Reply With Quote
Fail...
It's not a zero sum game.So what if this person gains and that person loses?
Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%
Read More http://www.vanityfair.com/society/fe...#ixzz1IsRM0QiO
Fail...
It's not a zero sum game.So what if this person gains and that person loses?
"not a zero sum game"
close enough to one. All the money made by the financial sector isn't just printed up by the Fed. Corps have been exploding mgmt compensation while household real income has stagnated for 30 years, since when St Ronnie got elected and cut taxes on the corps, wealthy (himself), and deregulated finance (S&L disaster as immediate result).
And the point is that the top 1% now manipulate the UCA for its own ever exorbitantly increasing benefit.
Boutons...
Buy a clue please.
WC, GFY and your blind ideology.
The Wealthy have seen their taxes fall over the last few decades.
If giving tax breaks to the wealthy helps the economy so much, woulnd't one expect much more growth in that period of time?
And if it really does "trickle down", why has the concentration gotten so much more acute?
You are right in that it isn't a zero sum game. Our system is disporportionately benefiting only the wealthy.
The lower rates of social mobility in the US compared to the big bad socialist bugaboos in Europe suggests this strongly.
How can there be growth when we don't produce much any more?
Production equals growth of wealth. We need to return manufacturing jobs here. Focusing on the rich is doing no one any good.
I would think that focusing on the rich to tax them more, then put those taxes to work providing solid education to those with less access to higher education would be doing *someone* some good.But one big part of the reason we have so much inequality is that the top 1 percent want it that way. The most obvious example involves tax policy. Lowering tax rates on capital gains, which is how the rich receive a large portion of their income, has given the wealthiest Americans close to a free ride. Monopolies and near monopolies have always been a source of economic power—from John D. Rockefeller at the beginning of the last century to Bill Gates at the end. Lax enforcement of anti-trust laws, especially during Republican administrations, has been a godsend to the top 1 percent. Much of today’s inequality is due to manipulation of the financial system, enabled by changes in the rules that have been bought and paid for by the financial industry itself—one of its best investments ever. The government lent money to financial ins utions at close to 0 percent interest and provided generous bailouts on favorable terms when all else failed. Regulators turned a blind eye to a lack of transparency and to conflicts of interest.
I ask simply: How much money does any one human being really need to have?
But the government does not produce any wealth. It only takes it away from others and redistributes it.
Are you a communist?
Except when the reinvestment goes offshore. But, yes, from a consumption viewpoint life is grand.
How does one prove that they are not?
I'm not asking for proof. Just asking.
Bull ing , which ideologically blinds your hate-govt eyes.
Many govt-financed university researches and govt's own research produces innovations that get picked up by corporations, often a little of no cost, with taxpayers paying the research costs.
It has, a lot.
Stop looking at only our borders. (had an epiphany on this one)
Because so few of us are in position to direct to where things trickle. Many people on the planet now make $25 a month instead of $2, for instance.And if it really does "trickle down", why has the concentration gotten so much more acute?
Again, there is social mobility, and it is a direct result of wealthy people from this country and other countries hiring people with capital they have gained through tax cuts; much of it, unfortunately, is not on our shores. Again, I get offers monthly to ship 25 - 30 jobs overseas (India); the offers are economically compelling.You are right in that it isn't a zero sum game. Our system is disporportionately benefiting only the wealthy.
The lower rates of social mobility in the US compared to the big bad socialist bugaboos in Europe suggests this strongly.
That said, if my taxes go up significantly, I can't promise I wouldn't have to figure out how to trim the fat out of my company's budget.
Can you list some products?
Class warfare rhetoric; I call bull . Talking about taxes on 1% (3,000,000 people), and those that benefit from anti-trust legislation (can't be a number anything like that), is hyperbole....Lax enforcement of anti-trust laws, especially during Republican administrations,...
Don't you mean 'how little'?
Everyone has desires for themselves, their families, communities, etc, most of which are wholly admirable.
I'm not going to argue with the sentiment that an annual income of $1 mil, or net worth of $20 mil isn't a load and should be sufficient for someone to do whatever it is in life they want to do.
And, sure, I'm not going to lose any sleep if they have to pay more in taxes.
Yet this ultimately sets up a race to the bottom. For from a material standpoint one can need very little to survive. Not to mention that what you might deem as an acceptable level of income would seem to many elsewhere on this globe to be a quite comfortable, if not obscene standard of living.
overview:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/82xx/doc8...8-Research.pdf
US govt makes millions annually in research grants to private companies and universities.
From a poster in the most recent National Geographic:
It bands income levels. The TOP band is $12,100 per year and above.
RG...
Why to you covet other people's wealth?
Jealousy isn't good you know. Do you live like that with everything and apply it to everyone?
Do you believe in the Ten Commandments?
"We've had to struggle with the old enemies of peace. Business and financial monopolies, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism,
war profiteering. They have the gall to consider the government of the United
States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. And we know now, that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mobs."
FDR, 1936
FDR was wrong. It's more dangerous.
A graph is worth a thousand words.
Statistical correlation is not equipollent to causation.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
