mmmmyeahhlumberg t1_j6idyvq wrote
Public union members are the true privileged class. Their salaries, benefits, and pensions are unheard of in private industry because they are basically financially unsustainable over the long term - and the suburbs are even worse than NYC.
Pool_Shark t1_j6im80c wrote
It’s all financially stable if we taxed the rich and private sector wasn’t so extremely top heavy with salaries.
mmmmyeahhlumberg t1_j6imwsu wrote
>It’s all financially stable if we taxed the rich and private sector wasn’t so extremely top heavy with salaries.
This is such a vague talking point.
You know that the bottom 50% of Americans don't pay any income tax, right?
Pool_Shark t1_j6inm7p wrote
Good. They can use all the help they can get.
Unless you are making over $1 million a year their is no point in defending the current system as is. It’s set up to benefit the richest few over the masses
mmmmyeahhlumberg t1_j6ip2ll wrote
What does it mean when you say the private sector is "so extremely top heavy with salaries"? Private companies are private companies. I can see if you were concerned about how much public employees make, if you were a taxpayer, but what a private company pays its workers is really their business. They are free to set their own salaries. We're still capitalists last I checked.
Pool_Shark t1_j6iqpd3 wrote
Pretending the private and public sectors are not intertwined is foolish at best.
In the 60s CEO pay was 20x higher than the average employee. Now it is closer to 400x higher. Our country is healthiest (for the average American) when the government regulations provide a healthy balance to our systems. Instead we have spent the last 50 years promoting unchecked greed and stacking the deck to high for the wealthiest.
Pure unadulterated capitalism is a terrible system, stop drinking the kool aid.
mowotlarx OP t1_j6ird6x wrote
>"Don't forget that most men with nothing would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich than face the reality of being poor."
I think about this quote from the musical 1776 a lot. It explains American conservative voters pretty well. How else to explain how people living in impoverished states were pushing to end the Estate tax when Trump took office.
manateefourmation t1_j6m271v wrote
I hate when I have to disagree with someone who I think I fundamentally agree with. But this is that case.
We live in a country far from “unadulterated capitalism.” The sheer number of regulatory agencies whose sole job is to regulate capitalism is astounding. We have social programs like Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security. In NYC, we tax people making even $200k a year (not exactly wealthy in this city) almost 50% between federal, payroll, state and city taxes. Again - not exactly unchecked capitalism.
That said, I absolutely agree with you that the wealth disparity in this county is unsustainable. The difference between the bottom 99% and top 1% is greater than at the time of the French Revolution. Federal tax cuts under the GOP mostly go to corporations and the ultra rich. Taxing passive income different than W2 income is a scam. But as long as the GOP has their base fooled to vote against their economic interests - this is not changing any time soon.
mmmmyeahhlumberg t1_j6j6uy8 wrote
We don't have pure, unadulterated capitalism. We have plenty of government regulation. We're also top five in the world for median income and median wealth. The average American is doing fine.
Pool_Shark t1_j6j9cnh wrote
Median income is a worthless stat if it’s not weighted by cost of living
manateefourmation t1_j6m1k13 wrote
It’s a bit deceptive. Yes, no income tax because they are poor. But they still pay payroll taxes which given there income has a much higher impact on their day to day lives than the top 50%.
Do you appreciate how little the bottom 50% take home each week? And I guess now you want to tax them 🥴
mmmmyeahhlumberg t1_j6mq3w8 wrote
I have no desire to tax the bottom 50% but lets understand the complete picture. It's amazing how many people don't realize the complete picture.
manateefourmation t1_j6nshnn wrote
Everyone I know recognizes that the bottom 50% don’t pay federal income tax - not exactly a secret. But to really complete the story you have to look at why the bottom 50% don’t pay and that due to the massive growth of income inequality of this country in the last 50 years, the destruction of good paying middle class jobs, the move to the giga economy (where poorly paid workers have to pay high self employment taxes (both ends of SS and Medicare taxes).
This is a really complicated story in this country and merely stating “50% don’t pay income tax is a Republican talking point and not understanding the “full picture.”
mmmmyeahhlumberg t1_j6nuw30 wrote
due to the massive growth of income inequality of this country in the last 50 years
The median family income in the U.S. has gone from 30k to 70k in the last 30 years...and America is top five in the world in median income. It looks like the average American is doing ok despite the "massive growth of income inequality".
Some people would rather have everyone doing poorly if it means the wealthy are doing poorly rather than have everyone doing better if it means the wealthy are also doing better. LOL.
manateefourmation t1_j6nvodx wrote
Here is a great analysis by Pew (which I think we can agree doesn’t bias left or right) on the decline of the middle class in America over the past 50 years.
*Edit: just to say this is the second time you’ve thrown out a simplistic number without trying to understand the “why.” For example what you cite as “family income”’is actually “household” income and more and more households have moved to three wage earners. You seem to like talking points by laughing at those less fortunate.
mmmmyeahhlumberg t1_j6nxmkd wrote
So 7% of the middle class from 50 years ago moved up to the upper class and 4% of the middle class from 50 years ago moved to the lower class. So more of the middle class from 50 years ago moved up to the upper class than moved down to the lower class. For some reason I don't have a big issue when more of the middle class is moving up than down.
manateefourmation t1_j6o3bjo wrote
That stat is nowhere in the Pew analysis. For those following this thread, the Pew study shows three things:
- “The share of adults who live in middle-class households fell from 61% in 1971 to 50% in 2021, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of government data.”
- “The rise in “household” income is more explained by the number of wage earners in the household.
- college grads make more than their high school equivalents- at a time when college enrollment is dropping.
But let’s say your stat has some truth, “Families that have risen above the middle class may still be doing worse than they were in 2000 because the inflation-adjusted median income has declined in all but four states — North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Wyoming.”
I’m the top percent of this country but have empathy for the destruction of high paying middle income jobs here / perhaps some empathy on your part and trying to look at the core reasons and fix them might be helpful instead of bemoaning the struggling half who “don’t pay federal income taxes.”
Here is a wonderful stat for you. The income disparity in this country as surpassed that of the disparity right before the French Revolution.
mmmmyeahhlumberg t1_j6o69i8 wrote
The very first chart confirms exactly what I noted. Exactly.
manateefourmation t1_j6m1bjw wrote
Are you serious. Do you appreciate how underpaid public service workers are compared to the private sector? There is a ton of data out there for you to review.
Some companies - VZ, ATT and others still offer traditional pensions on par with what the city is offering. And where there is no traditional pension, most large companies offer 5% 401K matching.
The city benefits actually suck compared to the Fortune 500 world that I spent most of my life in after leaving government.
mmmmyeahhlumberg t1_j6mr31p wrote
Wrong. I have family members that have worked in both public and private sectors. The excessive pensions and benefits of public union members are getting phased out more and more every day in the private sector because they are unsustainable over the long term - except when you have a captive source of funds known as taxpayers.
manateefourmation t1_j6nrsf6 wrote
I spent 10 years in government before moving to Fortune 100. I watched both systems change. So I’m not disagreeing with you - I said that some big companies still have traditional pensions but the move is to matching 401ks with health insurance at retirement.
oceanblue966 t1_j6mnptb wrote
Doesnt matter. They agreed to lower salaries and less flexibility for benefits they PAID into. You cannot promise x in lieu of y and then give them z.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments