Follow this blog:
RSS

Silicon Valley: getting poorer?

By | March 11, 2013, 11:28 PM PDT

The good fortune of Silicon Valley’s technology entrepreneurs isn’t advancing economic mobility within the community. Income inequality and poverty are rising; a sprawling tent city of homeless residents is growing.

Apple, Google and a sundry of start-ups are generating substantial equity. Once-vacant office parks are abuzz with activity, stock prices are soaring, and the Valley is attracting new investments. Wealth is pouring back into the Valley after many difficult years. It’s fair to call it a comeback, because it is.

The peculiar thing is that a great many residents wouldn’t even know it. The Associated Press published a report on Sunday detailing the disparity among Valley residents. It cites statistics from a community foundation, which find that more residents receive food stamps now than any period over the past decade.

Another major finding was that the average income of Latinos fell 14 percent over five years, to US$19,000. Meanwhile, expenses have risen to levels that people earning low wages couldn’t possibly afford.

The average price of a house in the Valley is $550,000, and living expenses are so high that a family of four must spend nearly $90,000 annually for basic necessities, according to the AP report. Homelessness has risen 20 percent over the past two years, and the aforementioned tent city now covers 28 acres near the airport.

It’s easy to say that people who can’t afford those prices should relocate, and some people commenting on the story did. But it used to be much more common for mixed income families to live in the same neighborhood.

What’s changed is that the United States is gradually segregating itself by wealth. In 1980, 9 percent of upper-income families lived in exclusive developments; that number soared to 18 percent in 2010. Likewise, lower income families tend to reside in lower income areas. Income inequality is worse than many Latin American countries.

Demographics and population remained nearly constant from 2000 to 2010, according to U.S. Census data.

National trends like these matter to the context of the AP article. After all, Silicon Valley doesn’t exist in a bubble. What’s happening in Silicon Valley is also happening nationally. Last June, over 64 million Americans - or approximately 15 percent of the U.S. population - received benefits from the government’s Supplemental Nutrition Program. The median household income fell significantly during and post Great Recession.

Some would argue that the wealth will eventually trickle down, but household income has remained stagnant in the U.S. for the past several decades even as the country’s overall wealth has grown. Silicon Valley is almost a microcosm for the entire U.S., though some conditions may be unique to the region.

Silicon Valley’s innovation and manufacturing laid the foundation for a strong middle class decades ago. Investments in the public sector, excellent public schools, genius, and insane work ethic allowed for middle class children like Steve Jobs to flourish. Will the next generation have the same capacity to realize their potential?

(image credit: University of Washington)

Related on SmartPlanet:

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

David Worthington

About David Worthington

David Worthington is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

David Worthington

David Worthington

Contributing Editor

David Worthington has written for BetaNews, eWeek, PC World, Technologizer and ZDNet. Formerly, he was a senior editor at SD Times. He holds a degree from Temple University. He is based in New York.

Follow him on Twitter.

David Worthington

David Worthington

David does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what he covers. Occasionally he consults for other companies; should David cover a topic in which a client is involved, he will disclose this fact in his writing. His views do not represent those of his employers.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
43
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+3 Votes
+ -
Have these people ever heard of ...
North Dakota? The unemployment rate in Dec. was 3.2%. If you can show up, you can get a job. One McDonald's was giving $300 SIGNING bonuses last June - just to get people to work there!

It's cold, the work is hard & dangerous and the weather stinks. No doubt it's warmer & nicer at the airport. That's not how the free market works, however. There are too many of you in Silicon Valley. If enough leave, wages may go up and a few can come back. Otherwise, there's work on the freezing plains. Welcome to real life, folks...

Move.
Posted by ClearCreek
12th Mar
-1 Votes
+ -
But that would mean..........
(tounge in cheek)
That they would have to leave California and its massive social welfare programs. Besides its cold in North Dakota!
Posted by randall.wilkinson@...
12th Mar
+1 Vote
+ -
Is this really any different than any other large city?
The only difference is that in Silicon Valley, it's much more obvious.

Consider that in New York City, what would be considered a nominal middle class existence anywhere else in the country now costs over 6-figures.

And I also have trouble feeling too sorry about the state of affairs in California, a place where people constantly bemoan the lack of "affordable housing" while simultaneously implementing law and policy that makes it even more unaffordable and unobtainable.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 12th Mar
+1 Vote
+ -
Wealth Disparity and Culture
The wealth disparity has just as many roots in social culture as anywhere else. When a culture a.k.a. behvioural systems that allow / tolerate / and even revere haveing large numbers of children born out of wedlock then these kids will still grow up on poverty.

When the culture changes to preach, educate, and take personal responsibility for one's life, education, bodies, and health, then all the ranting and raving in the world will not alleviate the problems of poverty and homelessess.

The church used to provide alot of these services but it has been largely driven out of southern California.

Despite what Hollywood and NOW will tell you there is no such thing as sex without consequences.
Posted by randall.wilkinson@...
12th Mar
+1 Vote
+ -
Greed and Lies
"Some would argue that the wealth will eventually trickle down, but household income has remained stagnant in the U.S. for the past several decades even as the countrys overall wealth has grown."

There's no trickle down.

CEOs get $10s of millions in bonuses and stock options. Enough money to last several lifetimes while the average worker barely gets a 2% salary increase.
Then the same CEOs complain our nation's taxes are too high that they can't afford to do business here.
Posted by RussellL
12th Mar
+1 Vote
+ -
Anyone still remember...
...the French Revolution?

Folks in gated communities, to paraphrase Jared Diamond, "...may have paid for the privelige of being last to die..."

I'm not a religious person, but wonder how wealthy people who claim to follow JC can tolerate the plight of the poor and disenfranchised in our country.
Posted by Stevewaclo
12th Mar
0 Votes
+ -
How?
If you bothered to talk to people of faith, you'd find that the "wealthy" are very concerned about the plight of the poor.

But whats lost on "smart" people and those who hate on religions (sometimes legitimately), those who hate on success, is that you don't solve poverty by stealing through taxation and growing the government.

Wage growth results from demand for skills and the potential to exploit those skills for profits great enough to pay the wages.

Our "poor" are the victims of the public school monopoly, wherein they are discouraged from learning ANYTHING of substance that would advance them in life. Instead, they are indoctrinated in hate studies, self esteem, and early parenthood, instead of math, science, and marketable skills.

While I would prefer we simply abolish public education altogether, giving "poor" parents a choice in schools, via vouchers, would be a good start.
Posted by FoodStampPlanet
Updated - 13th Mar
+2 Votes
+ -
When a few steal millions of times their share, nothing works.
Bastille day is the key, when rich parasites are separated from their head, all will go to bed warm and fed.
Posted by Reality Bites
12th Mar
+2 Votes
+ -
Trickle down is a joke
Better to build the economy from the bottom and let the wealth trickle up.
Posted by riverat1
12th Mar
+1 Vote
+ -
That has NEVER worked, and will NEVER work,
since, ideas and entrepreneurship and initiative and the willingness to work hard and long hours, have NEVER flowed from the bottom up. It's always the few with the ideas and the money, who make an economy work. When everybody become managers and "leaders", they'll manage to lead us into nothing, except bigger poverty and hopelessness. Obama and the democrats believe in the bottom-up economy, and look at the big messes they've created.
Posted by adornoe
12th Mar
0 Votes
+ -
In the long run it's the only thing that works.
All the entrepreneurship and initiative in the world won't do you a damn bit of good if you don't have customers who have the resources to acquire your products. On the other hand if people at the bottom of the economic ladder have more money to spend they will spend it and businesses will seek to expand to cover the demand. Look at how much money businesses are basically just sitting on right now because there's not enough demand for them to invest it in increasing their business.

Trickle down can work somewhat when the general public has lots of disposable income but when they don't it falls apart.
Posted by riverat1
13th Mar
-1 Votes
+ -
Yes riverat
I have no problem with "funny money" entering the economy
at the bottom. When the poor spend it, it trickles up, and
becomes "real money"; you know, the stuff that the wealthy
hoard.
Posted by bill1514@...
13th Mar
+1 Vote
+ -
How much more clueless can you get???
First of all, the people at the bottom need to get their hands on money before it can "trickle up", but, where the heck are they going to get that money from in the first place? Money won't magically jump into their pockets or purses or wallets or bank accounts. That money comes from somewhere. That somewhere is the businesses, and the businesses are started by the entrepreneurs and the people with ideas and the people with the management skills and the people with the funding to make things work. The vast majority of people don't have those capabilities.

Which came first: the chicken or the egg? In the business world, the businesses have to come first, and the work-force comes later, after the businesses have been established. For anything at all to happen in industry, there had to be a beginning, and government is not a beginning, since, it needs funding from.... guess where???... well... government funding comes from corporate taxes and from personal income taxes. Without the infrastructure that the private economy provides, NOTHING else at all will be possible. Not government and not some fantasy like the "trickle up" economy. It's not possible, because, it's not logical, and not even common sense.
Posted by adornoe
13th Mar
0 Votes
+ -
Apparently not a clueless as you.
I probably shouldn't have used the term "bottom of the economic ladder" in my reply because what I was really talking about was the middle class. For a long time up until the 1980's increases in productivity of workers went hand in hand with increases in their wages. Since then the fruits of improved productivity increasingly go to those at the top of the economic ladder and middle class wages have stagnated. From 1979 to 2009 productivity in the US increased by ~80% yet wages increased by less than 15%. The middle class keeps dying little by little and that is having its effects on the consumer economy in the US.
Posted by riverat1
14th Mar
+1 Vote
+ -
riverat1: You're still very clueless,
What you haven't noticed is that, as government intrusion into the marketplace increased, the take home pay of individuals decreased. It's not that they're getting paid less, and in fact, most who are skilled will be shown to have increased their wages too. But, the lower middle-class and those below them, will have a much harder time finding good paying jobs, mostly because, they are disappearing to lower-wage overseas competition. Thus, the economy will have ended up with the better skilled part of the work-force with better paid positions, while the lower-skilled will have ended up with the more crappy jobs that can't or haven't been off-shored.

The question then ends up being, what caused the off-shoring of jobs and manufacturing. We've had that discussion millions of times in this forum, but it's worth repeating that, the biggest cause of that off-shoring, and the losses of jobs, and the lowering of the pay scale, has been the intrusion of government into the economy. When big government demands so much from the private sector, with higher taxes from corporations and individuals, and tens of thousands new regulations which make operations in the states very expensive, then, of course, the jobs and the businesses will be lost to the more hospitable business environments overseas. That's a no-brainer, but it's something that democrats continue being in denial about.

So, basically, as government gets bigger and more intrusive and more expensive, the middle-class will continue to suffer the consequences. Businesses exist to make their owners money, and in many cases, rich, if the company is that successful. Now, the company owners will already have contributed a lot more to the economy than government ever could, since it's the business owners who took the risks and put their money into the economy, to grow businesses and to create jobs. Without that risk, there wouldn't be an economy. Without the business owners who create businesses, there would be no jobs, and there would be no government.

The cost of living has gone up, and wages won't go as far. But, there are many things that people fail to consider when they think about cost of living, and that is the newer "expenses" that people have decided that they can't live without. Back in the 1980s, people had a fewer expenses to deal with, and there were no cell-phone bills, and no internet service bills. and not smartphones and tablets and computers to pay for. Since those services and products came about, they've become "necessities" in most people's minds, and on a monthly basis, people are spending somewhere around $200 per month on them, whereas, in the 1980s, that money went to other things, such as food and clothing and shoes and most other basic necessities. Now, because people are spending that money on the newer "necessities", they find that their money won't go as far. If people were to go without those new necessities, they wouldn't be feeling poorer than they were back in the 1980s.

There are far too many variables in the economy for why people feel less secure, but, the biggest amount of insecurity comes via government, because people know that, when government gets very expensive, the people will have less of everything. The only people who might not be feeling the pinch of the poorer economy, are the ones that have become very dependent on government services and government largess.

Fact is that, if government would get the heck out of the free-market system, that the economy would see tremendous growth, and wages would increase, and the jobless rate might come down to 4% or less. With the people we have in Washington right now, it's never going to happen, and we can continue to expect the worst.
Posted by adornoe
14th Mar
-1 Votes
+ -
You have a one track mind
And you failed to notice that when the government dropped the taxes on high incomes from over 70% to under 40% in the 1980's that rather than plowing money back into their businesses including employee raises the owners started taking it out as income.

For you it appears that government is the cause of all problems. Government has its issues but businesses are not blameless either and a lot of government policies are at the behest of business. When your only tool is a hammer everything looks like a nail.
Posted by riverat1
18th Mar
-1 Votes
+ -
forgetting something?
Are you saying that Obama was handed a blank slate?
Fraid not, sir. He was handed the worst American economy since 1930, left over from two Bushes and one Clinton.
While I agree with your concept of too many leaders, the 80's was a playground for middle-management hacks, our crap economy is the result of relying on the mythical largess of upper-tier Capitalists whose primary directive is making sure that NOTHING 'trickles down'.
Our current economy relies not on the products of hard work and innovation so much as the, "products," of scam and 'repackaging' of the debt owed by those who thought that hard work and education were the path to success and security.
Posted by captainanalog
13th Mar
+1 Vote
+ -
No, I'm not forgetting something! And it's you that has no clue
about where and from whom the problems originated.

But first, Obama took a real bad situation, and made it even worse. When a hole is deep, and you need to get out of it, you don't dig deeper. That's simple common sense.

Also, it was Obama and the democrats who created the problems which Obama "inherited". The problems which plague the economy, have been plaguing it for decades, with the huge social programs mandates that require huge spending. What Bush did, did add to the budget deficit and to the national debt, but Bush was close to balancing the budget when the economic collapse occurred, and that collapse was due to the housing bubble which did collapse, but, that bubble was created by the stupidity of the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) which was passed by Jimmy Carter, and then given arm-twisting enforcement powers by Clinton, which forced the banks to make very risky loans to people who could not afford to pay back those loans. And, Obama was very instrumental in creating that housing crisis when, as a community organizer, he insisted that banks make those sub-prime loans to people who couldn't afford them.

It's always the same with democrats: create the problems, then make sure that republicans get the blame when things go wrong. And things did go very wrong.

And, though there might be problems with our economy, there is still no other economic system better at lifting people out of poverty, no matter how much people want to attack the rich and well-off and the overall economic system. The biggest thing that went wrong with our economic system, was allowing government intrusion into the system, and with that, many jobs and businesses had to go overseas to compensate for the losses which came as a result of that intrusion. High taxes and the immense number of regulations, forced a lot of the offshoring that so many people complain about, and thus, millions of jobs were lost. That government intrusion was as a result of the liberal policies which continue to create big government, and big government insists that it take more from the private sector through high taxation and the immense number of regulations that government has imposed.

So, if you don't know the history, and all you know is the stupid talking points that democrats put out to the "low information" voters, then, of course you would come up with your highly ignorant rants against "capitalism" and "trickle down" and republicans. It behooves you to become a "high information" citizen, which will take you out of the ignorant ranks. The history and the information is out there, so, go get it.
Posted by adornoe
14th Mar
-2 Votes
+ -
Government?
So, it was my government which coerced the loan sharks to continue to "pre-approve" me for loans at usurious rates?
I'll have to tell my congressman to stop sending those offers. LOL
Posted by captainanalog
14th Mar
0 Votes
+ -
Actually, YES!!!, that is precisely what encouraged the
loan sharks to make those risky loans.

When the government promises to take the loans off the hands of the loan makers, thereby freeing them up to make more risky loans, then, by God, those loan sharks will take advantage of the system. The problem with the system, as it stands right now, and as it was back then, is that, when it comes to investigating and prosecuting the culprits for what went wrong, is that, it's the government which does the investigating and prosecuting, and, that government will not go after the people most responsible for creating the mess and destroying the economy. The culprit, every time an economy gets into trouble, is almost always the government. That is easily apparent with what happened with the economic collapse a few years ago, and what set up that mess to begin with.
Posted by adornoe
15th Mar
0 Votes
+ -
You nailed it.
I sat in the room with 2 of them, Congressman Markey and Congressman Frank from Massachusetts when they met with Bank of America representatives to establish what would later become known as subprime lending.

The program was being developed in response to a law suit brought by Bruce Marks and NACA against the federal government for not enforcing a Carter administration law that said all federally chartered banks had to use a small percentage of their loan money for loans to people with damaged credit.

The original program covered just 1 bank, BoA and 12 cities across the nation. Including 1 in Massachusetts.

Being 1992, the program was targeted at people who had good credit prior to the 1990-91 recession, but had damaged their credit when they lost their job. Having a job that paid enough to cover the mortage was a requirement.

The program was a huge success at its goal of helping hard working people who had legitimate financial problems beyond their control get into a house. The concept of adjustable rate mortgages was born. Except the rates started higher and went DOWN after 2 years of on time payments as a reward to the consumer. Monthly payments remained the same, but principal was paid down faster.

After they saw that votes could be bought by bringing this plan to more people the likes of congressman Barney Frank opened up the program to the point where even today an applicant can use welfare benefits and unemployment benefits as valid sources of income. Banks failing to honor those income sources are subject to fines and charges of discrimination.

So yes, the government made them make the bad loans.
Posted by Hates Idiots
Updated - 20th Mar
0 Votes
+ -
Silicon Valley: getting poorer?
May be getting pay from thin air Over!
But technology remains our last hope.
Gopinathan Krishnan, a Scientist belonging to India, part of the "7 th world":
Posted by Gopinathan Krishnan
12th Mar
-2 Votes
+ -
Work?
We must do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian-Darwinian theory, he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living. -Buckminster Fuller
Posted by bill1514@...
13th Mar
+1 Vote
+ -
Call me a Calvinist...
...but that's pretty funny.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
13th Mar
-2 Votes
+ -
Funny, HA, HA...or Funny, PECULIAR?
Read it again. Pride cometh before the fall.
Posted by bill1514@...
13th Mar
-2 Votes
+ -
Calvinist? No, probably just another run-of-the-mill capitalist
If you are NOT the 1 in 10,000, you are one of the inspectors,
and you will never invent, much less discover, anything. You
are just another drain on society. Same with me. Same
too for the poor. If we now have a voting poor group that is the
majority, it serves us right. You can gerrymander all you want,
but the poor will turn the tide for any sympathetic politician.
Posted by bill1514@...
13th Mar
+1 Vote
+ -
What you describe is "rent seeking".
These are activities that add little new value to the economy, but are required either for it to function efficiently, or as the result of government fiat.

Al Gore is a great example of a "rent seeker". He has created very little real value to the economy, and yet has extracted great wealth from it.

An economy that continually transitions into rent-seeking over productivity ultimately fails. The Soviet Union was a good example. We are certainly heading that direction.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
13th Mar
-4 Votes
+ -
Call it what you wish John
But poor folks have no lobbyists so they must rely
on their newly acquired ability to VOTE for an
increased share of the pie. The real "rent seekers"
are the poor folks who resort to dealing marijuana
to the SV engineers, but that's a different story.
Posted by bill1514@...
13th Mar
+1 Vote
+ -
Oh, the poor do have "lobbyists".
They represent the "poverty industry"; the millions of people who actually make a living addressing the problems of "poverty". At best, these people never actually seem to achieve anything about it, and at worst just create more of it. Their only answer to poverty is the demand that more money be spent on it (or really, "them") in order to eradicate it. It never happens.

Nearly a half-decade and trillions spent after the "great society" and the "war on poverty", poverty is as present as ever. Except it now has a political constituency and a permanently expanding slice of the national fisc.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 14th Mar
+1 Vote
+ -
That will actually make sense to a lot of liberals, and especially to the
people who would prefer to remain at home collecting a check from government and all other benefits to keep them "existing".

To many out there, there is enough wealth that, it should be confiscated and redistributed, because, it's the fair thing to do, even if the vast majority of people had nothing to do with the creation of that wealth. It's the entitlement society, and it's going to be the death of this country, and we're already down that path with about 50% of the people not paying any income taxes.
Posted by adornoe
13th Mar
+3 Votes
+ -
Trickled on
Certainly there's trickle down, every time the economy is brought down we get trickled on.
As soon as productive workers are desperate enough to accept any work for low enough compensation, the parasites, "create jobs," and take credit for the, "recovery."
The only thing recovered is their ability to bilk the general public out of the fruits of their labor.
Posted by captainanalog
13th Mar
-1 Votes
+ -
Yes Captain
Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar. And that yellow liquid is only urine.
Posted by bill1514@...
13th Mar
+1 Vote
+ -
Believe it or not, most "parasites" don't have to create jobs, and,
where would the "working class" be then? What would they be employed in? What productivity would there be if there aren't any jobs? Which came first: the job or the company or the person who decided to risk his time and effort and money into a business venture?
Posted by adornoe
13th Mar
-1 Votes
+ -
Pretty good theory adornoe
Too bad it involves sending the poor to gas chambers and
therefore won't(hasn't) worked. Nazis tried it that way and
world opinion was a bit negative. But I get your drift, the
world be a much better place without the poor making
your taxes go up. Makes sense to me that the top 20%
should pay a "poverty tax" to support the bottom 20% and
leave the middle 60% alone. The income of the top 1%
is a crime against humanity.
Posted by bill1514@...
13th Mar
+1 Vote
+ -
Pretty poor retort, bill1514...
Look, when the top 20% or wage earners already pay for more than 70% of taxes, then, they are paying their fair share. But, to democrats and liberals, and apparently YOU, the fair share is an amount which will make the rich and wealthy come down to the same level as the rest of the population.

About 50% of people already don't pay any income tax, and from what's been established in the tax system, the poor will always continue being dependent on those that create and have most of the wealth. Now, taking that wealth away, will make everybody equal, and then, the whole country will be equally poor and hopeless. Fact is that, trickle-up can't work and is illogical, while trickle-down has always worked, no matter how insensitive it might seem. Wealth can NEVER be created from the bottom up. Bottom up economics is the same as everybody on his/her own, sort of like the economics of the stone ages. Leadership needs to be recognized, and sacrifices need to be rewarded, and with bottom up economics, there are no leaders in the private sector, and no risk taking. IOW, can't work, and won't work.
Posted by adornoe
14th Mar
-2 Votes
+ -
I've heard that all before adornoe
I am just telling you how it will be from now on.
Decent jobs were NOT supplied for the bottom
20%. What do you expect would happen? They
got the vote decades ago; now they are voting.
They hate you...not likely you will get their vote.
They can't elect a candidate on their own, but
they can sure add their numbers to the liberal
members of the 53%. The party is over whether
you like it or not. Revenge is sweet; your rant
is meaningless
Posted by bill1514@...
Updated - 15th Mar
0 Votes
+ -
Yet, billy old boy, the people at the bottom continue screwing
themselves even more, by voting for those that promise more government goodies to them. When government is in the business of paying back the favors of getting the majority of the votes, then the little people, or those at the bottom, will have screwed themselves into even bigger poverty, because, what they're getting is poorer while trying to take away from the rich, and it's the rich who are the providers for the goodies that the "bottom" of the ladder get. Take away from the rich and the well-off and the upper-middle-class, and government ends up with a lot less in revenue, and the poor will either get a lot less or the government ends up borrowing money, or using monopoly money (aka: phoney money) via money printing in order to support the high-spending.

The only people that end up losing, believe it or not, are the poor and the lower-middle-class, since, the rich will have figured out many different ways to protect their money and to keep it out of the hands of the government and the "bottom 20%".

Problem with a lot of people like you is that, you don't know how to follow the bad logic of people voting themselves "free stuff" from the government. It never works, and those hurt the most, are the ones attempting to hurt the wealth creators and the rich. Stupidity has it's consequences. Look around and you'll see the consequences. As and example, the poverty rate is now about twice what it was when Obama was first voted in; and it continues getting worse.
Posted by adornoe
15th Mar
-2 Votes
+ -
Your SHARE is your TAX rate, idiot
If the top 20% pay 70% of the taxes at the approximate rate
of say 14%, and everybody else pays taxes at the approximate
rate of 28%, then, in this case, the 20% are paying only HALF
their share. We are discussing solving the poverty problem,
are we not? Now, if 0.14 times the 20%'s bottom line equals 0.7,
and 0.28 times everybody else's bottom line equals 0.3, then you
can see the full extent of the damage that tax relief for the rich has
done to our society. Fortunes have been made by the top 20%;
and this caused our present debt. Darwin taught us that the
fittest survive, but we now know that the "fittest" are those most
able to adapt and the rich will need to adapt...why don't you just
stop kicking and screaming...it didn't work giving the rich
incentives to create jobs and take risks; They rich fell short by
at least 20% and lick their chops at what more they can put in
their pockets if the so-and-so government would stop spending
so much money on poor folks. Down right disgusting. Alms for
the rich, so to speak. You think you're smart getting away with
half your share? I say you're a morally corrupt cheat if you vote
for candidates who push for the rich to pay only half their share.
Posted by bill1514@...
Updated - 15th Mar
0 Votes
+ -
Idiocy to the max, billy...
Look, the rich and the well-off do pay around 70% of the taxes, and that is in real. That is what government collects. Never mind the "real" percentage that one mind end up paying after loopholes or whatever else reduces one's income. The pure fact is that, the upper 20% pay around 70% of the taxes. Taxes collected don't just include income taxes, and the rich sometimes end up paying a lot more from investments, like Romney did last year.

What you are apparently too dense to understand, is that, the rich and the well-off are the investment class that has a lot higher risks in the economy, and they did earn their money (at least most of them) the honest way, by investing and taking risks. Without those risks, we wouldn't even have an economy.

Investors and those who create companies and jobs, do deserve the rewards they reap from their efforts. And they do pay most of the taxes, and the people at the bottom (your 20%) don't pay any taxes, and in fact, they are net takers from the economy and from government. Why should it be considered fair to take from the producers to give to the takers who didn't do anything to earn any of it?

Also, it's been proven time and time again that, the more people get to keep from their earnings, the better off the economy is, and the better off the entire population is, including the "poor" who will likely have a much better chance of finding a job if the rich were to keep more and invest more in growing the economy.

The most fair tax system is the one that allows people to keep most of their income, and that includes the rich and well-off. The rich and well-off are the ones that create an economy that hums. So, with more people keeping more of their income, they will be spending more, and putting it back into the economy to create more wealth and a bigger and healthier economy.

So, get your idiotic ideas about what constitutes "fair" tax rates and stop the stupidity of playing the class card. That only serves to cause even bigger damage to the country and to the people.

BTW, I'm very far from rich, and in fact, I'm what one might consider lower-middle-class, but, I apparently do understand a lot more about economics than you. Obama. I never play the race card (in fact, I'm Hispanic, born in Puerto Rico), and I don't play the class card either.

The problem with the country right now, is that, politicians like to pit one group against another, and one of the ways they do that, is by using such catch-phrases as "paying the fair taxes". It's stupid and it just makes things a lot worse. The results of that kind of stupidity is a $17 trillion debt, and $1.3 trillion yearly deficits, and millions of jobs lost, and companies going out of business, and people becoming more and more dependent upon government handouts and government social programs The country is being destroyed, and your only thoughts are about "fair taxation".

You need to get a lot of schooling; schooling on the realities all around you, that is.
Posted by adornoe
15th Mar
0 Votes
+ -
Why?
Why do people equate calls for more personal responsibility (healthy people get a job) with killing the poor?

You are the third person to make that comparison on this site this week.

That is a very disturbing way to think. It tells me that people who disagree with you are in danger if you ever got into a position of authority.

People like you scare the decent people of the world.
Posted by Hates Idiots
22nd Mar
-1 Votes
+ -
Unbelievable !
I lived in Chicago area for 6 years in the early 70s. My take home pay was around $ 12,000/-. I could buy a grand home in a posh locality for around 70 / 80 k.

The problem with US is their basic constitution AND the presidential system. Someone should do serious research and compare the pros and cons of parliamentary system. What surprised me was seeing the "Jeb Bush 2016" posters even before the 2012 elections are over! To me this had a different connotation. It was either GOP were3 confident that Romney would not win OR even if he won he would not be nominated for re-election in 2016. Not very inspiring !

In any case the US president may be considered the most powerful man in any democratic society he is powerless to do s**t with the current senate and congress system. We with parliamentary system are far better off. Electioneering starts barely 3/4 months before the elections. ( Read much reduced campaigning expenditure). The majority party forms the government. ( Read they can DO a s***load of things). It is more representative of the people's sentiments and preferences.

To top it constitutionally our president has more power. He/ she can dissolve the parliament if the situation demands.

Your income tax laws are ridiculous, more like idiotic. I, as an individual was required to pay tax on global income where as corporations ( GE, Google, Apple, etc) are allowed to park their profits overseas to avoid taxes. If corporations are people ( as per supreme court ruling / judgement) why are they not required to pay income tax on global income ? Here a resident ( who has been in the country for more than 180 days in a financial year) is required to pay taxes on global income AND corporations are not PEOPLE. They DO have to pay taxes on global income.
Posted by pmshah@...
15th Mar
+2 Votes
+ -
The whole idea of our Constitution...
...was precisely to keep the President from being too powerful.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
15th Mar
+1 Vote
+ -
There are far too many people who are clueless about why our
government was set up the way it is.

The founders knew what they were doing, and there are still people too ignorant about why our system of government is still around.
Posted by adornoe
15th Mar
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!