hell no.

see i've been saying this(or something like it)for a yr now and people want to put a republican't in the white house! are you fucking kidding me?

the corrupt lead the world and we sit here and continue to get raped by the rich while they pay next to in comparison to there rate of pay to our! fuck when are voters going to learn?

not that voting would help either!

The super rich are mostly just inheritants though, and didn't actually do anything.

The difference due to globalization now is that, if it can be offshored, your job isn't safe at all.  Some tech and highly trained skills, which can't be offshored, retain their earnings.  But, for stuff in IT, which can be offshored (Iifted up and transferred over the Internet). there is currently wage depression going on.  Take computer programmers.

http://careerplanning.about.com/od/occupations/p/comp_programmer.htm

Job Outlook - Computer Programmer:

Employment of computer programmers, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts, is expected to decline slowly through 2018.

It is also important to dig deeper into how people are compensated:

http://modeledbehavior.com/2010/07/22/income-inequality-a-deeper-look/

The current system has shifted benefits to owning capital as a means of generating income, as opposed to wages.  With globalization afoot, wages will have downward pressure on them.

Wonderful idea - that way, the rich can go and ship all their goods in from other countries at minimal cost, and pay no tax, while poor families pay even more tax.

The real solution is simple: eliminate income tax and sales tax, and have *only* a corporate tax. However, the corporate tax would apply to any money gained *from* America, with reduced tax on money paid *to* Americans. That is, if a company offshores the jobs, it actually increases their tax burden. And shifting profits out of the country would do nothing, as the source of the profit would be what is taxed.

Not only that, but companies would see no tax on money made outside of America, giving companies more incentive to base themselves in America, thus increasing the number of American jobs further. And this would likely force other countries to adopt a similar system, in order to prevent companies from offshoring *to* America.

Meanwhile, companies would be able to choose how to distribute the costs of the tax. They could reduce employee pay (equivalent to an income tax), but this would be relatively ineffective in terms of tax reduction, since it would also increase the tax burden. They could alternatively raise prices, but the market economy will restrict that, as people won't pay dramatically inflated prices for things. However, with such a relatively simple tax system, it would be easier to do the accounting, and thus they wouldn't need tax accountants to manipulate things, giving them savings in that way.

It's not like it's "unfairly taxing businesses", since the tax would be taken out anyway in the form of tax on wages (income tax) or tax on products (sales tax).

The exact corporate tax rate would have to be determined, of course. Also note that further encouragement of balanced pay can be achieved by adjusting the corporate tax rate based on the level of imbalance in employee pay (if most employees get only $20,000 a year, while upper management gets millions, then the tax rate would be higher than if employees get $50,000 a year and upper management gets $250,000 a year, because there's more net imbalance in the former case). Meanwhile, employees who get a $50,000 a year income would be confident that this is precisely the amount of money they would have from their wages at the end, and the sales tax system wouldn't be an issue for anyone.

EDIT: In theory, neither side of politics should have a problem with such a modification. To the left, this is an opportunity to tax companies and then use that tax for the people, which is the preferred approach for the left. To the right, this is a way to drive the economy and bring jobs to America, and puts the control of the tax situation into the market, with companies making the decisions. That is, it's a free market approach to tax that the left can support, and it's a "tax increase" that the right can back.

First of all where are your references for this information? You need to site your facts or else you could be saying whatever you want. Also, then if trickle down economics does not work, what do you suggest as its replacement. You are showing what you think the problem is but are not giving any solution. So all you are doing is complaining about it. Therefore, what is your solution system?

Where are you getting those tax percentage numbers? They are wrong from what im looking at. So where are you getting your figures?

I'd imagine that the solution would be to revert to the pre-1980 approach, where income growth was balanced, and there was no need for anything to "trickle down". And I'd imagine that any rational person would see that as the obvious solution being suggested by bannedagain, given that he compares the two, and sees the pre-1980 approach to be superior.

I won't comment on the source of the data... but I could definitely believe it, at least if you adjusted for inflation.

Lol, how completely biased and unfounded. You can't take a large span of time and attribute the overall results to one President and his policies. There has been 4 presidents since Reagan (3 if you're ending at '08), all who have applied there own policies, as well as the passing of ~20 years from his last year in office and '08. Actually, why not include these past few years. I'm sure the numbers would be even worse given Obama's failed policies to save the economy.

Truth is, the only time the government actually gives money to companies and the rich is when there is a bailout. Reagan's policy was to allow companies to kept more of the money they already had made so they could reinvest it into their company and create jobs. And really, you could take 100% of the money from the top 10% of earners and it may help run our country for a few months, since we are talking only billions of dollars a year against a government who spends trillions a year.  No, the only real savior is spending cuts. 

OK heres your problem. More people work in the house hold now. If you are talking about the individual workers, The pay rates have dropped. This is a common republican bull proof. That makes no proof at all  because more people work in the house hold. Not just the dad Like it used to be.

Second obama followed all republican ideals and thats why the democratic base is pissed off at him. So it is still republican ideals and also congress spend and make the rules for the most part. When dems had control, republicans did a record number of filibusters on bills that would have made this economy work. They don't want it to work because they want to destroy obama even if it means putting the economy in the dumps.

oh yea. I hurt my back with a very will known company in chicago. They fired me three days later, Canceled my insurance. I sued them but got screwed because of how the system works. I got only 15,000 when my bills for my back where over 20,000. 2 years with out anything to pay my bills. I was out of work for two years. If it wasn't for my girl we would have been F'ed and we where eating raemon noddle a lot. We where not living well and had to move into the ghetto.

Before all of this I had great credit, F-cked. Was about to buy a house, F-cked.  I also eat good all the time. We had to ration sh-t. so I don't car who you are GFYS.

I would have lived on the street if my girl was not there.   I hope something happens to you thats out of your control and if republicans have there way you will see how bad it can get. Sorry all of us are not born with a silver spoon in our mouths. What a post. makes me think you have never been around poor and it's usually not there own fault. McDonalds  don't pay the bills. nor wal-mart and if you don't have a girl to help your f'ed. If your car breaks even  with a girl your f'ed. You have no clue and most likely get handed the world.

Oh lets not forget it took 4 F'ing year to get my lawsuit. So my bills destroyed my credit.  Come over in my neighbor hood and say that bull you just said. see how will it turns out for you or maybe put your self in someone else's shoes. 

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/01/14/the-decline-of-inherited-money/

For the sake of brevity, I didn’t cite the research behind the statement. But since many of you have asked, and we aim to please here at the Wealth Report, here are my three main data points:

1. According to a study of Federal Reserve data conducted by NYU professor Edward Wolff, for the nation’s richest 1%, inherited wealth accounted for only 9% of their net worth in 2001, down from 23% in 1989. (The 2001 number was the latest available.)

2. According to a study by Prince & Associates, less than 10% of today’s multi-millionaires cited “inheritance” as their source of wealth.

3. A study by Spectrem Group found that among today’s millionaires, inherited wealth accounted for just 2% of their total sources of wealth.

Each of these stats measures slightly different things, yet they all come to the same basic conclusion: Inheritance is not the main driver of today’s wealth. The reason we’ve had a doubling in the number of millionaires and billionaires over the past decade (even adjusted for inflation) is that more of the non-wealthy have become wealthy.