Scott SoCal said:
No catching hell from me. I'm just curious what level of annual income does one have to attain before the govt defines one as 'rich' or 'wealthy'. No one seems to know... or they know but won't say.
I'm curious about the other questions too.
The really demented thing is that for someone making 30 k per year, the guy who makes 60 k is pretty wealthy.
But who cares in a country and
in a world that's so horribly corrupt and unjust?
Since the 1970s, considering inflation, cost of living hikes and the gargantuan sums that the economy has actually generated since then, the American worker hasn't seen an increase in his salary, while at the same time a life of consumption on credit has been foisted upon him by the world of finance and the credit market to make up for consumption demands he would otherwise not be able to meet with his pay. A financial world that in many cases also provides him his pay check, so that the money not being given to his salary is then turned into more profit on the interest paid back on the loans of credit it provides. Nice system. Everything favors the financiers.
At the same time one billion people on this planet live with less than one dollar a day.
These two statistics allow us to immediately grasp how the economy is not only malfunctioning at home and globally, but to what great imbalance and total lack of a decent measure between the haves and have-nots it has created. Or that anything principled was ever in the economic plans, for which liberty does not merely translate into the crude philosophy of the pursuit of wealth without any social responsibility; or, to put it within the ideology of Reaganomics and the Thatcherist polemic that society doesn’t exist insofar as the role of the State should not be to govern in collective interest, but rather on behalf of the appetites and desires of individuals, within a culture of eternal struggle to get ahead of the competition.
250 years ago revolutionary democracy, as the great social leveler, was supposed to end the cast system between wealth and poverty characterized by a corrupt and egotistical aristocracy (also beyond any sense of decent measure) and an estate hierarchy that had reached its historical expiration date. But then came along the capitalists and their lobbies and a political class that gets paid handsomely by them, who aren't elected to represent anything in the public domain, to set a biased political agenda that's totally in their favor and to their liking. Campaign financing, the great evil of our democracy, represents the latest incarnation of a social order that was supposed to have been eliminated, but that's very much alive and prospering.
Simple reason would allow for those who make considerably more, to have to pay considerably more, not only in absolute terms, but in proportion to their actual wealth, in a system of democratic taxation based upon social equality and justice. The republicans, in particular, are proof that the cast system not only still exists, but is even protected under the aegis of government. Although both parties are mere tools of the economic protagonists and the lobbies that represent them. Finally that Warren Buffet, according to his own admission, pays intolerably less to the State, and thus to collective society, on the 10 million he earned last year than does his secretary who grosses 60 k and pays intolerably more, only demonstrates that what we were taught in the primary schools about the history of democracy and what it was supposed to provide us all was simply complete BS.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram