Who has the money in the U.S.A...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So aren't you making the argument that salaries in areas where the cost of living is higher, should also be statistically higher, even for Middle Class. Jobs such as police, fire and teachers?

[Heracles 417]

How many people on here are in the 1.5% bracket that earns over $250K. Therefore, why would anyone not part of the 1.5 percent support it or them? Or assume paying people a fair wage or even 4 weeks vacation, is stealing. All while advocating that the wealthy earning millions, with many for doing absolutely nothing, somehow deserve it. With many wealthy from basically being at the right place at the right time or exploiting others to get it - aka the American way of doing business.

Therefore, why would anyone want to give them and their families a break? All while hating on the single mother working two jobs to put food on their table and shoes on their feet. Some of you spend so much time focusing on cutting down the unemployed that you ignore the poor working-class that plagues America; be it white, black or brown.

Obviously the wealthy don't care about the 80%, so why should they care about their tax rate? Tax them 90% if need be, as you did in the 40's to 60's, because they'd pay you a cent to the hour if they could.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Heracles

[^_^ 5,021]

... hating on the single mother working two jobs to put food on their table and shoes on their feet.

You know she's a ####### with no morals and Jesus hates her, right?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

You know she's a ####### with no morals and Jesus hates her, right?

The one with three kids and three different fathers?

[^_^ 5,021]

The one with three kids and three different fathers?

yeah. i hate her.

[Ban Hammer 13,427]

yeah. i hate her.

you didn't get any of that, did you?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

yeah. i hate her.

Get your a$$ over there and help her. Give her a few dollars to cover what the state wont.

I love it when progressives are philanthropic with all our money.

[Ban Hammer 13,427]

Get your a$$ over there and help her. Give her a few dollars to cover what the state wont.

I love it when progressives are philanthropic with all our money.

[Texanadian 10]

What kills me is that there are 248,000,000 Americans in the bottom 80% and many actually support tax cuts [subsidizing] the top 20%. Yet like slaves, the bottom 80% are competing for their puny share of 15% of the wealth - the crumbs basically.

What is being subsidized? Jobs and income. Do we want more jobs and income or less? Besides, changing the tax rates from one high point to another is not subsidization. That's simply less penalty for earning income. Subsidizing would be being paid money for not earning income. This is welfare for the poor and bailouts for the rich.

The root of capitalism is that everybody pursues their own interests and that society benefits from that even though it wasn't purposely set out to be. The invisible hand. Steve Jobs wants to sell phones, computers and music players. He never meant to help musicians sell more music by MP3's. He never meant to help businesses by the use of cell phones. He never meant for parents to be able to contact their kids when they're not in the same area. His primary goals are to sell product and make money.

First off, the wealthy need to start paying a fair wage. It's simply not acceptable that someone working full time has to work two or three jobs to make ends meet. As I have said before, what sort of a person defends the wealthy getting wealthier, yet doesn't give a ####### about where they or people like themselves stand? Idiots, that is who.

What it comes down to is this, the wealthy look out for their own azz, so why shouldn't the 80% do the same?

You guys will hate on the poor and section 8 folks, call them lazy leaching bums, but turn a blind eye to how little the wealthy actually do to earn billions. You guys are being played like fools but don't even know it or see it. At least Canadians and Australians have smartened up and demanded to be paid a fair wage, rather than live in squalor and in shitty has-been run-down towns and cities.

As mentioned, everybody separately looks out for themselves. The person working 2 jobs is to be respected. They're doing what they can to better their situation. They're probably trying to get a better apartment. Or afford to keep their house. This is much different from government subsidized housing and welfare. Where people are making other people get behind in order for themselves to receive special treatment.

"Fair" is a delicate word. If the only way to make things fair is to make things unfair for somebody else, then it isn't really fair. If a homeless person walks into a restaurant and steals your lunch. It's not fair. Robbing a bank. Also not fair. But setting common rules that allow everybody the same starting basis tend to be fair. The same starting position.

You make it sound as if nobody is homeless or poor in Canada. Nobody drops out of school. Nobody is hooked on drugs. HA! The homeless situation is rampant in Vancouver. It's not rampant in Winnipeg. Temperature tends to send the homeless to where it's warm. Nobody wants to live outside in -40 in the winter. A few degrees above freezing is much better in that regard.

I was watching the news in Vancouver last night. They were talking about how the gas costs more in Vancouver than any other city in Canada. How the HST is costing the consumer more and many businesses more while subsidizing other businesses (the movie industry for example). HST is a step in the wrong direction.

True, yet less than 2.7% of American households earn that.

In fact, the National Median household income in the United States is $44,389. Now contrast this to Aust, where the average income per person is $53K.

What is the cost of living in Australia? I can use Canada and the USA as a good measure. Incomes are relatively the same. But homes, cars, food, etc are cheaper in the US. My car to get new tires would have been $1200 in Canada. The same tires in the US were $700. If in Canada the income was 1.7x higher than the US, then it wouldn't matter. But the income difference isn't so. I wound up buying the tires from the USA even though at the time I lived in Canada. This is why it's easier to be poor in the US than it is in Canada.

yeah, and they are supposed to save for retirement and save for their kids education all the while supposed to enjoy yearly family vacation. hell, just so we can pay baseball players 100 million, when a family of four goes to just 1 game, it is a major dent in 44,349 dollars. concerts these days are priced such that going to 1 year on 44,389 is all that is possible. middle class is being squeezed like never before.

Baseball games aren't that expensive. Tickets here are quite reasonable. $20. Concerts have gone up in price. I tend to go to less of them as a result. But this is how cheap vs expensive goods work. If everybody could hit homeruns and strike out everybody like the pros do, then the salaries wouldn't be so high. It's a niche market. Only few even among the pros can do that sort of thing. The same could be said for opera singers. Even rock singers. Robert Plant can sing better than a 3 chord garage band. As such, he earns a higher amount of money. His old Zeppelin albums still sell quite highly 40 years after the fact.

It all comes down to this, many are too prideful to admit that in terms if wealth and quality of life for the average Joe America, their equivalents in other countries are doing much better. Don' even realize that while the middle class is growing elsewhere, it is dying here. While other countries are modernizing, the US is falling apart. Sure, the pockets of wealthy areas are fantastic, but what about the rest of America - the 97%. It's a bloody joke.

Take NY and Jersey as an example, most folks with attitude and pride, basically assume they are the ######, don't even realize they are dirt poor. How many of them can honestly afford the down-payment on a home in Sydney, Melbourne, or Vancouver - none. I think this is all a ploy by the wealthy though, to keep the poor ignorant and naive. Up there, they have actually made you guys believe attitude equals wealth.

It's true, that most can't afford a house in Vancouver. And if they can, it's a small house in a bad part of town that will be small and have a renter living in another part of the house. This isn't what people want. We all want our own homes. I was looking at houses for sale for $325K last night. Here in Houston I could get 5300 sq feet. Cherry wood flooring. A pool and hot tub. A garage. In Vancouver that would get you a one bedroom condo in the slums.

[Texanadian 10]

An interesting debate has come up about Buffet and Gates' request that millionares give away half their fortunes to charity. Ted Turner and George Lucas have agreed already. They're trying to raise 600 billion dollars.

It's the same debate that the tax cuts vs government ownership of taxes (in regards to deficit funding) have brought up. The estate tax is going to be 55% next year. If these ultra rich people give away half their fortunes to charitable purposes, the government will (at some point in time) "lose" out on the estate tax. Not only that but the government will "lose" revenue by them claiming a charitable deduction on 600 billion dollars worth of money.

So it's really the people who think that government should own all the money and determine what to do with it that are against this. They want rich people to not be rich. They want rich people to pay more. But they don't want to lose out on the revenue that rich people give in the way of taxes even when it means they're giving money to poor people.

[BobandXiaomei 14]

What kills me is that there are 248,000,000 Americans in the bottom 80% and many actually support tax cuts [subsidizing] the top 20%. Yet like slaves, the bottom 80% are competing for their puny share of 15% of the wealth - the crumbs basically.

How does anyone in their right that is not in the top 20% support policies that don't benefit their own families, friends and themselves? Then again, this is the land of denial, so I am sure most of the 80% think they are in the top 20%.

I have to hand it to the wealthy here, they have really pulled the rug over the 80% and kept them naive and fighting one another for the crumbs.

I believe the old term was "house slaves".

For all of our complaints about taxes the USA continues to have one of the lowest rates in the Western world.

[Heracles 417]

What is being subsidized? Jobs and income. Do we want more jobs and income or less? Besides, changing the tax rates from one high point to another is not subsidization. That's simply less penalty for earning income. Subsidizing would be being paid money for not earning income. This is welfare for the poor and bailouts for the rich.

The 80% need to look out for themselves, as already do the top 20% of the wealthy. They don't like it, oh well, too bad.

The root of capitalism is that everybody pursues their own interests and that society benefits from that even though it wasn't purposely set out to be. The invisible hand. Steve Jobs wants to sell phones, computers and music players. He never meant to help musicians sell more music by MP3's. He never meant to help businesses by the use of cell phones. He never meant for parents to be able to contact their kids when they're not in the same area. His primary goals are to sell product and make money.

This is how I see it, had the average Joe American Repub been right on the money regarding Capitalism and wealth, they'd be wealthy and the rest of the first world would be poor. The graph clearly illustrates that for the bottom 90% of Americans, over 65% of their wealth is tied into their home. As of August 2010, the median house price in Houston is $175K. To the contrary, the median house price in Melbourne, AUS is about $500K. Therefore, who do you think is wealthier? Who do you think has done a better job in obtaining the end goal of capitalism? Money and Q.O.L. Or are you guys going to tell me now that your not interested in wealth now. In other words, we're all for something, until someone beats us at it; then we don't care about you or it and are happy with what we have.

As mentioned, everybody separately looks out for themselves. The person working 2 jobs is to be respected. They're doing what they can to better their situation. They're probably trying to get a better apartment. Or afford to keep their house. This is much different from government subsidized housing and welfare. Where people are making other people get behind in order for themselves to receive special treatment.

I am not talking about welfare or unemployed, you guys will never see the logic in that. I am talking about the working-class who work 40 + hours but are still dirt poor. Who in their right mind would advocate people working not being remunerated adequate pay, fringe benefits, adequate vacation, sick pay etc?

"Fair" is a delicate word. If the only way to make things fair is to make things unfair for somebody else, then it isn't really fair. If a homeless person walks into a restaurant and steals your lunch. It's not fair. Robbing a bank. Also not fair. But setting common rules that allow everybody the same starting basis tend to be fair. The same starting position.

Fair is no one being forced to hold two or three jobs to make basic ends meet. Apparently to the right here, when a business robs you blind or exploits the working-class, that is fair. But how dare you ask that the top 20% pay taxes on the money they basically exploited from others.

Americans history is one rooted in exploitation, so I don't expect many on the right to see what is wrong with this.

You make it sound as if nobody is homeless or poor in Canada. Nobody drops out of school. Nobody is hooked on drugs. HA! The homeless situation is rampant in Vancouver. It's not rampant in Winnipeg. Temperature tends to send the homeless to where it's warm. Nobody wants to live outside in -40 in the winter. A few degrees above freezing is much better in that regard.

Canada beats the United States in pretty-much all international livability comparisons hands down. Where you beat them is in GDP and military expenditure, which does nothing for anyone Q.O.L. Once again, you guys use the well Canada or Australia has poor, therefore, this invalidates the 60 million Americans living in poverty period. No it does not actually, as to invalidate it, they too would have to have the same percentage living in poverty. You would also have to use the same scale they use to consider someone is in poverty. Apparently someone earning over $14K is not in poverty here. Typical manipulation of the facts here.

What is the cost of living in Australia? I can use Canada and the USA as a good measure. Incomes are relatively the same. But homes, cars, food, etc are cheaper in the US. My car to get new tires would have been $1200 in Canada. The same tires in the US were $700. If in Canada the income was 1.7x higher than the US, then it wouldn't matter. But the income difference isn't so. I wound up buying the tires from the USA even though at the time I lived in Canada. This is why it's easier to be poor in the US than it is in Canada.

You don't get why things are so cheap here.. Basically, because you guys exploit people. Canadians and Australia actually put their Country First [ring a bell] and pay their citizens a fair wage. Yes, this means things cost more. That said, I can without a doubt say that even with things more expensive, the average Joe there is much more wealthier than their equivalent here; especially for anyone doing any blue-collar work. I don't know one single tradesman there who is earning under $60K - not one.

I'd rather things be more expensive and I earn better money, than be poor but have things cost less. In fact, the rest of the first world prefers this. To the contrary, things are really cheap in the third world but unfortunately look where that has gotten them. In fact, this can be verified with at various towns and cities throughout America, which now [themselves] look like a third world country. In other words, the cheap is good theory has failed America. Made China and the rest of the exporting world richer though.

It's true, that most can't afford a house in Vancouver. And if they can, it's a small house in a bad part of town that will be small and have a renter living in another part of the house. This isn't what people want. We all want our own homes. I was looking at houses for sale for $325K last night. Here in Houston I could get 5300 sq feet. Cherry wood flooring. A pool and hot tub. A garage. In Vancouver that would get you a one bedroom condo in the slums.

Prices are high there, as they are high in Australia, because people want to live there. Yet apparently for so many capitalist and fiscally savvy folks here, they don't seem to grasp that or why they are low here [supply and demand]. Without the false boom brought on by unfettered greed, house prices would never have risen to such unreasonable levels. I saw this from the first week I arrived, hence not investing any money in property here and keeping it in AUS.

Edited August 7, 2010 by Heracles

[DEDixon 39]

Baseball games aren't that expensive. Tickets here are quite reasonable. $20. Concerts have gone up in price. I tend to go to less of them as a result. But this is how cheap vs expensive goods work. If everybody could hit homeruns and strike out everybody like the pros do, then the salaries wouldn't be so high. It's a niche market. Only few even among the pros can do that sort of thing. The same could be said for opera singers. Even rock singers. Robert Plant can sing better than a 3 chord garage band. As such, he earns a higher amount of money. His old Zeppelin albums still sell quite highly 40 years after the fact.

ATLANTA -- The Cubs have the highest average ticket price in baseball, according to an analysis by Team Marketing Report, and also had the second-highest ticket increase in 2010.

The average ticket price at Wrigley Field is $52.56, according to TMR, barely edging out Boston ($52.32) and the New York Yankees ($51.83). The White Sox rank fourth at $38.65. The average major-league ticket price is $26.79.

The Cubs also had a 10.1 percent increase over 2009, which trailed only a 45 percent increase by the Minnesota Twins, who are moving into a new ballpark, Target Field.

The average increase in major-league ticket prices over 2009 was 1.7 percent. The Cubs added 12 games in their highest-priced tier, going from 14 to 26 games in "platinum" games.

The Cubs also rank second to Boston in Fan Cost index -- the price of taking a family of four to a game. The FCI for the Cubs is $329.74, an 8.2 percent increase. Boston's FCI is $334.71, a 2.6 percent increase.

In his TMR blog, executive editor Jon Greenberg explained that the Cubs have fewer "premium" seats than other clubs:

"TMR began separating general and premium seating in 2003. While there is still reason to do so today, despite the rising number of seats considered 'premium,' it's important to note both figures. ... The Cubs have the lowest percentage of seating classified as premium at 1 percent, though this doesn't include their auction seats, which are sold on a season or game-by-game basis. The team has also added a new premium club, the PNC Club, which is carved out of luxury suites."

here in SF they are going to start charging based on who is playing. some places are cheaper than others, like you said. i guess i just don't like baseball enough. for my wife and i to go it would be well over 150. not worth it to me.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Baseball games aren't that expensive. Tickets here are quite reasonable. $20. Concerts have gone up in price. I tend to go to less of them as a result. But this is how cheap vs expensive goods work. If everybody could hit homeruns and strike out everybody like the pros do, then the salaries wouldn't be so high. It's a niche market. Only few even among the pros can do that sort of thing. The same could be said for opera singers. Even rock singers. Robert Plant can sing better than a 3 chord garage band. As such, he earns a higher amount of money. His old Zeppelin albums still sell quite highly 40 years after the fact.

Professional sports is the biggest rip-off in America. The only way they can pay these players millions of dollars and rake in huge profits for the team's owners is by making the taxpayers of whatever community they choose exploit next build and maintain their stadiums. If the sport was as successful as everyone claims, if it was making the kind of money that justifies the payouts to players and owners, then why do all these teams hang on the taxpayer's teat?

Edited August 7, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[^_^ 5,021]

Professional sports is the biggest rip-off in America. The only way they can pay these players millions of dollars and rake in huge profits for the team's owners is by making the taxpayers of whatever community they choose exploit next build and maintain their stadiums. If the sport was as successful as everyone claims, if it was making the kind of money that justifies the payouts to players and owners, then why do all these teams hang on the taxpayer's teat?

+1