Home | About | Donate

How 90% of American Households Lost an Average of $17,000 in Wealth to the Plutocrats in 2016

[quote=“PonyBoy, post:6, topic:38959, full:true”]
and, that party will ‘not’ be the Democratic Party as they are at least 50% responsible for the reason this article was written.

People’s Progressive Party:
its purpose is to provide a platform for
creating a “holistic collective society” in which all people equitably share the world’s resources in a life sustaining manner.

1 Like

The understatement of the… ― something very big. At this point it looks like Friedrich Hayek is more influential than Jesus, even if not nearly as nice…

1 Like

The wealthy make the laws that put them where they are today. They own our government.

In 1942 to put the country back together after the Great Depression Roosevelt told Congress to raise taxes to 100% on any income above $25,000/yr. ($300,000 in today’s dollars). The extremely wealthy screamed, they cried for their mommas, Roosevelt persisted and succeeded in raising taxes on the wealthy to 88% on incomes over $25,000. Regan and each president after him answered the call to lower taxes on the wealthy bringing the country to the current level of income inequality we suffer from today – yes thank you Obama and Clinton.

Had taxes remained relatively high on incomes not needed for an excellent standard of living (seriously who needs more than half a million a year?) perhaps those monies would have ended up reinvested in communities, universal healthcare, better schools, tuition free college, improvements to infrastructure and other areas to improve society as a whole.


Forget fighting back, just guillotine the phuqs – starting with the donorrhea and everyone in his cabinet!

Well put.

Great points!

Thanks for the very informative link.

1 Like

The points you make are valid, but the public has been brainwashed by the idea that unions and high taxes are job killers - ignoring the fact that when the highest marginal tax rate was 70% - 90% and roughly a third of the workforce was unionized the unemployment rate was about 2.5% (the methodology of calculating unemployment then also yielded more accurate numbers).


Thanks for the link to the TED Talk. I enjoyed the whole thing, but especially did a double-take when he said:

…a policy maker who believes that the rich are job creators and therefore should not be taxed will do [equally] terrible policy.

That sounded so familiar. Finally it came to me. On p. 88 of Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Destroy the Global Economy, Michael Hudson wrote:

There always is an economic gain for some party in sponsoring bad theory.

Literally millions of dollars are spent each year spreading the disproven ideas of neoliberalism. Frankly, I’m not generally sanguine about the chances of the truth winning out, except for times like this when a couple of instances of “anti-bullshit” coincide to provide me another spark of hope.

Much obliged.

1 Like

You are very welcome. Of course you won’t see Nick on primetime CNN or MSNBC. Thank you for the Hudson quote, I like him too.

Since we live in a consumer society if the economy is to survive money needs to be in the hands of those that have no choice but to spend it, not someone like Nick who said in the TED talk that he only buys 3 pairs of pants a year – not 3,000. While the struggling class can’t buy any. We live in a society where both the Ds and Rs don’t care, ignore those that do not finance their campaigns, while the working class stands around waiting for Bill Gates to sneeze so someone can get paid to wipe his nose.

IOWs cash needs to be in the hands of those who have no choice but to spend it to have a thriving economy. With money in hand the poor and working class will buy appliances, clothes, autos and dine out when they haven’t the money to do so people lose jobs, period. Our lawmakers simply do not care.

This is the result of concentrated ownership of corporate America, a wealthy ownership class who owns the vast majority of the capital asset equity of corporate America and who have rigged the system to ensure that ALL future capital asset formation will be owned by them as well. The solution is to reform the system, which will require political activism to succeed. The system needs to be reformed in ways that empower EVERY child, woman and man to acquire personal ownership stakes in the future capital asset growth of the economy, creating new capital owners and economic democracy. This can be achieved by implementing financial mechanism using insured, interest-free credit, repayable out of the futrue earnings of the investments, without the require of past savings (which only the rich have).

Always remember that power follows property ownership.

Support Monetary Justice at http://capitalhomestead.org/page/monetary-justice.

Support the Capital Homestead Act (aka Economic Democracy Act) at http://www.cesj.org/learn/capital-homesteading/, http://www.cesj.org/learn/capital-homesteading/capital-homestead-act-a-plan-for-getting-ownership-income-and-power-to-every-citizen/, http://www.cesj.org/learn/capital-homesteading/capital-homestead-act-summary/ and http://www.cesj.org/learn/capital-homesteading/ch-vehicles/.

Persistent. but misleading at best. It simply disappears the poor, writing them off as something other than part of the human population.

I don’t think 90% of US households have incomes so high that they could lose $17k without becoming destitute. Real poverty has soared over the past 20 years, since actual welfare aid was ended. Our former aid provided an income of roughly $5k average. Today, there is no aid for the childless poor and many of those who can’t work (health, etc.). (TANF is a short-term job program, only for those with children.) Not everyone can work, and the last I heard, there were 7 jobs for every 10 jobless people who still have the means to pursue one. What do you think happens to those who are left out? Once you no longer have a home address, phone, etc., you’re out. You can’t get a job, and there’s no way back up.

While our poverty crisis was disappeared from the media/public discussion, it does, in fact, continue and grow.

Not everyone can work (health, etc.) and there aren’t jobs for all. Where do they fit into this idea?

The banksters continue to increase their control of the government and the economy at the expense of everyone else. The MSM never ceases to engage in disinformation and distraction campaigns, such as with their “Look, a squirrel!” coverage of Trump and Russia, while the banksters continue their plunder unabated and mostly uncovered.

Here is an entertaining youtube video from small independent media regarding the pernicious and relentless efforts by Goldman Sachs and their fellow travelers to control presidential administrations:

1 Like

I’m sorry to say, more political parties is not the answer. We either take the Democratic Party back or we end up continuing to ensure that the bad Democratic Party and the worse Republican Party continue passing the “baton” of the oligarchy back and forth. We can remake the Democratic Party to what it was like like under Franklin D. Roosevelt (elected to 4 terms) who pulled the country out of the worst depression in our history and gave people jobs on public works projects that to this day are among the jewels of our national pride and infrastructure. It can be done, but only with hard work starting at the local Party level. GET INVOLVED AND YOU CAN CHANGE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!

Nobody in America makes that much ($1 B) money a year. The highest I’ve heard is a bit less than $200 M. (Not to mention that I don’t have much faith in giving more money to people like the Clintons to spend …

The description resembles one I read years ago in a book of Mexican history. Of people who had fallen through the cracks/safety net, who weren’t the ‘privileged’ Spaniards who owned tracts of land or the people who worked as managers or enforcers for the ‘dukes’, and it wasn’t the Indios, who still had somewhat respected village property, as long as they paid money each year to the dukes, but various people, typically Spanish or mixed-blood born who didn’t get one of those assigned roles and fell to the bottom of Mexican society to scratch for what they could. In later years they were called ‘pelados’, bald or naked ones. Earlier they were called ‘leperos’.

Noting that back in the day there were so many deductions and tax shelters that few rich people paid the >90% highest marginal tax rate. And noting that such high nominal tax rates are an excellent starting point for corruption. “I will give you a tax break of … if you give me a bribe (or campaign donation) of …” And that unemployment benefits and labor law were different back then.

There is a story that back in the 1950s Hollywood wanted to make a movie, and wanted to cast Ron Reagan for it. Ron knew something about taxes and realized that thanks to taxes he would be putting in a lot of work and earning practically nothing. So he refused the role and the picture was not made. Uncounted other people didn’t get jobs either because the picture wasn’t made.

Another story is that in the late 1960s The Rolling Stones had an accountant look at their financial condition, and then fled Great Britain for France. They were that close to bankruptcy because of the taxes they owed. Keith Richards commented that “It was as if they were telling us to ‘LEAVE’.” So the situation went from Britain having a right to >90% of the Stones earnings in Britain to >90% of nothing.

In a very similar vein, recently a pretty low-ranked novelist in Britain wrote an article in a literary magazine opining that J.K. Rowling should stop writing novels. She has already earned enough, and other writers deserve to earn something.

That reflects a Keynesian notion that work is always less available than workers, and should be rationed. So Reagan should have made fewer movies so that other actors could get jobs, that the Stones should have written fewer songs and released fewer albums (# of and # of copies per) so that other musicians could get jobs, and that J.K. Rowling should retire so that other writers can make some money. That is a society, and an ‘equitable’ one, but are we better off for it?

Many people, going as far back as St. Paul and probably further, have remarked that men are not ants and they aren’t clones. Each has different gifts or talents, and hears the beat of distinct drummers, not the same one that others hear. And most men rebel against regimentation.

The differences in gifts and talents extends to the ability to acquire wealth and to the ability to keep wealth. There is an old proverb “A fool and his money are soon parted.”

To eliminate all differences in wealth or income is a fool’s goal, a fool’s project. Agreed?

Then we have the question of just how much inequality do we tolerate before people conclude that there is too much inequality? And what is done about it? One idea, the Green/environmental notion, is that degrowth is good, and that we should all aim to live nearly as impoverished as the worst off amongst us.

It could be that you would be comfortable in Brazil, or Somalia, such places, where there is a thriving kidnap for ransom business targeting those who have too much money. Or, contra-positive, that you would like Denmark, where people go to a lot of trouble to disclaim that they are any better, or better off, than anyone else.

When your government can be bought it’s only the people that can afford to buy it that will reap it’s benefits.

it is very basic math and science.

capatalism doesn’t work because it is based on infinite/ perpetual growth which is not possible on our finite planet.

our quality of life is decreasing because we breed it away with 240,000 more human mammals every day.

do you want to share the earth’s depleting resource base and limited carrying capacity with 500 million (the estimated sustainable population base), 7.6 billion (where we are now) or 10 billion (where we are trying to get), knowing of course that the more people there are, the lower the quality of our lives.

humans are nothing more than yeast in a giant vat of sugar. enjoy these days, because this the laws of physics say this CANNOT end well.