Richers Rejoice: Half of everything is yours!

[scott]

For the first time ever, the top 10% earned over 50% of the income.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BT0vtMRCcAEynVh.png

Dr. Emmanuel Saez's inequality stats for 2012 published:

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2012.pdf

[pgardn]

For the first time ever, the top 10% earned over 50% of the income.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BT0vtMRCcAEynVh.png

Dr. Emmanuel Saez's inequality stats for 2012 published:

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2012.pdf

Hooray!

back to Calvin Coolidge and Herby Hoover.
Good times.

[AntiChrist]

And they pay 70% of income tax

http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/index.html


http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/130311153403-tax-share-chart-620xa.jpg

[Th'Pusher]

And they pay 70% of income tax

http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/index.html


http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/130311153403-tax-share-chart-620xa.jpg
Well duh. That's the nature of a progressive tax code. As is clear in both charts, the free market sucks at distributing wealth.

[boutons_deux]

"they pay 70% of income tax"

... because they take nearly all the wealth for themselves, those poor tax-evading assholes.

[TeyshaBlue]

We can't all own our own breweries like the fucking richers!:ihit

[Spurminator]

And they pay 70% of income tax

http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/index.html



That's obviously severely hampering their ability to earn and invest.

[scott]

We can't all own our own breweries like the fucking richers!:ihit

I'll bring this up at the Richer Convention in Geneva this fall

[TeyshaBlue]

Geneva? How plebeian.

[dbestpro]

With about 50% of the country unable or unwilling to work the 10% factor of wealth is skewed. The best way to stop big income tax evaders, and get the low income folks some skin in the game is to abolish income tax and move ssn, medicare, obamacare, and icome tax into a pool of funds that are paid through progressive sales tax.

The more things cost, the more they are taxed. People are no longer punished for working. Small business will no longer be a scapegoat for government expenditures, and the rich will always spend so they will finally be taxed their fair share, based off of their excessive spending.

[Blake]

Geneva? How plebeian.

Dubai was getting mundane

[boutons_deux]

With about 50% of the country unable or unwilling to work the 10% factor of wealth is skewed. The best way to stop big income tax evaders, and get the low income folks some skin in the game is to abolish income tax and move ssn, medicare, obamacare, and icome tax into a pool of funds that are paid through progressive sales tax.

The more things cost, the more they are taxed. People are no longer punished for working. Small business will no longer be a scapegoat for government expenditures, and the rich will always spend so they will finally be taxed their fair share, based off of their excessive spending.

hey asshole, check the thread "What's the real unemployment rate? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122070&goto=newpost)"

[TeyshaBlue]

Dubai was getting mundane

Dubai? Positively gauche!

[boutons_deux]

hey asshole, check the thread "What's the real unemployment rate? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122070&goto=newpost)"

"full" employment due for 2017, if ever.



giving LIE to Repug propaganda about Obamacare killing small business jobs:

Small-business hiring plans reach highest level since 2007

The percentage of small-business owners planning to hire more workers rose last month to its highest level since 2007, according to the National Federation of Independent Business.

The jump came as the group's overall small-business optimism index slipped 0.1 points to 94 in August from the previous month, and amid some other conflicting data on the state of the key economic sector.

The Small Business Economic Trends Survey, released Tuesday, also showed that sales were down and small businesses cut workers for the fourth straight month in August, with the average firm shedding 0.3 employees.

But plans for new hiring over the next three months surged by 7 percentage points in August. The 16% of businesses anticipating expanded employment was the best since before the Great Recession began.

"If this reading is not a fluke, it signals a substantial resumption of hiring in the coming months," the NFIB report said. "Hopefully, the September survey will validate the August readings and
reports of actual hiring will turn positive."

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/5/article/p2p-77344639/

[Drachen]

We can't all own our own breweries like the fucking richers!:ihit

Pot-kettle-black

If I remember correctly, you've got a whole bunch of gas out back and I am not just referring to old man flatulence.

[tlongII]

Thanks Obama!

[angrydude]

Well duh. That's the nature of a progressive tax code. As is clear in both charts, the free market sucks at distributing wealth.

Is that what you call our planned economy now?

[z0sa]

Hope and Change baby

[Das Texan]

50% isnt enough earnings.


Gotta find ways to make it 60%

[spursncowboys]

We can't all own our own breweries like the fucking richers!:ihit
:lol
Dropping two mil

[spursncowboys]

So does that have anything to do with all the unemployment? Or is this some kind of greed post? scott

[exstatic]

Nature abhors a vacuum.

[2centsworth]

So what do we need to do? Seems like I'm hearing we should reduce richer income through taxes? If so, how does that help the poorers become richer?

[Th'Pusher]

So what do we need to do? Seems like I'm hearing we should reduce richer income through taxes? If so, how does that help the poorers become richer?
No. Richers should voluntarily increase their distribution to their employees so that the government does not have the redistribute it for them. Then, they (the moochers) could pay their share of income taxes.

they can't, because they are beholden to shareholders.

[2centsworth]

No. Richers should voluntarily increase their distribution to their employees so that the government does not have the redistribute it for them. Then, they (the moochers) could pay their share of income taxes.

they can't, because they are beholden to shareholders.

shareholders tend to prefer distributions and corporations that consistently pay and increase their distributions tend to be rewarded for their efforts. Distributions as a whole are a positive, so I'm not seeing the your point. As far as redistribution, where are the richers failing to give employees where the government fills the void?

[scott]

where are the richers failing to give employees where the government fills the void?

Who said the government is filling the void, and why is the a precursor to the solution?

I know I've said numerous times in this forum and I teach the same every semester:

By examining extremes it is easy to see that there can be "too much" and "not enough" inequality. The extreme of "not enough" is that everyone makes the same amount and it is easy to see how this Socialist Utopia creates disincentives to certain work (why devote your life studying to take the liability of being an ER surgeon when you only make as much as the fry cook?) and falls apart. The extreme of "too much" is that one person controls 99.9% of the wealth, leaving everyone else fighting for the scraps. It is easy to see how this would quickly fall apart (probably in quite bloody fashion, as well).

The questions facing us right now are those of a) how much is too much? b) how did they get this way? c) what can we do about it?

In the long run, if we do nothing, the market will eventually correct itself with a massive contraction of the business cycle. I believe 100% that markets are generally self-correcting, however there should not be a misunderstanding of how markets self-correct. They don't do so quickly or painlessly.

I leave this forum to debate questions a, b and c. I've gotta go take my Ferrari in for service.

[scott]

So does that have anything to do with all the unemployment? Or is this some kind of greed post? scott

It has as much to do with unemployment as any other macroeconomic factors, but it's not inherently related to unemployment. You can have high or low unemployment in a unequal society as much as an equal one.

[DMC]

How does this affect me?

[boutons_deux]

So does that have anything to do with all the unemployment? Or is this some kind of greed post? scott (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=150)

of course it does.

income growth for the 99% has been flat, even declining, so they consume less shit and/or go into debt (make the lending financial sector VERY HAPPY) to try maintain standard of living.

income growth to the 1% is not all spent by the 1%, stays rolling around in the corrupt financial sector, rather than in the Real (productive) Economy

extreme, corrupt inequality like in USA now floats only the boats of the 1%. the people on the bottom can't find (good) jobs, so they can't spend, aren't taxes, etc, etc.

[TeyshaBlue]

Pot-kettle-black

If I remember correctly, you've got a whole bunch of gas out back and I am not just referring to old man flatulence.

I aint seen a dime yet, monkeyboy.


However, at retirement time:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/If-SOPA-passes-Bender-has-a-plan.jpg (http://s3.photobucket.com/user/teyshablue/media/If-SOPA-passes-Bender-has-a-plan.jpg.html)

[2centsworth]

Who said the government is filling the void, and why is the a precursor to the solution? was asking Pusher to clarify his position. Hard for me to give an opinion until I fully understand what the other side is saying.


I know I've said numerous times in this forum and I teach the same every semester:

By examining extremes it is easy to see that there can be "too much" and "not enough" inequality. The extreme of "not enough" is that everyone makes the same amount and it is easy to see how this Socialist Utopia creates disincentives to certain work (why devote your life studying to take the liability of being an ER surgeon when you only make as much as the fry cook?) and falls apart. The extreme of "too much" is that one person controls 99.9% of the wealth, leaving everyone else fighting for the scraps. It is easy to see how this would quickly fall apart (probably in quite bloody fashion, as well).

The questions facing us right now are those of a) how much is too much? b) how did they get this way? c) what can we do about it?

In the long run, if we do nothing, the market will eventually correct itself with a massive contraction of the business cycle. I believe 100% that markets are generally self-correcting, however there should not be a misunderstanding of how markets self-correct. They don't do so quickly or painlessly.


I leave this forum to debate questions a, b and c. I've gotta go take my Ferrari in for service.


A. How much is too much is difficult to quantify, but generally I would say the richers are making too much when they negatively affect my ability to earn more. At this point, you owning a Ferrari and filling buckets of money has no affect on me. However, I'm open to the argument that money unduly influences elections so I'll support reasonable campaign finance regulation.

B. Most richers are 1st generation, about 80%, according to the work done by Dr. Tom Stanley, author of "The Millionaire Next Door". I'm aware of the distinction between income and assets, but are your truly a richer if you spend everything you make? I prefer to define richer as people owners of assets. Most richers have a bachelors, are married to a teacher, live well below their means, and own a business.

C. The first step is that someone has to believe a better life is available to them and not accept the narrative that the richers, racists, or system holds us back. Our system isn't perfect, but everyone can create a better life for themselves. Maybe not drive a Ferrari or own an iphone 5s, but everyone can get a decent education and a good job, though our job market can be 100x better, and or start business.

My beliefs based on my experiences.

[Wild Cobra]

For the first time ever, the top 10% earned over 50% of the income.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BT0vtMRCcAEynVh.png

Dr. Emmanuel Saez's inequality stats for 2012 published:

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2012.pdf

Dammit.

I think I'm only in the top 20%.

[Wild Cobra]

And they pay 70% of income tax

http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/index.html


http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/130311153403-tax-share-chart-620xa.jpg

If they only own half of everything, they should only pay half the taxes!

[Th'Pusher]

was asking Pusher to clarify his position. Hard for me to give an opinion until I fully understand what the other side is saying.
THe government does not fill the void but does redistribute via taxes and govt transfers. My point was that would be less necessary if richers would voluntarily pay a living wage.

[boutons_deux]

The 1 Percent Have Won 95 Percent Of The Recovery, So Let’s Cut Food Stamps!

http://nationalmemo.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/piketty_saez-e1378850869532.png


MSNBC’s Ned Resnikoff reports (http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/09/10/house-could-pass-40-billion-food-stamp-cut-this-week/):

The House of Representatives is expected Thursday to take up a proposal which could make somewhere between 4 and 6 million Americans ineligible for full SNAP benefits, according to an analysis (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=4009) by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Called the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act, the law would reduce SNAP funding by $40 billion over the next decade—nearly double the $20.5 billion which House Republicans originally tried to cut out of the food stamp program two months ago.


The Congressional Budget Office has stated that food stamps are the government’s most effective form of stimulus.

Every $1 billion cut from the program kills 13,718 jobs, according to the Center for American Progress (http://www.thenation.com/blog/174753/sword-drops-food-stamps#axzz2ec6XI8Bv). Still, we need to cut the deficit!

But we can’t do it by taking away tax breaks for hedge fund managers, corporate jets or retirement accounts with millions of dollars in them.

We need to cut the deficit in a way that punishes the people who are already being punished in this economy, which brings us to the second reason Republicans want to cut food stamps.

You see, we are creating a “safety hammock” that’s making life too easy for the poor. We’re creating unemployment by paying people to not work, even though most SNAP benefits go to children and the elderly (http://blogs.usda.gov/2011/06/24/fact-vs-fiction-usda%E2%80%99s-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program/).

The New York Times‘ Paul Krugman took on (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/opinion/krugman-hunger-games-usa.html?hp) this nonsense in July:

Do you really believe that Americans are living lives of leisure on $134 a month, the average SNAP benefit?

Still, let’s pretend to take this seriously. If employment is down because government aid is inducing people to stay home, reducing the labor force, then the law of supply and demand should apply: Withdrawing all those workers should be causing labor shortages and rising wages, especially among the low-paid workers most likely to receive aid. In reality, of course, wages are stagnant or declining — and that’s especially true for the groups that benefit most from food stamps.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/the-1-percent-have-won-95-percent-of-the-recovery-so-lets-cut-food-stamps/

[TeyshaBlue]

MSNBC, Center for American Progress, Der Kruginator and National Memo.

It's like a moonbat parade!:lol

[Drachen]

I aint seen a dime yet, monkeyboy.by


However, at retirement time:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/If-SOPA-passes-Bender-has-a-plan.jpg (http://s3.photobucket.com/user/teyshablue/media/If-SOPA-passes-Bender-has-a-plan.jpg.html)

On second thought, forget the blackjack.

[boutons_deux]

MSNBC, Center for American Progress, Der Kruginator and National Memo.

It's like a moonbat parade!:lol

TB :lol is Boutons' cowardly, content-free stalker and ankle-biter.

[TeyshaBlue]

I post moonbat op eds that I dont read. :cry

[TeyshaBlue]

boutons..would you like a list of threads where you ran away like the little non-thinking bitch you are after being bitch slapped? Because coward.

[TeyshaBlue]

"I see that this is a one sided blame game rather than ask to see that this is the natural result of the policies of the government - the whole government, not just one party.

The Dodd-Frank credit policies, the fact that we have no budget, the gridlock that makes any fiscal planning impossible, and the specter of future taxes have insured that the low interest rate and easy money policies of the Fed are only benefiting the government and the wealthy.

All of the uncertainties caused by the lack of a comprehensive government fiscal plan are deterring many businesses from expanding and creating opportunity for the middle and lower class. As a result, people like Warren Buffett can buy profitable Heinz with newly generated low interest debt. Microsoft, rather than counting on increased revenue from current products is buying Nokia's handset business to get a bigger piece of the uncertain pie. The only opportunity in this environment if for the rich.

Is the answer to increase transfer payments? Are handouts ever going to be as beneficial to the non-rich as opportunity? I don't think so."

[LnGrrrR]

And if only poor freeloaders weren't getting all those handouts, we'd have at least 60%! [/richer]

[LnGrrrR]

On second thought, forget the blackjack.

And the hookers!

[TeyshaBlue]

What would be the purpose of a Richer Internet ($$$.richernet.bux™) without blackjack and hookers? C'mon dude!

[LnGrrrR]

What would be the purpose of a Richer Internet ($$$.richernet.bux™) without blackjack and hookers? C'mon dude!

See, if you watched Futurama, you would've gotten that joke. But you don't, because you're too rich. :D

[TeyshaBlue]

See, if you watched Futurama, you would've gotten that joke. But you don't, because you're too rich. :D

I have each episode hand drawn for my viewing pleasure while I relax with a goblet of chilled peasant blood. I'll have my minions draw that episode up tonight.

[LnGrrrR]

I have each episode hand drawn for my viewing pleasure while I relax with a goblet of chilled peasant blood. I'll have my minions draw that episode up tonight.

Make sure when you start laughing to begin with an M. MUAHAHAHAHAH is much more villainous than your everyday peasant sort of HAHAHAHAH.

[TeyshaBlue]

*takes notes*

[boutons_deux]

Is the answer to increase transfer payments? Are handouts ever going to be as beneficial to the non-rich as opportunity? I don't think so."

handouts to the financial sector don't get spent, QE only gives the criminal finance types more money to gamble with in the Casino.

handouts to the poor gets spent 100% and immediately in the Real Economy.

opportunity? :lol the 1% is busy shutting down opportunity to the 99%, social and economic upward mobility is now higher in Europe than USA, and has been declining for 30 years.

[TeyshaBlue]

http://homerecording.com/bbs/images/smilies/facepalm.gif

[boutons_deux]

TB :lol smacking the world with smileys! :lol

[TeyshaBlue]

boutons...retarding the world with blogs.

[Drachen]

Make sure when you start laughing to begin with an M. MUAHAHAHAHAH is much more villainous than your everyday peasant sort of HAHAHAHAH.

Jack chick disagrees. "haw haw" is the preferred vocalization of humorous pleasure by the evil or villainous

[TeyshaBlue]

Jack Chick creeps me the fuck out.


http://www.lambiek.net/artists/image/c/chick_jack-t/chick_jack_thelongtrip.jpg

[Drachen]

Jack Chick creeps me the fuck out.


http://www.lambiek.net/artists/image/c/chick_jack-t/chick_jack_thelongtrip.jpg

Fo' sho

[spursncowboys]

Who said the government is filling the void, and why is the a precursor to the solution?

I know I've said numerous times in this forum and I teach the same every semester:

By examining extremes it is easy to see that there can be "too much" and "not enough" inequality. The extreme of "not enough" is that everyone makes the same amount and it is easy to see how this Socialist Utopia creates disincentives to certain work (why devote your life studying to take the liability of being an ER surgeon when you only make as much as the fry cook?) and falls apart. The extreme of "too much" is that one person controls 99.9% of the wealth, leaving everyone else fighting for the scraps. It is easy to see how this would quickly fall apart (probably in quite bloody fashion, as well).

The questions facing us right now are those of a) how much is too much? b) how did they get this way? c) what can we do about it?

In the long run, if we do nothing, the market will eventually correct itself with a massive contraction of the business cycle. I believe 100% that markets are generally self-correcting, however there should not be a misunderstanding of how markets self-correct. They don't do so quickly or painlessly.

I leave this forum to debate questions a, b and c. I've gotta go take my Ferrari in for service.
a.) Who gets to decide that? The obvious answer would be an elected person of some sorts. How many truly trust any of these clowns to be that directly invovled. IMO allowing that would allow much much more. #slipperyslope

c.) IDK. What do you think?

d.) Do you think that people making that money means they are taking it away from others?