groom the cat, the people that take care of the cats lawn, the people that shop for the cat, the people that take care of the house for the cat, etc all suffer becuase the cat did not get the full inheritance... But, because the government got a large payday, the Las Vega History Museum can be improved...

Explain to me again how this helps the middle class?

Maybe you replace "the cat" with "Paris Hilton" or "the Waltons".

0 Replies

The Demise of the American middle class

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=102718&highlight=&sid=e5f4eb3f508749dc048758391958a0dc

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

woiyo wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
How does having an estate tax or not hurt the middle class?

It's not like they get the money from the estate, it goes into the coffers of the government who turn around and spend it on pet projects.

A repeal of the Estate Tax would hurt the middle class by keeping the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few "aristocrats" which in turn provides them more leverage and power to diminsh the effectivness of the middle class.

Remember, the Estate Tax has been and always should be a "social tax". That was the design when the founding fathers made the then "Inheritance Tax" the first tax this nation ever levied in 1792 (or so).

So, instead of a cat getting 12 million dollars, the cat would only get 6 million and the government would get 6 million, right? How does this help the middle class?

I guess the people that make the food for the cat, the people that transport that cat food, the people who make the paper for the bags the cat litter comes in, the people who groom the cat, the people that take care of the cats lawn, the people that shop for the cat, the people that take care of the house for the cat, etc all suffer becuase the cat did not get the full inheritance... But, because the government got a large payday, the Las Vega History Museum can be improved...

Explain to me again how this helps the middle class?

Interesting that you (of all people) failed to respond to my direct answer to your direct question. Where does the "cat" reference come from (and do not bring up Leona Helmsley)?

A repeal of the Estate Tax would hurt the middle class by keeping the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few "aristocrats" which in turn provides them more leverage and power to diminsh the effectivness of the middle class.

Do you agree or disagree?

Cat?? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

I would disagree.

How does raising taxes on me help you?
How does it benefit you personally if the wealthy get their taxes raised?

Are you getting any of that money?
No matter how much the wealthy get taxed,you will still pay taxes.
So,how do you personally benefit from the estate taxes being raised?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

I would disagree.

How does raising taxes on me help you?
How does it benefit you personally if the wealthy get their taxes raised?

Are you getting any of that money?
No matter how much the wealthy get taxed,you will still pay taxes.
So,how do you personally benefit from the estate taxes being raised?

History has shown that when you concentrate wealth and power in the hands of a few, an aristocracy will prevail and create 2 class economic system.

Look no further than to the "Guilded Age" in AMerican History to see how much power and influence the "elite" had. It was at that time, late 1800 to early 1900, that there was no Estate Tax.

" The founders of American democracy turned back to the original, philosophical definition of aristocracy when they built American government. Very conscious of Plato's and Aristotle's criticisms of democracy, the founders of American government wanted to avoid putting the government into the hands of the worst members of society. They also, however, wanted to avoid the dangers of a hereditary aristocracy, for European history proven amply that the hereditary aristocracy is many things but it rarely consists of the "best" members of society either in moral or intellectual terms (look at the royal family in England, for instance). So the framers of American government created representative democracy, in which the people collectively decide who the "best" people are to run the government. In this way, a democracy (a limited democracy) is allowed to co-exist seamlessly with a government that is primarily ruled by the most qualified people morally and intellecturally (well, sometimes). "

The Estate Tax is a social tax this govt has used to minimize the amount of wealth that can be transfered from one generation to the next and re-distribute that wealth. The revenue generated by the Estate Tax was originally used soley for defense purposes, since it was the elite that had the most to gain and the most to lose by the freedoms provided by our Constitution.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
woiyo wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
How does having an estate tax or not hurt the middle class?

It's not like they get the money from the estate, it goes into the coffers of the government who turn around and spend it on pet projects.

A repeal of the Estate Tax would hurt the middle class by keeping the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few "aristocrats" which in turn provides them more leverage and power to diminsh the effectivness of the middle class.

Remember, the Estate Tax has been and always should be a "social tax". That was the design when the founding fathers made the then "Inheritance Tax" the first tax this nation ever levied in 1792 (or so).

So, instead of a cat getting 12 million dollars, the cat would only get 6 million and the government would get 6 million, right? How does this help the middle class?

I guess the people that make the food for the cat, the people that transport that cat food, the people who make the paper for the bags the cat litter comes in, the people who groom the cat, the people that take care of the cats lawn, the people that shop for the cat, the people that take care of the house for the cat, etc all suffer becuase the cat did not get the full inheritance... But, because the government got a large payday, the Las Vega History Museum can be improved...

Explain to me again how this helps the middle class?

Interesting that you (of all people) failed to respond to my direct answer to your direct question. Where does the "cat" reference come from (and do not bring up Leona Helmsley)?

A repeal of the Estate Tax would hurt the middle class by keeping the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few "aristocrats" which in turn provides them more leverage and power to diminsh the effectivness of the middle class.

Do you agree or disagree?

Cat??

Obviously I disagree. I used the "cat" as an example. Helmsley left her dog 12 million though...

The point is that people are wealthy for a reason. Why should their hard work and efforts to better themselves and provide for their heirs be punished because other people are not as ambitious?

I still do not see how, or why, you believe the wealthy in America would be trying to diminish the effectiveness of the middle class. Do you suppose they feel threatened by them or something?

0 Replies

It is not nice but obscene
"This obsession for maximizing profits to shareholders has got to be seen as abusive, as dangerous, and as one of the most appalling situations on this planet. Because it makes for criminal behavior."

"You've got to have solid penalties. Corporate pollution has got to be seen as a criminal act."

"I have a deep sense that to accumulate wealth is obscene. And when the community gives you your wealth, I have a strong belief that you give it back."

The above thoughts were not uttered by some hearty environmental agitator or radical dreamer egged on by a talk show host. They came from the generous, boisterous, daring, humane mind of Anita Roddick-the founder of the global cosmetic company-The Body Shop-with over 2000 stores.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

woiyo wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
woiyo wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
How does having an estate tax or not hurt the middle class?

It's not like they get the money from the estate, it goes into the coffers of the government who turn around and spend it on pet projects.

A repeal of the Estate Tax would hurt the middle class by keeping the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few "aristocrats" which in turn provides them more leverage and power to diminsh the effectivness of the middle class.

Remember, the Estate Tax has been and always should be a "social tax". That was the design when the founding fathers made the then "Inheritance Tax" the first tax this nation ever levied in 1792 (or so).

So, instead of a cat getting 12 million dollars, the cat would only get 6 million and the government would get 6 million, right? How does this help the middle class?

I guess the people that make the food for the cat, the people that transport that cat food, the people who make the paper for the bags the cat litter comes in, the people who groom the cat, the people that take care of the cats lawn, the people that shop for the cat, the people that take care of the house for the cat, etc all suffer becuase the cat did not get the full inheritance... But, because the government got a large payday, the Las Vega History Museum can be improved...

Explain to me again how this helps the middle class?

Interesting that you (of all people) failed to respond to my direct answer to your direct question. Where does the "cat" reference come from (and do not bring up Leona Helmsley)?

A repeal of the Estate Tax would hurt the middle class by keeping the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few "aristocrats" which in turn provides them more leverage and power to diminsh the effectivness of the middle class.

Do you agree or disagree?

Cat??

Obviously I disagree. I used the "cat" as an example. Helmsley left her dog 12 million though...

The point is that people are wealthy for a reason. Why should their hard work and efforts to better themselves and provide for their heirs be punished because other people are not as ambitious?

I still do not see how, or why, you believe the wealthy in America would be trying to diminish the effectiveness of the middle class. Do you suppose they feel threatened by them or something?

HOW they became wealthy was due to the "partnership" between government and a free society. The CREATORS of the wealth used the freedom provided and the protections provided by govt to attain such wealth. The "heirs" have no abolute rights to the property that their parents obtained, yet, under present property law, large amounts of property are passed from one generation to the next. As a matter of patriotic duty, in an effort to maintain the freedoms provided, should they not give back part to the State?

Excellant except from the writings of Thomas PAyne...

"The essence of the American experiment is our collective rejection of European hereditary aristocracy and grotesque inequalities of wealth. When Alexis de Tocqueville visited the United States in the mid-nineteenth century, he noted that equality of condition permeated the American spirit: "The American experiment presupposes a rejection of inherited privilege." In the words of novelist John Dos Passos, "rejection of Europe is what America is all about."

The nation's founders and populace viewed excessive concentrations of wealth as incompatible with the ideals of the new nation. Revolutionary era visitors to Europe, including Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Ben Franklin, were aghast at the wide disparities of wealth and poverty they observed. They surmised that these great European inequalities were the result of an aristocratic system of land transfers, hereditary political power, and monopoly.

Monarchies and hereditary aristocracies mocked the republican principle of self-government. Writing in Common Sense, Thomas Paine attacked the notion of hereditary government: "To the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary succession; and as the first is a degradation and lessening of ourselves, so the second, claimed as a matter of right, is an insult and imposition on posterity."

In two other articles, "Rights of Man" and "Agrarian justice," Paine extended his contempt of inherited political power to a critique of inherited economic power. Paine proposed an inheritance tax that would fund an early version of Social Security.

The distrust of concentrated wealth was so great that, in an extreme sentiment, Ben Franklin argued "that no man ought to own more property than needed for his livelihood; the rest, by right, belonged to the state." One could not accumulate vast wealth, in the republican worldview, simply through one's own labors. In small-scale agrarian freeholder society, where laud ownership was more widely distributed among men of European ancestry, there was a "natural distribution of wealth." Farmers, artisans, and other workers reaped the "fruits of their own labor." "

http://www.tompaine.com/Archive/scontent/7082.html

0 Replies

Very few can afford to be poor--GBS
The wealthiest 20% of households own 50% of U.S. wealth the Census Bureau showed in 2002 -- that's up from 44 percent in 1973.
For the bottom 20%, their share is now only 3.5%, down from 4.2% in 1973.

Now, 10% own 80% of the nation's property -- and 13,000 of its richest families have net worth equal to the 20 million poorest families.

The richest 1% of Americans now own 37% of the wealth -- more than the poorest 90%.

16 million Americans now live in deep poverty (annual income less than $9,903) -- a grown of 26% from 2000 to 2005, according to a McClatchy Newspapers analysis of 2005 census figures.

Over the last 20 years, America has had the highest or nearly highest poverty rates for individual adults, families and children among 31 developed countries (Luxembourg Income Study).
Over its course, the 2001 tax cut gave almost 40 percent of the cut to the richest 1%.

The added tax breaks of 2003 similarly benefited the rich (savings for those with income under $10,000 will be $5, with 8 million low-income taxpayers not receiveing anything and another 6.5 million low-income taxpayers not receiving a $400 child-care tax credit -- which excludes 12 million children).
For those with incomes over $1 million, tax savings was $88,873

Prior the that, the tax burden for the richest 1% increased by 48% between 1979 and 1997 -- but their income grew 157% (to an average of $677,900 -- up from $263,700 in 1979).

Congressional Budget Office statistics show that adjusted for inflation, income of American families in the middle rose from $41,900 in 1979 to $45,100 in 1997 (a 9% increase) while the income of families in the top 1% of income rose from $420,200 in 1979 to $1.016 million in 1997 (a 140% increase).
That means that in 1979, the richest 1% of families made 10 times that of the average family but by 1997 were making 23 times the amount -- and the gap is still growing.

Large-company CEOs, on average, earn 500 times more than the average worker, the Seattle P-I reported Feb. 1, 2007 -- in 1980, CEO salaries were only 42 times greater.

Now, the nation's 10 highest paid CEOs make $154 million a year as opposed to the $3.5 million made by the top 10 in 1981.

In 1974, the average CEO made 34 times as much as a production or non-supervisor worker.
In 1990, it was 96 times as much.
In 2000, it was 458 times as much.

The average CEO of a major corporation makes $13.1 million a year in compensation (about $36,000 a day).

An estimated 61 percent of U.S. corporations paid no federal taxes between 1996 and 2000.
Worker pay in the year 2000 was lower, inflation-adjusted, than in 1980 while CEO pay was 10 times higher (workers averaged $28,900 in 1980 and $28,597 -- inflation-adjusted in 2000)

CEOs averaged $1.3 million in 1980 (in year 2000 dollars) and $13.1 million in 2000.

The 2001 income tax booklet shows that half the federal income for Fiscal Year 2000 came from personal income tax. Corporations provided just 10%.

According to Harpers (July 2004) 61 percent of U.S. corporations paid no federal taxes between 1996 and 2000.

In October 2004, Congress passed and President Bush [later signed] a tax-cut bill of $136 billion for corporations, the Seattle P-I reported Oct. 12, 2004.
The same day, the P-I reported that one in five jobs in America earns poverty-level wages, meaning 39 million Americans earn barely enough to cover basic needs.

Haves and have-nots -- America's rich get richer
"...Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H.L. Hunt...and a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, in a letter to his brother Edgar, Nov. 8, 1954

http://hope.journ.wwu.edu/tpilgrim/j190/richgetricher.html

What Troubles the poor is the Money they can't get and
What Troubles the rich is the Money they can't keep

0 Replies

no answer for how people living in section 8 housing can afford nice flat screen LCD and plasa tv's? I know I work about 50-60 hrs per week and I can't afford such things. How many of those people that have these nice tv's but don't have insurance?

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

no answer for how people living in section 8 housing can afford nice flat screen LCD and plasa tv's? I know I work about 50-60 hrs per week and I can't afford such things. How many of those people that have these nice tv's but don't have insurance?

Well, thanks to the Bankruptcy bill pushed through by the Republicans and the Democrats (especially Biden, D-MBNA), there's so much less liability for banks and CC issuers, that they will give credit to anyone. Their end of the risk has been taken out of the equation. So they issue credit cards to poor folks who then turn around and buy LCD tvs' and **** - which is stupid, but many of them are in fact stupid (like everyone else) so it's to be expected.

The money they get on credit never ends up on any balance sheet, b/c it isn't actually income. And the CC companies, once they have these people in hock, can bleed them - for years and years. It's a combination of poor education, poor market regulation, and a business model designed to profit from stupid choices and greed.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

A Nation of "Haves" and "Have-Nots"?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know