The One Cause of Poverty That’s Never Considered

[Stevicus]

Just wanted to say thank you for posting this.

And thank you for reading.

 

[Heyo]

The top 50% of taxpayers in the US pay 97.7% of all taxes.
The top 1% of taxes payers pay at a rate 8 times higher than the average paid by the bottom 50%.

Imagine 9 taxpayers earning $ 30,000 each and paying 50% total taxes. That's $ 135,000.
Now imagine someone making $ 30,000,000 annually. Let's say he pays $ 2,565,000 in total taxes, 19 times more than the other 9.
Now you have the top 10% paying 95% of all taxes.
But the top 10% are still only taxed for 8.55 % of their income compared to the 50% tax rate of the lower 90%.

Be careful when you compare taxes with tax rates!

 

[Brickjectivity]

In this part, the author notes one of the key reasons why tax loopholes are never closed and why even the simplest proposals to reduce the misery of the poor fall on deaf ears. It would mean that the well-off might have to give up their own advantages, and this does not suit them. This is exactly what the problem has been all these years, and I've observed the same attitude myself, among both liberals and conservatives.

The poor are notably inactive in politics. I do not blame us for this and am only saying so, because it is a fact.

Local government is often obscure and the candidates relatively mysterious. The national ones are equally so, thought they get recognition through parties. Getting involved and finding (true) things out is time consuming and/or expensive. Journalists are also not well paid, are small in number and are sloppy these days; and today just as in the past there are always corrupt ones available to promote things. For many people: local elections are merely times when names appear on signs.

A government (even one based on voting) will always favor groups of people, somewhat. Our voting system does this, and our centralized federal system protect minorities but also distances individuals from government response. When it isn't favoring races its favoring generations, religions, classes etc. Can this be outlawed? It can only be mitigated. So far its mostly through patience and suffering over decades and centuries. Also it is ironic that centralized government (the federal government which protect minorities) also discourages involvement in the political process, due to its size and resistance to change.

 

[Stevicus]

The poor are notably inactive in politics. I do not blame us for this and am only saying so, because it is a fact.

Local government is often obscure and the candidates relatively mysterious. The national ones are equally so, thought they get recognition through parties. Getting involved and finding (true) things out is time consuming and/or expensive. Journalists are also not well paid, are small in number and are sloppy these days; and today just as in the past there are always corrupt ones available to promote things. For many people: local elections are merely times when names appear on signs.

A government (even one based on voting) will always favor groups of people, somewhat. Our voting system does this, and our centralized federal system protect minorities but also distances individuals from government response. When it isn't favoring races its favoring generations, religions, classes etc. Can this be outlawed? It can only be mitigated. So far its mostly through patience and suffering over decades and centuries. Also it is ironic that centralized government (the federal government which protect minorities) also discourages involvement in the political process, due to its size and resistance to change.

Based on what we've seen over the past few years, even if the lower classes may seem politically inactive or apathetic when it comes to voting, they can be easily riled up by someone with an agenda. This is something that the government and upper classes truly fear - more than anything else, apparently. Just as the Patricians of Ancient Rome feared the popularity of one of their own among the Proles (Caesar). Even though it would be quite easy for people at that level to be relatively decent and generous towards the masses to gain their hearts and minds, for whatever reason, they just don't want to do it.

Considering the vast disparities in wealth in this country, their stingy, miserly attitudes can't be explained away that easily. No one at that level can say "they can't afford" to be decent towards the masses, and yet, this is the common refrain we hear from the Powers That Be. We can't afford to fix the roads, we can't afford to provide affordable housing, we can't afford to help the homeless or destitute, we can't afford to provide decent healthcare, we can't afford public transportation or public education, etc., etc. The country is broke. We can't afford anything anymore. Can't afford it?

 

[Wandering Monk]

Based on what we've seen over the past few years, even if the lower classes may seem politically inactive or apathetic when it comes to voting, they can be easily riled up by someone with an agenda. This is something that the government and upper classes truly fear - more than anything else, apparently. Just as the Patricians of Ancient Rome feared the popularity of one of their own among the Proles (Caesar). Even though it would be quite easy for people at that level to be relatively decent and generous towards the masses to gain their hearts and minds, for whatever reason, they just don't want to do it.

Considering the vast disparities in wealth in this country, their stingy, miserly attitudes can't be explained away that easily. No one at that level can say "they can't afford" to be decent towards the masses, and yet, this is the common refrain we hear from the Powers That Be. We can't afford to fix the roads, we can't afford to provide affordable housing, we can't afford to help the homeless or destitute, we can't afford to provide decent healthcare, we can't afford public transportation or public education, etc., etc. The country is broke. We can't afford anything anymore. Can't afford it?

Corporations always money for stock buy-backs. Hell, a secretary pays more in US Federal taxes than some corporations do.

If your estate is worth up to twelve million, you can pass it to your heirs and they pay no Federal tax on it in the US.

 

[Nakosis]

Imagine 9 taxpayers earning $ 30,000 each and paying 50% total taxes. That's $ 135,000.
Now imagine someone making $ 30,000,000 annually. Let's say he pays $ 2,565,000 in total taxes, 19 times more than the other 9.
Now you have the top 10% paying 95% of all taxes.
But the top 10% are still only taxed for 8.55 % of their income compared to the 50% tax rate of the lower 90%.

Be careful when you compare taxes with tax rates!

Yes, imagine the government taking half of what you earn.
That's awful.

 

[Heyo]

Yes, imagine the government taking half of what you earn.
That's awful.

Only if you're poor. Imagine the rich having to pay the same share as the poor!

 

[Nakosis]

Only if you're poor. Imagine the rich having to pay the same share as the poor!

The government taking 50% of what you've earned is still awful imo regardless of how much you earned.

 

[Heyo]

The government taking 50% of what you've earned is still awful imo regardless of how much you earned.

Depends pretty much on what they are doing with it.
But one knows immediately that you are from the US by your reaction to a hypothetical situation. You are shocked that the state may take 50% in taxes but it doesn't phase you that those with a low income pay a much higher tax rate than the millionaires. Are you a millionaire or are you indoctrinated?

 

[Stevicus]

Only if you're poor. Imagine the rich having to pay the same share as the poor!

Here's George Carlin's view on the subject: "The upper class: keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes. The middle class: pays all of the taxes, does all of the work. The poor are there...just to scare the **** out of the middle class."

 

[Debater Slayer]

MSN

This was an interesting article that came up in my newsfeed this morning. It discusses poverty and how American society has viewed and attempted to deal with the problem over the past half a century, yet making little progress. The author of the book mentioned in the article, Matthew Desmond, takes a different approach and makes some compelling arguments that we've been doing it all wrong for all these decades. While conservatives argue that the reason for poverty has to do with the behavior of the poor ("dependency and idleness, exacerbated, they believe, by the receipt of government handouts"), liberals argue the issue is structural ("racism and deindustrialization, which, they contend, have entrenched inequality and prevented disadvantaged groups from sharing in the nation’s prosperity").

But what if both of these approaches are incorrect?










The article is quite illuminating and illustrates many of the problems in America I've noticed over the past few decades as well.

Here's an interesting statistic:



Desmond stated that, despite how he might sound, he's not a Marxist, but notes that Leo Tolstoy's writings were a major influence.





The treatment of homeless people, particularly in affluent, liberal cities like LA, SF, NY, is extremely damning.

The deindustrialization of America is also a major factor in the severe decline in the standard of living. As Desmond points out, the problem today has gotten so bad that the country may not be economically strong enough to help the poor.



This is another point which is true. During the 1960s, when LBJ launched the War on Poverty, it was "in an age of prosperity, when many believed the economy was strong enough to lift all boats." But now, everything has gone to crap, thanks the culture of gross mismanagement, myopic recklessness, outright malice, and gross exploitation which characterized Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and every Administration ever since.

As a result, the country is in worse shape today. Now, we were ill-equipped to deal with this problem through standard liberal-supported social programs, and more radical measures may be needed to get the country back on track to where it should be.



In this part, the author notes one of the key reasons why tax loopholes are never closed and why even the simplest proposals to reduce the misery of the poor fall on deaf ears. It would mean that the well-off might have to give up their own advantages, and this does not suit them. This is exactly what the problem has been all these years, and I've observed the same attitude myself, among both liberals and conservatives.

This is the main part of the reason why many people view liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, as being "the same" even as pompous, affluent, privileged liberals stomp their little feet and scream "false equivalence" all the time.

This is why, to me, all other issues pale in importance. What we're seeing now is the long-term consequences of decades of criminal negligence, and all of the problems which many are bringing up today, such as the supposed "threat to democracy" and the rise of hate and intolerance, all emanate from the wanton failures of our political system and those who hold stewardship over it.

It's not just about giveaway programs or free stuff (since the wealthy have gotten the lion's share of that anyway), but it's about rebuilding and restructuring our economy to be productive again.

I have noticed a stark tendency in some neoliberal thought to have almost religious faith in laissez-faire capitalist systems. There can't be any major, inherent flaw in the system; it must be that poor people deserve to be poor or that they're "lazy," have a "bad mentality," etc. It can't be that economic exploitation and poverty result in increased crime rates, inaccessibility of education, a rise of extremism, and a consequent proliferation of undesirable cultural trends (e.g., sexism, homophobia, and racism). It must be that "bad people" are born that way or "choose" to be that way, as if material conditions didn't matter and humans existed in a social and economic vacuum.

The neoliberal system of the US was bound to collapse under its own weight sooner or later. It has carried that weight on the backs of the working class and exploitative access to other countries' resources for decades, but that's no longer working like the clockwork some seem to believe it is. OPEC isn't giving out cheap oil anymore, more and more governments are no longer willing to be pushovers and puppets for the US, and a lot of people are done working for a barely livable wage. Now the choice the US has is between reforming the system as well as rethinking age-old shibboleths or continuing to diminish in economic and political power, especially with the increasing frequency and severity of its domestic issues.

 

[Revoltingest]

The top 50% of taxpayers in the US pay 97.7% of all taxes.
The top 1% of taxes payers pay at a rate 8 times higher than the average paid by the bottom 50%.
Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data
Maybe they should have done a little more homework.

Also I think it is a false narrative that the rich's ability to make money keep the poor, poor. That is not how the economy works.
There is certainly no guarantee that increasing taxes on people already paying the lion's share of taxes is going to solve poverty.
Politicians have their own agenda for all of that tax money.

So what is the answer being offered? The affluent have to start living more like the poor?
That way I suppose the poor will feel better about being poor.

IMO, the real problem of poverty is culture.
Culture of Poverty

I'd add to that list....
- Inadequate education system.
Expensive to fix this, but cost effective.
- Government created barriers to starting a business.
Zero cost to fix, so maximum cost effectiveness.
One example of many....

Opinion | Why Does a Hair Braider Need a License? (Published 2022)

Such requirements raise entry barriers to professions that can disproportionately affect racial minorities.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Revoltingest]

I have noticed a stark tendency in some neoliberal thought to have almost religious faith in laissez-faire capitalist systems.

Is this religious zeal for socialism its evil twin?

There can't be any major, inherent flaw in the system

Straw man.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

MSN

This was an interesting article that came up in my newsfeed this morning. It discusses poverty and how American society has viewed and attempted to deal with the problem over the past half a century, yet making little progress. The author of the book mentioned in the article, Matthew Desmond, takes a different approach and makes some compelling arguments that we've been doing it all wrong for all these decades. While conservatives argue that the reason for poverty has to do with the behavior of the poor ("dependency and idleness, exacerbated, they believe, by the receipt of government handouts"), liberals argue the issue is structural ("racism and deindustrialization, which, they contend, have entrenched inequality and prevented disadvantaged groups from sharing in the nation’s prosperity").

But what if both of these approaches are incorrect?










The article is quite illuminating and illustrates many of the problems in America I've noticed over the past few decades as well.

Here's an interesting statistic:



Desmond stated that, despite how he might sound, he's not a Marxist, but notes that Leo Tolstoy's writings were a major influence.





The treatment of homeless people, particularly in affluent, liberal cities like LA, SF, NY, is extremely damning.

The deindustrialization of America is also a major factor in the severe decline in the standard of living. As Desmond points out, the problem today has gotten so bad that the country may not be economically strong enough to help the poor.



This is another point which is true. During the 1960s, when LBJ launched the War on Poverty, it was "in an age of prosperity, when many believed the economy was strong enough to lift all boats." But now, everything has gone to crap, thanks the culture of gross mismanagement, myopic recklessness, outright malice, and gross exploitation which characterized Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and every Administration ever since.

As a result, the country is in worse shape today. Now, we were ill-equipped to deal with this problem through standard liberal-supported social programs, and more radical measures may be needed to get the country back on track to where it should be.



In this part, the author notes one of the key reasons why tax loopholes are never closed and why even the simplest proposals to reduce the misery of the poor fall on deaf ears. It would mean that the well-off might have to give up their own advantages, and this does not suit them. This is exactly what the problem has been all these years, and I've observed the same attitude myself, among both liberals and conservatives.

This is the main part of the reason why many people view liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, as being "the same" even as pompous, affluent, privileged liberals stomp their little feet and scream "false equivalence" all the time.

This is why, to me, all other issues pale in importance. What we're seeing now is the long-term consequences of decades of criminal negligence, and all of the problems which many are bringing up today, such as the supposed "threat to democracy" and the rise of hate and intolerance, all emanate from the wanton failures of our political system and those who hold stewardship over it.

It's not just about giveaway programs or free stuff (since the wealthy have gotten the lion's share of that anyway), but it's about rebuilding and restructuring our economy to be productive again.

Most interesting, thanks for that. My book club read Desmond's Evicted a few years ago, and I think I shall suggest to them that we follow up with this new book.

 

[Revoltingest]

Most interesting, thanks for that. My book club read Desmond's Evicted a few years ago, and I think I shall suggest to them that we follow up with this new book.

Was it about how the eviction process should be more streamlined?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Was it about how the eviction process should be more streamlined?

Not hardly, no.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not hardly, no.

Too bad.
In my experience, it can take a year to rid a property of a non-paying tenant.
Guess who that cost is passed on to?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Is this religious zeal for socialism its evil twin?

You would have to direct that to someone who believes socialism can't go wrong.

Any system has its own flaws. The trick is to choose the one with the least of those in number and severity.

 

[Nakosis]

Depends pretty much on what they are doing with it.
But one knows immediately that you are from the US by your reaction to a hypothetical situation. You are shocked that the state may take 50% in taxes but it doesn't phase you that those with a low income pay a much higher tax rate than the millionaires. Are you a millionaire or are you indoctrinated?

It was a hypothetical but actually I felt bad for both. No one should have half of what they earn taken away from them.

Yes, it depends on what the rich are doing with their money. Are they providing jobs, are they giving to charity, creating scholarship?
At least they won't be directly funding a war. Although thanks to the government, they can profit from it.

 

[Revoltingest]

You would have to direct that to someone who believes socialism can't go wrong.

Notice how I didn't direct it anyone in particular.
You brought up an attitude about capitalism.
I brought up one about socialism.

Any system has its own flaws. The trick is to choose the one with the least of those in number and severity.

That's almost correct.
The trick is to choose the system that offers the best results.