[BigV]

Hey mrnoodle. That hole in your foot you were wondering about, well, it came from shooting off at the mouth while your foot was still in it. Look here, you *%@)!^& hypocrite...

Your earlier position:

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

--snip--This idea that the rich are taking a bigger piece of a pie and leaving only crumbs for the less fortunate is false, false, false. The rich are that way because they made the pie bigger,...

Freeze frame. "the rich are rich because they made the pie bigger", because they 'created' the wealth. Ok, I think I understand that. I paraphrased you fairly, right? Continue...

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

...not because they penny-ante'd some welfare mom's check from her.--snip--

Not because the wealth came at the expense of someone else's efforts to get by, to raise their own standard of living.

Now you say:

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

--snip--If we are to raise the wage for every job in existence to the level at which the worker can live comfortably, where should the money come from? How much are you willing to pay for potatoes to ensure that every person who picks potatoes makes enough money to feed a family of four and still put some back for college tuitions? It's like trying to draw a circle in which the two ends don't meet. It just can't be done.--snip--

emphasis mine

So what you're trying to say is that this wealth pie that was created by the wealthy is only big enough for the rich to put food on the table and put a little away, but no one else, cause "where would it come from?!".

News flash, Mr I-don't-have-time-for-the-facts-just-give-me-the-big-picture (who do you think you are? GWB channeling Col Potter?!)

That welfare check? That job training assistance, that reduced price school lunch, that transportation subsidy, that Pell Grant? That gap in the circle around the pie can easily be closed by some changes in other places.

The price of potatoes can be raised. This cuts both ways, though, and to realize the maximum effect for "closing the gap", we'd have to agree that the increase in revenue to the potato grower would have to be directed to the potato picker, and not become increased potato grower profit. But even then, there are diminishing returns, since the potato picker is also a potato buyer and his costs would be increasing too.

Another way would be to decrease the potato picker's costs of living. Make milk cheaper, and his rent, and his gas prices, college tuition while you're at it. But this only exacerbates the cash flow problems of all the cow milkers and the landlords and the gas pumpers and the college profs and all the other "little people" who are also having a rough time feeding four and putting a little aside for college.

To this point, we've been ignoring the 10,000 pound gorilla in the room, haven't we? Those rich people. Wait, let's not demonize them, I really don't want to go there. I don't live there, I know they're people too, families, kids, hopes and dreams. Really. So let's just look at where the money is, the money that will fill the gap you complained about, that uncloseable gap.

The almighty motherlode of slack to close that gap is found in the most recent (one generation) transfer of wealth in this country. It is SO skewed and SO gigantic, that words and number fail to convey the effect (ok for you, you wouldn't read or believe them anyway ) and the graphs are so distorted and bizzare that you wouldn't believe your eyes.

I'm talking about the redistribution of wealth in this country. Now, before you spontaneously combust in a fit of capitialist rage calling me a communist, I want you to notice that it's already happened. Past Tense. And still is happening, right now. And accelerating. Not in the potato picker's favor. It's time to stop, then reverse the trend. That would be in the best interest of everyone, including Daddy Throwbucks.

Some numbers and pictures for you:
Median net worth of households, by monthly income in quartiles. For the year 2000:

Bottom 4 quintiles: $156,747
Top 1 quintile: 185,500

Source: US Census Bureau. Look at the bottom of page 8 for the graph.

That means that the top 20% of households have 118% of the wealth of EVERYBODY ELSE in the country PUT TOGETHER. Do you think there's some slack there that could be better used to close the gap around the pie, mrnoodle? I mean, come on. You know those lower 80% of the population are not all on food stamps, they're not all deadbeats, they get by somehow on their relatively puny slice of the pie. That's the key. They get by on less. Do you think the top 20% could get by on less too? The answer is yes. Of course.

I can hear it now, "BigV, populist, communist, promoter of class warfare". *GONG* Wrong. What I say is true, and I'm not the only freak out here saying so. Here's somebody from a tax bracket higher than mine who is my patriotic coequal, ladies and gentlemen, please give a warm welcome to Bill Gates' daddy, William H. Gates! A real rabble rouser, eh? Listen to what he has to say in his book, Wealth and Our Commonweath.

The essence of the American experiment is our collective rejection of European hereditary aristocracy and grotesque inequalities of wealth. When Alexis de Tocqueville visited the United States in the mid-nineteenth century, he noted that equality of condition permeated the American spirit: "The American experiment presupposes a rejection of inherited privilege." In the words of novelist John Dos Passos, "rejection of Europe is what America is all about."

The nation's founders and populace viewed excessive concentrations of wealth as incompatible with the ideals of the new nation. Revolutionary era visitors to Europe, including Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Ben Franklin, were aghast at the wide disparities of wealth and poverty they observed. They surmised that these great European inequalities were the result of an aristocratic system of land transfers, hereditary political power, and monopoly.

And what do we have today? Hmm? Gates and Collins focus on the stupidity of repealing the estate tax, and I agree with them. The message is just another thread in the tapestry--the one you call "soak the rich" I call "shared sacrifice".

I'll give you just one more reference, you may recognize it. Back in the day, King David, richest man in Jerusalem, wanted for nothing. And yet, he coveted and took Bathsheba, Uriah's wife. Because he could. Just because you can do something doesn't make it right. David knew this and indulged himself anyway, and made a horrible mess of several lives, including his own, trying to cover it up. Just because the laws today make it "ok" for the screaming stupefying imbalance in wealth to exist, doesn't make it right or even a good idea.

I'll make it simple for you, higher taxes, on the higher brackets, will close this gap. And it should be closed. The shift in policy in this nation from taxing capital to taxing labor has swung dangerously far, and it is in the interest of all to move it in the other direction.