Posted on 12/28/2013 9:14:07 AM PST by Baynative
This pretty much speaks for itself. At 1:05, I get a rude awakening. At 1:41, he starts talking about you. At 2:24, he says a "bad" word. At 3:50, he kind of breaks my brain. At 4:50, he lets you know how broke you really are. At 5:20, he rubs it in. And at 5:50, he points out that reality isn't close to what we think it is.
(Excerpt) Read more at upworthy.com ...
Upworthy didn’t label the last slide showing the actual (horrific) income distribution.
This is what happens when you impose socialism and socialist economic practices on a capitalist economy. The capitalist economy collapses.
Everyone suffers except the elites.
The middle class collapses. Unemployment is high. The cost of living is high. Government takes over the economy. Including healthcare. Things get progressively worse.
This is socialism. It looks exactly like Europe.
Obama and the Democrats have succeeded in creating the worst economic crisis in American history. And they had a lot of help from RINOs.
The Alinsky-style plan is to force this model until the American economy collapses entirely. And then come in with Socialism to the rescue to take over completely. And then it will all be over.
Obama has succeeded beyond his party’s wildest dreams. And he had a lot of help. Including from half of the American electorate.
The video is well done, the presenter is articulate, the data are true.
But the group behind the video is looking at only 2 dimensions of a 4 dimension phenomenon. What I mean by that is they have the right data, they have the wrong conclusion.
What is the conclusion stated at the very end of the video?
“All we need to do is wake up and realize the reality in this country is not at all what we think it is.”
No, that’s not all we need to do.
We need to understand the reality and we need to not be focused on the wealthy.
And there is a difference between being wealthy and being rich in money or assets.
One can think that being monetarily rich means ***one can live off the interest*** on savings and investment. But the rich are not independent because their lives are at the mercy of the value of the currency, the value of assets and taxation. The rich are retired sport stars, retired surgeons, retired successful small and mid-level business owners.
To be wealthy is to at least be doubly rich in the sense that ***one can live off the interest of the interest***. This shields the wealthy person from volatility in interest rates, inflation, asset values and so on. The wealthy may experience some exposure but they usually own the bank or have on their hidden payroll key persons in government, so they weather all storms.
So keep in mind this difference between financially ‘wealthy’ and financially ‘rich’.
But who cares? The only group that really cares are socialists who try to whip crowds into doing stupid things like raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour or raising the top bracket of income tax to 78% which it was just before Ronald Reagan was elected President. So they ‘care’; such caring people they are yeah? BS.
What the video producers left out was how the inequality occurred. They think all that is wrong can be traced to problems in taxation, mostly INCOME taxation.
The income tax is a tool for wealth distribution.
REMARK: As an aside note that the income tax is not even any longer the main player in the game of money and who has it. It is bank and private trading platforms in league with central bankers that call the shots, that hold the keys to the private clubs of the truly wealthy. And the members of this private club all know each other. They may or may not like each other but they are known to each other because the world at the top is small. Example: Warren Buffett and George Soros; Vladimir Lisin and Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal, etc.
We can’t say that all these wealthy are ‘producers’ and have earned their money legitimately. Many are given keys to the club of the wealthy by investment bankers, for example Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg. Zuckerberg is not a billionaire because he earned it or his company earned it, it was given him by the concentrators of funny paper on Wall St. and you can bet there was a quid pro quo such as allowing free access to monitoring operatives for snooping on the public. Zuckerberg is a tool and he was allowed to join the club.
But again who cares? So what?
The point is that we should not allow ourselves to be programmed by either socialists or by misinformed ‘free market capitalists’. I say the latter because at the top there is no free market. It’s all controlled just like a Roman General having absolute 100% control of his legions.
It’s all about absolute control. And given the dangers of this world there is merit to the notion of absolute control. But it can be relaxed in certain areas and improved for people in general, for the ‘non-members’. But that means less that 100% control and that makes the powers uneasy.
What happens if the income tax goes away? But first ask who gets hit the worst by the income tax? It’s the rich, the surgeons, the sports stars, the successful business owners.
The wealthy don’t pay any tax and it will always be that way as long as there is an income tax. They will always avoid it. Here’s one scheme they use, and now used by Warren Buffett and Bill Gates III as part of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. This foundation is a complete tax dodge. Do I care? No. Why do I bring it up? Because it illustrates how the wealthy structure their money and escape the ‘income tax’.
Gates and Buffet originally endowed the Foundation with 40 billion dollars and now it’s well over 100 billion. Keep the numbers simple and say 100 billion is in the Charitable Trust that is this Foundation. The federal government mandates that charitable trusts distribute a minimum of 3% of the value of the trust each year. What’s 3% of 100 billion? 3 billion. How much on average for each day must be distributed? 3 billion divided by 365 days per year is more that 8 million per day. The Gates foundation distributes on average millions and millions of grants for vaccines, AIDS research, green tech etc. Much of it goes to university researchers so that relieves the federal government from having to fund some research but they’re in bed together on it.
Why would mega-billionaires engage this scheme? Because the charitable trust takes out an insurance policy on Gates, Buffett and other ultra wealthy ‘benefactors’ in case of their death and their estate settlement. This insurance policy has Gates, Buffet and the others as the beneficiaries with further sub-beneficiaries marked as the trust. This ensures the continuity of the trust in the event of a death of any of the principals.
But... but Gates, Buffett and others named as beneficiaries will take out a low interest practically indefinite period ‘loan’ against their insurance policy for billions upon billions and billions and there are no taxes on ‘loans’.
Again who cares? It shouldn’t concern us. It only shows that the wealthy can and will always have a way around income taxes. They may pay a symbolic amount. Buffett runs a farce in that his salary with Berkshire Hathaway is $100,000 per year. And he pays income taxes on this salary. Who is he fooling? But why should we care? We shouldn’t.
So returning to the question of what would happen if the income tax went away, was abolished? Forget about effects for the moment on government revenues.
What would happen to people? They would of course have more to spend each year.
But more than that there would be some ‘rich’ who are just below the threshold of ‘wealthy’ who would be empowered to reach and finally join the ranks of the wealthy. Ah but that would be a dangerous loss of control of the membership.
The income tax is a way of controlling membership into the circles of the wealthy. Tax the rich and keep them from becoming wealthy unless....they are invited and approved to join the club. This is the purpose of the income tax today.
Of course there exists superb solutions to the income tax in regards to government revenues and also to ensure the wealthy pay their fair share.
The best and most American inspired solution is the FairTax.
Ask yourself, what do the wealthy do with all the money they pile up? The answer is that at some point they spend it. And when they spend it they will be taxed, no exceptions, no exemptions, no clever schemes to provide cover.
And the curve in the video would approach the ideal.
But again the absolute control over membership to the circles of the wealthy would be compromised, in their eyes.
The FairTax does not preserve the iron clad control of membership to wealth that the income tax provides. If it did, it would be the law of the land.
THEREFORE, the solution to the reality shown in the video is not to tax the ‘rich’ more, or to close loopholes on the wealthy (that’s a wac-a-mole problem), or raise the minumum wage through the roof or to create hostility towards the rich, or foster class warfare (which is a divide and conquer control game played by the ruling class) etc. etc. etc.
The solution is to understand and devise a workable model on how membership can be controlled and how the security benefits of membership can be assured. This is the essence of the problem.
And I thought I liked Asian girls ‘cause they were pretty.
These are excellent points; but there are others that impact on the discussion that fall completely outside them (or could be "stealthily hidden in one) — let us consider entry level Computer Science jobs: most postings require at least 2 years experience with the particular software/OS/tools being used… I've seen even 5 years required for an entry level job.
Given that many graduates leave college with loads of debt, they're in a big pickle: they need experience to get a job in the field, but they need a job in the field to get experience. I've heard that this is the result of companies wanting to get more H1B-visas/foreign-hires, which they then can use to (a) write off taxes, and/or (b) not pay the actual worth/salary of the position.
I think that this is totally overblown. My whole career was in IT, and I had zero formal training in computer science. I've hired many, many IT workers, and degrees meant nothing to me... in fact, I tended to shy away from the CS majors as I found them to be inferior to others.
We keep hearing about the H1B visas and the lack of "talent"... but these stories are only coming from the biggies like Microsoft and Google. The reality is that nearly every company in existence in this country needs IT people, and many of those workers are folks who are self-taught, or just happen to have an aptitude for computers and programming.
If someone likes working with computers, and is willing to put in the time (which often times means being on call and putting in one's spare time to learn new things), then they can make a great career with computers.
Oh goody another idiot trying to convince people that wealth distribution is a good thing. In socialist countries the only people who have anything are the top government officials pocketing everything. There is no middle class only the poor and those in charge.
In a capita;ist system one is free to try any hair brained idea they have to make money. Good at least in this system every one has the opportunity to generate wealth.
I do not give a rat’s behind what a CEO is compensated. If I want more in my life then I need to produce something that people find useful in their lives. They will pay me for my product and I will generate wealth. End of story.
What the leftists complain about is exactly what their super elitist leadership has used their wealth and influence to impose upon them, and they won't even be happy when everyone but that 0.1% is a serf.
And still, the Useful Idiots think the cure is to take more from the middle class because they will never stop producing no matter what.
bump
Well, it's not only that, it's that you aren't allowed to be independent.
Take a look at those couple of cases where municipalities tear up someone for growing their own foodstuffs.
(Or people that want raw milk, or raw honey, or basically anything that means less government control/involvement in their lives.)
Indeed, challenging the usurpations of officialdom is not allowed.
In New Mexico, our State Constitution says this:
Art II, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]and yet there's a state statute, NMSA 30-7-2.4, that says:
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.
30-7-2.4. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises; notice; penalty.Now, obviously there is a conflict, the constitution says "no law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense" while the statute [a law] does so abridge the right: certainly to bear, and possibly to keep (say on-campus housing).
- Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises consists of carrying a firearm on university premises except by:
- a peace officer;
- university security personnel;
- a student, instructor or other university-authorized personnel who are engaged in army, navy, marine corps or air force reserve officer training corps programs or a state-authorized hunter safety training program;
- a person conducting or participating in a university-approved program, class or other activity involving the carrying of a firearm; or
- a person older than nineteen years of age on university premises in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance, for lawful protection of the person's or another's person or property.
- A university shall conspicuously post notices on university premises that state that it is unlawful to carry a firearm on university premises.
- As used in this section:
- "university" means a baccalaureate degree-granting post-secondary educational institution, a community college, a branch community college, a technical-vocational institute and an area vocational school; and
- "university premises" means:
- the buildings and grounds of a university, including playing fields and parking areas of a university, in or on which university or university-related activities are conducted; or
- any other public buildings or grounds, including playing fields and parking areas that are not university property, in or on which university-related and sanctioned activities are performed.
- Whoever commits unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
Attempts to address this, seeing how to challenge it, has almost always been met with indignation ("how dare you question us"), self-justification ("we do it in courtrooms, so we can do it in schools"), and blame-shifting ("see the state-rep" -> "see the Ag" -> "see the state supreme court" -> "see the state bar" -> "see a lawyer" -> "see a state rep" [ok, so the last one was actually never called back]).
You never see leftists complain about the wealth of Soros and other big lefties.
When grocery stores are getting H1B visas, yes I can buy that they are hurting Americans
bookmark
I'd settle for them not handing it over to the rich through crony capitalism. (Fascism)
That's interesting; and I do think that most CS courses do a disservice to students. The only reason I can think of that something as useful as Ada's subtype hasn't made it into "mainstream languages" is that the CS-education has been geared toward "industry popularity". (While I could, and do, rant on the subject... it's a bit tangential, though certainly not irrelevant.)
The issue isn't only with CS (I only chose that because that is my degree field, and I've done job-searching), but apparently much of Science, Technology, Engineering, Math (STEM) — though I'll bet "technology" is the least severe case.
We keep hearing about the H1B visas and the lack of "talent"... but these stories are only coming from the biggies like Microsoft and Google. The reality is that nearly every company in existence in this country needs IT people, and many of those workers are folks who are self-taught, or just happen to have an aptitude for computers and programming.
Questions: Do you consider programming to be an "IT people" job? If not we're talking kiwi-fruit to potatoes; my particular case is software engineering/software development. If you do, then what programming language[s] do you use? (and, moreover, why?) Do you understand the limitations and drawbacks thereof? [Say something like PHP (or even C++).]
I think you're right; I think the current economic situation is merely symptomatic of the law not applying to everyone equally.
I personally made my living (in chronological order) by first making some successful (but clandestine) applications on a PC (TRS-80 actually) in BASIC. I eventually got pulled into the IT department (as an applications developer) where I had to work in COBOL mostly. I eventually got bored with that, and moved into the division of the company that did the in-store (supermarket) systems and got to work in C and assembler. I eventually moved into C++ and then C#. Of course I also had to be proficient in things like REXX, JCL, shell scripts, regular expressions, and all those other ancillary skills.
I understand that "IT" is a broad term... and does include low-paid desktop support (not to mention help desk, computer operators, etc.) folks. But, I've seen many of those types of people move up from those positions once they display the aptitude and willingness to work hard and learn (often on their own time/dime). In smaller companies, help desk folks need to learn a little of everything... software installation, PC support tasks like fixing software/hardware issues, networking, etc. These skills do have an upward mobility path for those who are so inclined.
I turned it off at :21. When I heard the words “wealth distribution”, my inner COMMUNIST!!! bell started going off. When I heard that the questioners divided America into five ‘sections’, no more rightly ‘classes’, my COMMUNIST bell got too loud, and i ended the video.
Wealth distribution, as I was taught, before Jimmy Carter, comes from the salary earned by the educated employee, due to the physical makeup of the work being done; the demand of that type of labor; the demand of that type of product; and the performance of that employee.
It is the free market, and the corporation that determines some of those values, not government.
Until Lyndon Baines Johnson, there was no federal wealth redistribution program.
At one time in my life, you either worked, or you were not functionally able to work, period.
Narrator should be happy, the actual American wealth distribution is exactly what you get when you put socialism in place, not the phony level distribution he suggests it is. Everyone is equally poor except the ruling class.
God will make our money worthless.
“Adam Mordecai likes to fight for marriage and gender equality, immigration reform, racial justice, smarter government, education reform, and against bullying.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.