Page 4 of 17 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 404
  1. #76
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    I wouldn't argue - however with today's code; they'll just find a shelter or other vehicle to avoid anything punitive.

    Must make a "deduction less" tax system; just a few pages (not the 17,000 it currently is); whether flat or progressive; the power brokering that Congress gets to do (be bought off to do), picking winners and losers is destructive and cancerous to our markets.
    I agree with that as well.

    A simple flat tax, with no deductions other than for those with low incomes would be the thing I favor, as much as it pains me to agree with Ricky Perry.

    I used to be opposed to flat taxes, but it has become patently clear that our tax system is too complex. As much as that means less work for accountants, I favor it anyways.

  2. #77
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    PAUL SOLMAN: Aren't many of the top 1 percent or 0.1 percent in this country rich because they're in finance?

    RICHARD EPSTEIN: Yes. Many of the very richest people in the United States are rich because they are in finance.

    And one of the things you have to ask is, why is anyone prepared to pay them huge sums of money if in fact they perform nothing of social value? And the answer is that when you try to knock out the financiers, what you do is you destroy the liquidity of capital markets. And when you destroy the liquidity of those markets, you make it impossible for businesses to invest, you make it impossible for people to buy home mortgages and so forth, and all sorts of other breakdowns.

    So they should be rich. It doesn't bother me.
    It's not finance, per se, it's the way the game is rigged to make it easy for them that is wrong. Lower tax rate on how THEY make money, for instance; then the fact that none are in jail.....

  3. #78
    Veteran vy65's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Post Count
    8,002
    I don't see what you're saying and what Epstein is arguing are really mutually exclusive. You can argue that systematic economic inequality is a good thing while at the same time arguing that certain, lawless behavior, should be punished. The fact that some iBankers aren't in jail doesn't mean Epstein is wrong.

  4. #79
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    I don't see what you're saying and what Epstein is arguing are really mutually exclusive. You can argue that systematic economic inequality is a good thing while at the same time arguing that certain, lawless behavior, should be punished. The fact that some iBankers aren't in jail doesn't mean Epstein is wrong.
    You're right. I have no problem with inequality, however Epstein seems to be defending the current situation; when I see it as untenable. He as brought in, after all, as a counterpoint to Occupy Wall Street, after all.

    If we could have a system as Epstein defines it, with winners AND losers, great; but as it is; there are seemingly no losers once people achieve a certain level.

  5. #80
    Veteran vy65's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Post Count
    8,002
    You're right. I have no problem with inequality, however Epstein seems to be defending the current situation; when I see it as untenable. He as brought in, after all, as a counterpoint to Occupy Wall Street, after all.
    This might be quibbling over minutia, but I don't see him as responding to the OWS crowd so much as to those who take issue with the wealth gap in general. I think he's responding to those who would support aggressive wealth redistribution measures - not those who decry financial corruption/cronyism on wall st.

  6. #81
    Veteran scott's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Post Count
    11,899
    BTW, there's a huge diparity between the 1% and the 0.1%.
    I'm actually working on similar data for another project - not necessarily the top 0.1%, but actually the top 0.029% of the Top 1%: The Top 400 Wealthiest Americans.

    I can't give away all my work in progress just yet (and I'll probably eventually post some of it here - I'm working on actual academic research, not internet musings) - but here is an interesting tidbit I think illustrates the point of why a strict adherence to using whole numbers (99% vs. 1%) is a mistake and creates division where they may not be any:

    The average Net Worth of the Top 400 is 2,654 times greater than the last person who makes the cutoff for the Top 1%.

  7. #82
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    This might be quibbling over minutia, but I don't see him as responding to the OWS crowd so much as to those who take issue with the wealth gap in general. I think he's responding to those who would support aggressive wealth redistribution measures - not those who decry financial corruption/cronyism on wall st.
    Fair enough.

  8. #83
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    I'm actually working on similar data for another project - not necessarily the top 0.1%, but actually the top 0.029% of the Top 1%: The Top 400 Wealthiest Americans.

    I can't give away all my work in progress just yet (and I'll probably eventually post some of it here - I'm working on actual academic research, not internet musings) - but here is an interesting tidbit I think illustrates the point of why a strict adherence to using whole numbers (99% vs. 1%) is a mistake and creates division where they may not be any:

    The average Net Worth of the Top 400 is 2,654 times greater than the last person who makes the cutoff for the Top 1%.
    Yeah, someone had a really good graphic that I saw the other day that illustrated this rather well.

    Let me know when to fire up the guillotine. I jest, but the corrosive effects of such concentration are not something to be taken lightly, IMO.

  9. #84
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    aggressive wealth redistribution measures
    What would you call a system where most of the wealth created benefitted a tiny fraction of society, if not an "aggressive wealth redistribution measure"?

    People piss and moan about "class warfare" but as I have said before, it is already happening and one class is clearly winning.

  10. #85
    Veteran vy65's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Post Count
    8,002
    As usual, I have no ing clue what you're talking about.

    I'd call any policy that redistributes money from those who have earned it to those who haven't a wealth redistribution measure. The more money spread around the more aggressive the measure is.

  11. #86
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    I think this would be easy.

    We line up the richest 5,000, from poorest to richest, and put their heads, one at a time, in the machine. We ask them a series of questions about how they achieved their great wealth; we have a voice recognition switch that automatically trips the release on the word "derivative", or phrase "mortgage backed securities".

    Those that are remaining get to keep ALL their wealth, and I'll even buy them a beer.

  12. #87
    Troll
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Post Count
    383
    I happen to work for one of these evil 1% guys (if he is, it's just barely). Many of these people come up with the idea, write the business plan, invest their own money, get venture capital, work their ass off (often at the expense of their personal lives), and, yes, create jobs. If my company tanks, I lose my job (and whatever my stock may have been worth), but my CEO loses a lot more. He's taken more risk and has much more "skin in the game". I suppose he could divide up the company equally amongst the employees, but that doesn't make much sense to me.
    I doubt your boss will lose enough to put him on the street. That's what getting venture capital is all about genius. The bank looks at your risks as high, so rather risk it all yourself you ask others.

    and apparently to you they work their ass off at the expense of their personnel lives? Really, maybe so..and often to the extent of many many more people. Most of the executives I have met ...and I have met many being a engineering contractor will sacrifice to no end to take advantage of slave wage labor.

    Hence the manufacturing sector of this country >>>>> Asia.

    Just wondering, does your boss notice that you screw around on the net forums all day? I'd fire you a long time ago, sounds like a incompetent guy to say the least.

  13. #88
    Troll
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Post Count
    383
    As usual, I have no ing clue what you're talking about.

    I'd call any policy that redistributes money from those who have earned it to those who haven't a wealth redistribution measure. The more money spread around the more aggressive the measure is.

    Blah blah blah stfu. Wealth redistribution? The entire country was stolen by white males that utilized free slave labor. That's wealth redistribution.

    Taxes? hardly.

    Conservatives usually trying to relabel a concept in this case... taxation when the same keywords aren't working. Play it over again.

  14. #89
    Veteran vy65's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Post Count
    8,002
    Clearly slavery is relevant to this conversation. Thanks bell hooks!

  15. #90
    Veteran Th'Pusher's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    6,097
    As usual, I have no ing clue what you're talking about.

    I'd call any policy that redistributes money from those who have earned it to those who haven't a wealth redistribution measure. The more money spread around the more aggressive the measure is.
    I believe he is referring to the sustained upward redistribution of wealth to the top 1% that has occurred over the last 30 years.

  16. #91
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,421
    Due adjustment to an inequitable system. This is totally different.

  17. #92
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    As usual, I have no ing clue what you're talking about.

    I'd call any policy that redistributes money from those who have earned it to those who haven't a wealth redistribution measure. The more money spread around the more aggressive the measure is.
    man, just read the OP. It isn't rocket science.



    Given the growth in the US economy over the same time period, the conclusion that our economic system has given the majority of that growth to a vanishingly small portion of the population.

    The gains that used to go to the providers of labor have instead gone almost exclusively to the providers of capital.

    That is a VERY aggressive wealth redistribution from those not in that upper, upper, upper bracket to those 400 or so families that now control an even greater portion of the overall wealth in this country.

    (edit)

    Now that you have this really hard to find information, I will ask the question again:

    What would you call a system where most of the wealth created accrued to a tiny fraction of society, if not an "aggressive wealth redistribution measure"?

    People piss and moan about "class warfare" but as I have said before, it is already happening and one class is clearly winning.

  18. #93
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    man, just read the OP. It isn't rocket science.



    Given the growth in the US economy over the same time period, the conclusion that our economic system has given the majority of that growth to a vanishingly small portion of the population.

    The gains that used to go to the providers of labor have instead gone almost exclusively to the providers of capital.

    That is a VERY aggressive wealth redistribution from those not in that upper, upper, upper bracket to those 400 or so families that now control an even greater portion of the overall wealth in this country.

    (edit)

    Now that you have this really hard to find information, I will ask the question again:
    What would you call a system where most of the wealth created accrued to a tiny fraction of society, if not an "aggressive wealth redistribution measure"?

    People piss and moan about "class warfare" but as I have said before, it is already happening and one class is clearly winning.
    The logical failing of the last statement is that is suggests a finite amount of wealth - of which the super rich are getting at the expense of everybody else. In truth EVERY bracket has, in fact, increased its income, in real dollars, over the period represented (with caveats as do ented in this thread - no one has responded to my very poignant post about 401K accounts that began in EXACTLY the same year as the OP's data). Meaning, necessarily, wealth is not finite at all, and there need not be RE distribution of wealth for one group to benefit more than another; and it ONLY stands to reason that, regardless of system, that the top 1% will ALWAYS be accelerating beyond the mean, because that is what making them the top 1%! What would be interesting, would be to delineate the top 1% in 1979 - and graph those specific PERSONS from then forward.

    For instance, if I made $100,000 one year, while my wife made $50,000 - the top 50% would have made 2X what the bottom 50% made. Then, I lose my job in July, after earning 50K, but my wife patents a new vaccine she's been working on, and makes 500K - THEN the top 50% is earning 10 times the bottom, increased its income 5X, while the bottom 50% stayed the same ! Doesn't tell the story very well, does it.

  19. #94
    Veteran vy65's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Post Count
    8,002
    man, just read the OP. It isn't rocket science.



    Given the growth in the US economy over the same time period, the conclusion that our economic system has given the majority of that growth to a vanishingly small portion of the population.

    The gains that used to go to the providers of labor have instead gone almost exclusively to the providers of capital.

    That is a VERY aggressive wealth redistribution from those not in that upper, upper, upper bracket to those 400 or so families that now control an even greater portion of the overall wealth in this country.

    (edit)

    Now that you have this really hard to find information, I will ask the question again:
    Why does everyone have an equal right to redeem the benefits of economic growth? And I don't see how your chart explains how the "gains that used to go to the providers of labor have instead gone almost exclusively to the providers of capital." Help me out there.

    Your chart is also irrelevant to what we were discussing. The Epstein bit was directed towards government tax policy which would redistribute cash earned by someone to others. You're just mad that those with access to capital have profited more than those who provide human capital.

    Just because 400 families or whatever have ac ulated wealth at a greater rate than the rest of the country doesn't mean there's some sinister wealth-redistribution plot. It means they either had an innovative and profitable idea, gamed the system, or did anything else that made them billions. Put the ing koolaid down.

  20. #95
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    43,734
    The logical failing of the last statement is that is suggests a finite amount of wealth - of which the super rich are getting at the expense of everybody else. In truth EVERY bracket has, in fact, increased its income, in real dollars, over the period represented (with caveats as do ented in this thread - no one has responded to my very poignant post about 401K accounts that began in EXACTLY the same year as the OP's data). Meaning, necessarily, wealth is not finite at all, and there need not be RE distribution of wealth for one group to benefit more than another; and it ONLY stands to reason that, regardless of system, that the top 1% will ALWAYS be accelerating beyond the mean, because that is what making them the top 1%! What would be interesting, would be to delineate the top 1% in 1979 - and graph those specific PERSONS from then forward.

    For instance, if I made $100,000 one year, while my wife made $50,000 - the top 50% would have made 2X what the bottom 50% made. Then, I lose my job in July, after earning 50K, but my wife patents a new vaccine she's been working on, and makes 500K - THEN the top 50% is earning 10 times the bottom, increased its income 5X, while the bottom 50% stayed the same ! Doesn't tell the story very well, does it.
    Unfortunately, although you make perfect sense you are wasting your time trying to convince this crowd the "man" isn't holding them down.

  21. #96
    i hunt fenced animals clambake's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    25,029
    thats right. they gamed the system, made billions, and then took all the money from the 99% to stay in their perch.

  22. #97
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    The logical failing of the last statement is that is suggests a finite amount of wealth - of which the super rich are getting at the expense of everybody else. In truth EVERY bracket has, in fact, increased its income, in real dollars, over the period represented (with caveats as do ented in this thread - no one has responded to my very poignant post about 401K accounts that began in EXACTLY the same year as the OP's data). Meaning, necessarily, wealth is not finite at all, and there need not be RE distribution of wealth for one group to benefit more than another; and it ONLY stands to reason that, regardless of system, that the top 1% will ALWAYS be accelerating beyond the mean, because that is what making them the top 1%! What would be interesting, would be to delineate the top 1% in 1979 - and graph those specific PERSONS from then forward.

    For instance, if I made $100,000 one year, while my wife made $50,000 - the top 50% would have made 2X what the bottom 50% made. Then, I lose my job in July, after earning 50K, but my wife patents a new vaccine she's been working on, and makes 500K - THEN the top 50% is earning 10 times the bottom, increased its income 5X, while the bottom 50% stayed the same ! Doesn't tell the story very well, does it.
    Wealth is finite and measurable.

    It is not, however, fixed and immutable.

    New wealth is created all the time. Some create it through providing labor to the economy, some create it by providing capital.

    The data we have shows that our system has provided almost all the new wealth created to those with capital, at the expense of those whose only asset is the labor they provide.

    Is this a fair system?

    Is it moral?

  23. #98
    Veteran Th'Pusher's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    6,097
    Wealth is finite and measurable.

    It is not, however, fixed and immutable.

    New wealth is created all the time. Some create it through providing labor to the economy, some create it by providing capital.

    The data we have shows that our system has provided almost all the new wealth created to those with capital, at the expense of those whose only asset is the labor they provide.

    Is this a fair system?

    Is it moral?

    Not to mention there appear to be societal benefits to having low economic inequality - Longer life expectancy, better education, lower infant mortality rates, fewer homicides, less people in prison, etc.

  24. #99
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Why does everyone have an equal right to redeem the benefits of economic growth? And I don't see how your chart explains how the "gains that used to go to the providers of labor have instead gone almost exclusively to the providers of capital." Help me out there.

    Your chart is also irrelevant to what we were discussing. The Epstein bit was directed towards government tax policy which would redistribute cash earned by someone to others. You're just mad that those with access to capital have profited more than those who provide human capital.

    Just because 400 families or whatever have ac ulated wealth at a greater rate than the rest of the country doesn't mean there's some sinister wealth-redistribution plot. It means they either had an innovative and profitable idea, gamed the system, or did anything else that made them billions. Put the ing koolaid down.
    The chart was in the OP. That kind of makes it, by definition, relevant to the discussion.

    You were complaining about a mechanism that aggresively redistributes wealth, and I pointed out that our economic system already does that, to the benefit of a very small portion of the population.

    For whatever reason, you appear not to want to admit that. That seems to me far more dogmatic than anything I have put forth so far.

    Leave it to the wanna-be lawyer to argue legality and ignore morality.

  25. #100
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    43,734
    So redistribution of wealth by force is moral?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •