• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Is the U.S. Due for Radically Raising Taxes for the Rich?"

Harshaw said:
What does "due" even mean in the context of enacting policy?
Click to expand...

We've reached a point where raising taxes on the rich is required.

"Required for what ?" Would be the important question.

When the poor are priced out of the articles of production, economic growth is inhibited. This is well understood. The wealth of a nation is measured in the goods and services that it produces. When the people cannot readily acquire education and capital (when those resources are not allocated for productive purposes because they are hoarded by a small minority), economic growth wanes.

It makes sense. If we had no schools in this country, if they all disappeared overnight, that would spell certain economic doom.

Once every person has access to the means of harnessing their productive potential, the redistribution of resources from rich to poor becomes prohibitive again. This is because it does, eventually, impact the availability of capital.

This is why it's so confusing: in some circumstances, lowering taxes and services serves to increase economic growth. In other circumstances, raising taxes and services serves to increase economic growth.

The question then becomes, under which circumstance are we currently under ? Well the answer is pretty obvious from the history. We've had four decades of tax cuts without much economic growth. In particular, President Bush 2's tax cuts didn't help the economy. We could also look at educational access for the poor. We could also look at income disparity.

Virtually every bit of evidence points in the same direction: the resource distribution in this country is inefficient because the resources are far too consolidated.
 
ALL I AM SAYING IS GIVE PEOPLE A CHANCE!

Sparky2 said:
There is plenty of evidence, LaFayette. All you have to do is open your eyes to the truth of 2016 American politics, (the art of shameless pandering, and the willingness to run up the national debt in the interest of furthering the Party agenda) and open you your eyes to Hillary Clinton's record of pay-for-play.

As long as you stick your head in the sand regarding that, you will truly never become enlightened.
Click to expand...

You're a free-thinker are you. Well think about the following. Think hard.

Nobody, and especially NOT ME, is "sticking their head in the sands". Enough of the mindless blather - you've read more FACTUAL EVIDENCE posted on this forum by me than anywhere else on the planet. Let it sink in.

Yes, American politics is in a mess - and why? I repeat, and repeat, and repeat: It's because Reckless Ronnie lowered upper-income taxation for the rich, which created the Plutocrat Class, and makes for a Permanent Gusher of Earned Income Into Wealth. AND THEY WANT TO PRESERVE THAT GUSHER!

So, what do they do? They "very democratically" influence public opinion at election time by means of the BoobTube to which much of America is glued throughout the day. During the election period, the commercials are thick with "mindless messaging" - candidates are treated like soap-powder. THEY ALL WASH WHITER THAN WHITE.

When it comes down to factual specifics, they haven't a defensible claim on earth. Nobody but nobody needs to earn that much income. They are doing so simply BECAUSE THEY CAN (OR WANT TO) DO SO. And what will they do with it after they have three Rolls-Royces, a private jet, three yachts, and four sumptuous houses around the world?

They will:
*Leave it to their kids who never worked a day to earn it all,
*Give it to a private school so their name can be put on a building, seen (and remembered) by all,
*Give it to charity, which is the only means of subsistence for some people who are wholly incapable of sustaining themselves in a market-economy that has predestined them to abject poverty.

And yet, we will have a crime rate (that is the highest of any developed nation on earth) due to the fact that most people in jail never completed High School. Wow! And we all seem to think, "Oh what a shame that is. But, THAT'S THE WAY THE COOKIE CRUMBLES!"

MY POINT?

The cookie need not crumble that way. We "crumble cookies" the way we want by means of Federal Expenditures that support programs that can better their lives (and ours). Programs like a National HealthCare System and Free Education Primary-to-Tertiary!

All I Am Saying Is Give People A Chance!

(PS: Yeah, right, I'm just "jealous" of the rich ... ;^)
___________________________
 
Last edited:
Lafayette said:
The history of Income Tax rates can be found here.

And, I'll bet that you didn't even know that upper-income taxation, before LBJ was at 90% - or that since its inception (in 1913), it has been first between 70 and 80% - and only reduced twice. Once in the early 1920s, and what followed? The crash of 1929 and its subsequent Great Depression.
Click to expand...

And pretty much no one paid 90% I see you fail to mention that. after all the tax deduction the effective tax rate was about 45%. on top of that very few percentage of the population even qualified for that amount.

In 1931, Roosevelt put it back up to first 65% and later to 91% to help pay for WW2 - where it remained until LBJ in the early 1960s reduced it from 91% to 60% for reasons lost in the mist of time. (I reckon he was "paying off" his Texan oil-backers.) Then Reckless Ronnie came along and whacked it down to less than 30% before he left office. It took 22 more years, but what happened? The Great Recession of 2009/10!
Click to expand...

Actually Reagan lowered it to 45% which is what they were paying anyway and greatly reduced the number of tax deductions. This also saw a huge boost in taxes collected.

So, I would say that at very high levels of taxation, historically, there has been less of a chance of a great recession/depression sparked by mindlessly aggressive Investing Mischief on Wall Street!
Click to expand...

There is no proof of this.

America has been overcome with a new social-illness called the Muney-Muney-Muney Frenzy - where the American Dream is no longer two-kids and house in the 'burbs, but now takes the form of a "Quick Megabuck".
Click to expand...

your opinion dismissed but you are entitled to it.

Typical rabid-rhetoric from the mindless Right that employs insults instead of logic.
There is not a shred of evidence in any of the quackery above ...
______________________
Click to expand...

No there is plenty of true to what he said, however what people like Clinton and Obama don't seem to understand is that they are the very people they hate.
they are the 1%. to be in the 1% all it takes is an AGI of 450k a year.

any mid size business worth it's salt will do that.
 
ludin said:
Actually Reagan lowered it to 45% which is what they were paying anyway and greatly reduced the number of tax deductions. This also saw a huge boost in taxes collected..
Click to expand...

As regards the tax-rate by Reagan, I stand by what is said in the infographic linked.

You relate a "number of cop-outs" under the guise that "Hey, it aint so terrible!" - which is in dark contrast with the facts. The "Top Rate" is 43.4% but very few actually pay it. They can afford Tax Consultants to avoid it. Or like The Dork, they declare a monumental loss and pay no taxes whatsoever. (There are plenty of loop-holes in the Tax Code, and Reagan knew that full well, since he had taken advantage of most of them. As most of Hollywood does - its a notorious Wealth-Machine.)

My Point: Fifteen percent of Americans live below the poverty threshold (of $24K per year) whilst on the other end the 1Percenters pay ridiculously low tax-rates. From Fact Sheet: Taxing Wealthy Americans – Americans for Tax Fairness, excerpt:
*The richest 1% of Americans own 35% of the nation’s wealth. The bottom 80% own just 11% of the nation’s wealth.
*In the 1950s and 1960s, when the economy was booming, the wealthiest Americans paid a top income tax rate of 91%. Today, the top rate is 43.4%.
*The richest 1% pay an effective federal income tax rate of 24.7% in 2014; someone making an average of $75,000 is paying a 19.7% rate.
*The average federal income tax rate of the richest 400 Americans was just 20 percent in 2009.
*Taxing investment income at a much lower rate than salaries and wages are taxed loses $1.3 trillion over 10 years.
1,470 households reported income of more than $1 million in 2009 but paid zero federal income taxes on it.
CEOs of major corporations earn nearly 300 times more than an average worker.
*30 percent of income inequality is due to unfair taxes and budget cuts to services and benefits.
*The largest contributor to increasing Income Inequality has been changes in income from capital gains and dividends.
Click to expand...

What in heaven's name is the sense of the shocking facts detailed above?

This: We, the Sheeple, are getting screwed by far too low taxation of upper-incomes ...
_________________________
 
Lafayette said:
The history of Income Tax rates can be found here.

And, I'll bet that you didn't even know that upper-income taxation, before LBJ was at 90% - or that since its inception (in 1913), it has been first between 70 and 80% - and only reduced twice. Once in the early 1920s, and what followed? The crash of 1929 and its subsequent Great Depression.

In 1931, Roosevelt put it back up to first 65% and later to 91% to help pay for WW2 - where it remained until LBJ in the early 1960s reduced it from 91% to 60% for reasons lost in the mist of time. (I reckon he was "paying off" his Texan oil-backers.) Then Reckless Ronnie came along and whacked it down to less than 30% before he left office. It took 22 more years, but what happened? The Great Recession of 2009/10!

So, I would say that at very high levels of taxation, historically, there has been less of a chance of a great recession/depression sparked by mindlessly aggressive Investing Mischief on Wall Street!

America has been overcome with a new social-illness called the Muney-Muney-Muney Frenzy - where the American Dream is no longer two-kids and house in the 'burbs, but now takes the form of a "Quick Megabuck".



Typical rabid-rhetoric from the mindless Right that employs insults instead of logic.

There is not a shred of evidence in any of the quackery above ...
______________________
Click to expand...
Lafayette said:
Not only alone, but on some distant planet ...
Click to expand...

I think she knows the inequality exists and knows wealthy individuals refusal to pay taxes plays a factor, and to some degree she would like to raise taxes on the wealthy, after all they do owe more in taxes than they've paid historically thanks to their ability to avoid taxes, two examples are Trump paying no taxes, and Romney being in the 14% tax bracket which is laughable. However, if while Hillary is in office a tax increase on the wealthy does not happen, she would lose little sleep over it, in my personal belief.

I think to acquire the tax revenue desired, we have to go after where the wealthy choose to hide their income. One example of what I think would be productive is a higher capital gains tax on public and private securities. It discourages investment in financials, and would also make investments in production plants relatively more attractive.

Above all, the goal should be to encourage investments in the real economy, as it provides jobs and is profitable for the investor.

There is a persisting problem is one of low foreign labor costs. However, in an analysis done by Paul Krugman wages paid to foreign labor are growing and are near 93% of american wages and growing. My solution is one of increased tariffs, or bargaining with foreign countries to increase labor wages by the amount that would make foreign production equal to the cost of US domestic production. The problem with foreign countries increasing their labor wages is that jobs will leave their country if our companies leave to produce domestically when they expand their production. However, the US companies would have no reason to pull out of the countries they are already in because the labor/tariff cost makes them indifferent. So they will only choose to produce domestically when they expand, and not pull out of existing plants in foreign countries.
 
RetiredUSN said:
The middle class & rich have been taking it up the azz long enough.

A hand up is a good thing, but we have been handing out free rides to the lazy for far too long.
Click to expand...

krugman graph.jpg

There is no reason to believe hard work produces more income to infinity, there is certainly a point of diminishing return. I would like to also state explicitly the point that the rich have not had it very hard as described by the attached chart. The rich have been rewarded for what they've done. While the poor were not so lucky.
 
Last edited:
iEconomist said:
It is indeed his business as well as it is your business and mine how tax dollars are allocated, sir.
Click to expand...

If he's a US citizen, then yes.
 
Massively raising taxes for the rich is little more then sour grapes on the part of the masses.

The money generated will not radically alter the budget deficit or change the masses lives. They simply want to see people with a lot more then them have less.

And taxing some one way more then others is not getting them to pay 'their fair share' - it is gouging. 'Fair share' means paying what everyone else does.

Once again, the ignorant masses prove how ignorant they are. A) they keep talking about raising income tax on the rich...which means nothing to the truly rich as their incomes are almost all in capital gains; b) the real problem is the money/loopholes the rich get from government/Fed. All the money the Fed is pouring into the stock market (indirectly) helps the rich almost exclusively. And the government bailouts and bank aids again help rich stockholders and do almost nothing for the masses. But the masses think they are okay because they are told to think that by government as the latter scares the former into thinking the economy will collapse if the big companies/banks are not bailed out...which is TOTAL NONSENSE. But the ignorant/gullible masses (and many ignorant economists) believe it.

If you really want to hurt the rich? 1) neuter/kill the Fed. They are pumping trillions that helps the rich and do almost nothing for everyone else. 2) never bail out a bank/corporation again. 3) change the tax system so that capital gains and income are taxed exactly the same, remove all loopholes/deductions except charitable contributions and capital losses AND end corporate/business tax which is nothing but a double tax as most taxes corporations pay are just passed on to the consumer through higher prices.

You do these things and the rich will pay FAR higher taxes per year then they do now...guaranteed - plus, doing your taxes every year will take all of five minutes.
 
Last edited:
People "feel" its unfair? What a joke. And who are the rich to them, in reality? Wall Street?
And yet the Liberal/Democrat assholes are pushing for increased taxes on >$250K...which is not the wall street "crooks" you try to demonize anyway.
Sleight of hand...misdirection, coupled with enabling people by paying their way. Its a real shame we don't have 4-5 politics parties, because no one knew their **** this season in our incredibly bad choice of Hillary v Trump.

IMO of course more people should be earning more. You should invest more time in your career and job skills, and continually move up as best you can.
If we had more entrepreneurs, more people would make more money, and you'd be competing with the rich, and you'd get more tax base.

The thing is, I've hired hundreds, managed hundreds, have many peers in the same, in c-level management (as you get older this happens), and everyone knows the same. Good people are hard to find, and we're primarily limited by people who give a damn.

So wake up, you've never had more opporunity to change your economic situation than you have today in the U.S. You can sit in your PJs and make $1M on software, that takes a whopping 1 year to learn how to write. Or make a sponge that looks like an F'ing happy face. Or some diaper creme. Whatever your passion.

People choose to do other things than develop their career, its their choice.

If you want to change wall Street, change wall street. Don't rob from the rich just because you personally feel you need to give to the not rich (not the poor).
 
DA60 said:
Massively raising taxes for the rich is little more then sour grapes on the part of the masses.

The money generated will not radically alter the budget deficit or change the masses lives. They simply want to see people with a lot more then them have less.

And taxing some one way more then others is not getting them to pay 'their fair share' - it is gouging. 'Fair share' means paying what everyone else does.

Once again, the ignorant masses prove how ignorant they are. A) they keep talking about raising income tax on the rich...which means nothing to the truly rich as their incomes are almost all in capital gains; b) the real problem is the money/loopholes the rich get from government/Fed. All the money the Fed is pouring into the stock market (indirectly) helps the rich almost exclusively. And the government bailouts and bank aids again help rich stockholders and do almost nothing for the masses. But the masses think they are okay because they are told to think that by government as the latter scares the former into thinking the economy will collapse if the big companies/banks are not bailed out...which is TOTAL NONSENSE. But the ignorant/gullible masses (and many ignorant economists) believe it.

If you really want to hurt the rich? 1) neuter/kill the Fed. They are pumping trillions that helps the rich and do almost nothing for everyone else. 2) never bail out a bank/corporation again. 3) change the tax system so that capital gains and income are taxed exactly the same, remove all loopholes/deductions except charitable contributions and capital losses AND end corporate/business tax which is nothing but a double tax as most taxes corporations pay are just passed on to the consumer through higher prices.

You do these things and the rich will pay FAR higher taxes per year then they do now...guaranteed - plus, doing your taxes every year will take all of five minutes.
Click to expand...

The issue to those who are not the wealthy, who want the wealthy to pay more in taxes, are not motivated a desire to see the rich be made worse off. The issue to the people who believe the rich should pay more in taxes want a level playing field where the rich don't get to avoid paying taxes because they can hide their money in offshore accounts or large stock compensation packages that have potential to be manipulated by those receiving them and often are. They want those people to man up and play by the rules. The game is not who can find the best way to cheat. The game is who can play fair and be rich, while at the same time improving society's benefit.

I've advocated for a capital gains tax as well, I think it could play a great role in encouraging other real investment. Not the stock market which produces nothing, and stands for little more than making a quick profit. It has indeed lost it's seemingly noble roots.

1.) Central Banks exist. There is little credible evidence to suggest we would be better off without them, but there is significantly less evidence to suggest they function with the interests of the wealth
 
Mach said:
People "feel" its unfair? What a joke. And who are the rich to them, in reality? Wall Street?
And yet the Liberal/Democrat assholes are pushing for increased taxes on >$250K...which is not the wall street "crooks" you try to demonize anyway.
Sleight of hand...misdirection, coupled with enabling people by paying their way. Its a real shame we don't have 4-5 politics parties, because no one knew their **** this season in our incredibly bad choice of Hillary v Trump.

IMO of course more people should be earning more. You should invest more time in your career and job skills, and continually move up as best you can.
If we had more entrepreneurs, more people would make more money, and you'd be competing with the rich, and you'd get more tax base.

The thing is, I've hired hundreds, managed hundreds, have many peers in the same, in c-level management (as you get older this happens), and everyone knows the same. Good people are hard to find, and we're primarily limited by people who give a damn.

So wake up, you've never had more opporunity to change your economic situation than you have today in the U.S. You can sit in your PJs and make $1M on software, that takes a whopping 1 year to learn how to write. Or make a sponge that looks like an F'ing happy face. Or some diaper creme. Whatever your passion.

People choose to do other things than develop their career, its their choice.

If you want to change wall Street, change wall street. Don't rob from the rich just because you personally feel you need to give to the not rich (not the poor).
Click to expand...

When the represented people levy taxes unto themselves, that's justice. Robbery is injustice.

When the rich force the government to fail to represent the poor, that's injustice. Taxation without representation caused a war before, and for good reason.
 
DA60 said:
Massively raising taxes for the rich is little more then sour grapes on the part of the masses.

The money generated will not radically alter the budget deficit or change the masses lives. They simply want to see people with a lot more then them have less.

And taxing some one way more then others is not getting them to pay 'their fair share' - it is gouging. 'Fair share' means paying what everyone else does.

Once again, the ignorant masses prove how ignorant they are. A) they keep talking about raising income tax on the rich...which means nothing to the truly rich as their incomes are almost all in capital gains; b) the real problem is the money/loopholes the rich get from government/Fed. All the money the Fed is pouring into the stock market (indirectly) helps the rich almost exclusively. And the government bailouts and bank aids again help rich stockholders and do almost nothing for the masses. But the masses think they are okay because they are told to think that by government as the latter scares the former into thinking the economy will collapse if the big companies/banks are not bailed out...which is TOTAL NONSENSE. But the ignorant/gullible masses (and many ignorant economists) believe it.

If you really want to hurt the rich? 1) neuter/kill the Fed. They are pumping trillions that helps the rich and do almost nothing for everyone else. 2) never bail out a bank/corporation again. 3) change the tax system so that capital gains and income are taxed exactly the same, remove all loopholes/deductions except charitable contributions and capital losses AND end corporate/business tax which is nothing but a double tax as most taxes corporations pay are just passed on to the consumer through higher prices.

You do these things and the rich will pay FAR higher taxes per year then they do now...guaranteed - plus, doing your taxes every year will take all of five minutes.
Click to expand...

The issue to those who are not the wealthy, who want the wealthy to pay more in taxes, are not motivated a desire to see the rich be made worse off. The issue to the people who believe the rich should pay more in taxes want a level playing field where the rich don't get to avoid paying taxes because they can hide their money in offshore accounts or large stock compensation packages that have potential to be manipulated by those receiving them and often are. They want those people to man up and play by the rules. The game is not who can find the best way to cheat. The game is who can play fair and be rich, while at the same time improving society's benefit.

I've advocated for a capital gains tax as well, I think it could play a great role in encouraging other real investment. Not the stock market which produces nothing, and stands for little more than making a quick profit. It has indeed lost it's seemingly noble roots.

1.) Central Banks exist. There is little credible evidence to suggest we would be better off without them, but there is significantly less evidence to suggest they function with the interests of the wealthy in mind at all. And before we rein in the nonsense about Jekyll Island and corruption that has big bank's interest in mind, the reason for forming Central Bank has roots in prevention of bank runs by providing banks with short term capital to repay depositors when they came and wanted to pull their money out. Now the Fed takes on the responsibility of keeping inflation consistent, and unemployment low. The trade off first proposed by A.W. Phillips in his Model of the Phillips curve. From which we derive the unemployment and inflation targets. While the Fed's responsibilty has grown, this does not even point to any sign of corruption or incentive to make the wealthy better off by the Fed. There's no question the Fed is a powerful institution. Arguably no other institution has a greater influence on the world's economy than the Central Bank of the United States. But look at what the Fed is doing when they address inflation; inflation is essentially how much prices of goods are rising in a given amount of time. Prices of goods are determined by the supply and demand for them. So the Fed has an inflation target, if they need to increase inflation to reach that target, i.e. inflation is currently too low, and you want prices to rise to keep them consistent with the target, then the goal is to grow the aggregate demand for goods and services. In order to grow aggregate demand, the fed increases the money supply. In order to do so, the fed must reduce the
 
iEconomist said:
The issue to those who are not the wealthy, who want the wealthy to pay more in taxes, are not motivated a desire to see the rich be made worse off. The issue to the people who believe the rich should pay more in taxes want a level playing field where the rich don't get to avoid paying taxes because they can hide their money in offshore accounts or large stock compensation packages that have potential to be manipulated by those receiving them and often are. They want those people to man up and play by the rules. The game is not who can find the best way to cheat. The game is who can play fair and be rich, while at the same time improving society's benefit.

I've advocated for a capital gains tax as well, I think it could play a great role in encouraging other real investment. Not the stock market which produces nothing, and stands for little more than making a quick profit. It has indeed lost it's seemingly noble roots.

1.) Central Banks exist. There is little credible evidence to suggest we would be better off without them, but there is significantly less evidence to suggest they function with the interests of the wealthy in mind at all. And before we rein in the nonsense about Jekyll Island and corruption that has big bank's interest in mind, the reason for forming Central Bank has roots in prevention of bank runs by providing banks with short term capital to repay depositors when they came and wanted to pull their money out. Now the Fed takes on the responsibility of keeping inflation consistent, and unemployment low. The trade off first proposed by A.W. Phillips in his Model of the Phillips curve. From which we derive the unemployment and inflation targets. While the Fed's responsibility has grown, this does not even point to any sign of corruption or incentive to make the wealthy better off by the Fed. There's no question the Fed is a powerful institution. Arguably no other institution has a greater influence on the world's economy than the Central Bank of the United States. But look at what the Fed is doing when they address inflation; inflation is essentially how much prices of goods are rising in a given amount of time. Prices of goods are determined by the supply and demand for them. So the Fed has an inflation target, if they need to increase inflation to reach that target, i.e. inflation is currently too low, and you want prices to rise to keep them consistent with the target, then the goal is to grow the aggregate demand for goods and services. In order to grow aggregate demand, the fed increases the money supply. In order to do so, the Fed reduces the Federal Funds Rate to 1. make money easier to borrow, and 2. make savings accounts with banks less attractive. If it is easy to borrow and spend, it is thought likely to result in people buying more goods and services, and thats what aggregate demand literally is. So low interes rates are an effort to expand the money supply to encourage more buying of goods. The way the Fed manages unemployment is much more distant and in doing so, the Fed actually has little precision. The Fed looks to the business cycle here. If businesses report expansion of capital expenditures like factory equipment and production plants, they can safely assume there will soon be an increase in job availability in the future. Which produces lower unemployment keeping all else equal. If there is a great buildup of inventory, it is likely there will be cut backs in labor spending and possibly a recession on the horizon. The Money supply's impact on businesses willingness to expand production has a role in the form of aggregate demand as well. If we see high inflation, we expect there has been an outward shift in demand, and this outward shift can provide incentive to supply more to keep prices low if there are any substitutes. The incentive to expand supply can result in lower unemployment, because there is added demand for labor. Expansion of the money supply itself can result in businesses having a greater willingness to invest in capital because they too have access to low borrowing costs. In all of this complexity and abstract thinking about expansion, the wants and needs are of little significance, rich people are no different than anyone else. They have an income which they choose to spend part of, and save part of. But the Fed doesn't regard the wealthy with any more significance than any other economic agent who possesses an income. the size of that income is relatively unimportant to the Fed's objectives.
Click to expand...
 
Mach said:
People "feel" its unfair? What a joke. And who are the rich to them, in reality? Wall Street?
And yet the Liberal/Democrat assholes are pushing for increased taxes on >$250K...which is not the wall street "crooks" you try to demonize anyway.
Sleight of hand...misdirection, coupled with enabling people by paying their way. Its a real shame we don't have 4-5 politics parties, because no one knew their **** this season in our incredibly bad choice of Hillary v Trump.

IMO of course more people should be earning more. You should invest more time in your career and job skills, and continually move up as best you can.
If we had more entrepreneurs, more people would make more money, and you'd be competing with the rich, and you'd get more tax base.

The thing is, I've hired hundreds, managed hundreds, have many peers in the same, in c-level management (as you get older this happens), and everyone knows the same. Good people are hard to find, and we're primarily limited by people who give a damn.

So wake up, you've never had more opporunity to change your economic situation than you have today in the U.S. You can sit in your PJs and make $1M on software, that takes a whopping 1 year to learn how to write. Or make a sponge that looks like an F'ing happy face. Or some diaper creme. Whatever your passion.

People choose to do other things than develop their career, its their choice.

If you want to change wall Street, change wall street. Don't rob from the rich just because you personally feel you need to give to the not rich (not the poor).
Click to expand...

We do need more political parties, I couldn't agree more. Similar to clean energy in a way, the initial cost of instituting the either system is difficult in the short run but has long term rewards far in excess of initial inefficiency.

I also agree with you in the case of entrepreneurs. I see a future world where 1/2-2/3rd of the population are entrepreneurs distributed across most all social classes. I believe this will come on a day where machinery (technology) can encompass entire production lines, with dynamic software that is capable of employing softer skills. On this day one fact will remain true that is so simple we ignore it, that being the long term value of land. Some academic models from the early 20th century say this is the only profitable that exists in the economy, everything else is offset by its capital input cost. But.. the thing about land that appears to be universal fact throughout mankind... we sure haven't produced much more of it
 
iEconomist said:
...
1.) Central Banks exist. There is little credible evidence to suggest we would be better off without them, but there is significantly less evidence to suggest they function with the interests of the wealthy in mind at all. And before we rein in the nonsense about Jekyll Island and corruption that has big bank's interest in mind, the reason for forming Central Bank has roots in prevention of bank runs by providing banks with short term capital to repay depositors when they came and wanted to pull their money out. Now the Fed takes on the responsibility of keeping inflation consistent, and unemployment low. The trade off first proposed by A.W. Phillips in his Model of the Phillips curve. From which we derive the unemployment and inflation targets. While the Fed's responsibilty has grown, this does not even point to any sign of corruption or incentive to make the wealthy better off by the Fed. There's no question the Fed is a powerful institution. Arguably no other institution has a greater influence on the world's economy than the Central Bank of the United States. But look at what the Fed is doing when they address inflation; inflation is essentially how much prices of goods are rising in a given amount of time. Prices of goods are determined by the supply and demand for them. So the Fed has an inflation target, if they need to increase inflation to reach that target, i.e. inflation is currently too low, and you want prices to rise to keep them consistent with the target, then the goal is to grow the aggregate demand for goods and services. In order to grow aggregate demand, the fed increases the money supply. In order to do so, the fed must reduce the
Click to expand...

Are you serious?

The Federal Reserve bank is owned by the banks (yes - it has shares) and answers ONLY to the banks. You honestly believe that the Fed will not act in the best interests in the banks above all else? Surely you cannot be so naive as to honestly think that they give a rat's ass about the masses? They care about helping their buddies at the banks - first and foremost.

The Fed recently admitted that ZIRP is hurting seniors who lived on their savings - because they are now getting virtually nothing for those savings. How is that helping the poor/middle class?

The Fed freely admits that the main purpose of the trillions of dollars for QE is to prop up the stock market. Considering poor people own no stock and the middle class own almost none - how is that helping anyone but major stockholders?


And why is it good to deliberately have inflation? Show me one consumer who ever said 'Oh, I wish prices would rise more.'


And do not forget - the FED are macroeconomic ignoramuses. They are bean counters who have proven time and time again that they have no idea how the world truly works. During the early days of the housing crisis - when it should have been ridiculously obvious that all hell was breaking loose - the Fed (in their private minutes) were UTTERLY CLUELESS. They had NO IDEA what was going on. ANd the release of the Fed minutes proves this:

Hilarious Transcripts of Fed Minutes Reveal Completely Clueless Fed - Mike Shedlock

You assume they must know what they are doing because they have lots of degrees and are smart. I have been in business for decades and that means NOTHING. I have known lots of smart people with tons of economic schooling who have not the foggiest idea how the real economy works...but they think they do.


But let's see what the Fed has done for the masses? Let's compare now to mid 2007 (when the Fed started their massive intervention)?

The home ownership participation rate has plummeted and is tied for the all time measured low, the M2 Money Velocity is WAAAY past the all time low and is still falling fast (that means money is not changing hands - that usually happens in a recession/depression) and food stamp usage is roughly 30-40% higher now.

How is any of that not bad for the average American.

But look at the stock market - though it is stagnant lately - it has skyrocketed since it's April 2008 lows...mostly due to the Fed. And that helps the banks and the rich FAR more than anyone else.


The Fed exists to protect the banks and the major corporations - they could care less about the masses. And even if they did, they have proven time and time again to be completely clueless as to how to run an economy.
 
Last edited:
Absentglare said:
When the represented people levy taxes unto themselves, that's justice. Robbery is injustice.
Click to expand...
love is hate, peace is war too.
When the rich force the government to fail to represent the poor, that's injustice. Taxation without representation caused a war before, and for good reason.
Click to expand...
when the rich use government, legally, to their own ends its injustice when the liberals use government, legally, to their own ends, its justice Why not just claim divine right while you're at it? How sick. Your taxes will impact countless people who have NOT been dodging taxes or using loopholes. There is a gulf of distance between $250K+, and billion dollar corporations that use complex techniques, offshoring, shares to get cap gains instead of normal tax rates, etc., to reduce tax burden. You use the extreme to raise taxes on the non-extreme. Its injustice alright. Worse, its an assinine use of such money, and everyone knows it. Handouts are the laziest form of charity, its a stop-gap at best. Building a better world were fewer people need handouts...that takes leadership and know-how. Voting once every 4 years to take from others...that's just too seductive isn't it?
 
Mach said:
love is hate, peace is war too. when the rich use government, legally, to their own ends its injustice when the liberals use government, legally, to their own ends, its justice Why not just claim divine right while you're at it? How sick. Your taxes will impact countless people who have NOT been dodging taxes or using loopholes. There is a gulf of distance between $250K+, and billion dollar corporations that use complex techniques, offshoring, shares to get cap gains instead of normal tax rates, etc., to reduce tax burden. You use the extreme to raise taxes on the non-extreme. Its injustice alright. Worse, its an assinine use of such money, and everyone knows it. Handouts are the laziest form of charity, its a stop-gap at best. Building a better world were fewer people need handouts...that takes leadership and know-how. Voting once every 4 years to take from others...that's just too seductive isn't it?
Click to expand...

Good, then you should agree that the rich don't need any more handouts. In fact, let's roll back 40 years of giving the rich handouts.

The government gets its power from the people, it is obligated to the people.
 
Absentglare said:
Good, then you should agree that the rich don't need any more handouts. In fact, let's roll back 40 years of giving the rich handouts. The government gets its power from the people, it is obligated to the people.
Click to expand...
love = hate right?
Letting you keep what you earned is a handout right? What a joke.

When Wall Street and big companies routinely, not as part of a single IPO or small business purchase, etc., when they routinely give shares that far outweigh normal income...and they give it regularly (equivalent of a salary), they can pay capital gains (15?) on it, and not pay normal income tax. Why not do the hard work and find a solution for the problem, instead of this anti-rich, anti-american, anti-free-enterprise bull****? Not smart enough?

You don't get it because you are brainswashed. I pay insane taxes, probably 40%+ when you add them all up. And you want to raise that because ultra-rich pay cap gains on hundreds of millions. It MAKES NO ****ING SENSE unless you just want to take from others to fund your own whims.
 
Last edited:
Mach said:
love = hate right?
Letting you keep what you earned is a handout right? What a joke.

When Wall Street and big companies routinely, not as part of a single IPO or small business purchase, etc., when they routinely give shares that far outweigh normal income...and they give it regularly (equivalent of a salary), they can pay capital gains (15?) on it, and not pay normal income tax. Why not do the hard work and find a solution for the problem, instead of this anti-rich, anti-american, anti-free-enterprise bull****? Not smart enough?

You don't get it because you are brainswashed. I pay insane taxes, probably 40%+ when you add them all up. And you want to raise that because ultra-rich pay cap gains on hundreds of millions. It MAKES NO ****ING SENSE unless you just want to take from others to fund your own whims.
Click to expand...

They didn't earn it in a vacuum. That's what you don't get. They earned it because the society enabled them to earn it. Tell me, what are they paid in ? US Dollars- public currency. Now, that currency would not exist without the US government (i find it hard to believe that this is news for you).

This isn't anti-rich, it is pro-economic-growth. Wealth inequality becomes prohibitive for economic growth when the poor are priced out of the articles of production.

Money only has value based on the values of the goods and services that are produced. When labor is underutilized, production suffers. Less production, less wealth.

My goal is to make the US wealthier. Yours seems myopically concerned with your own household. I want to help Americans, whereas you think helping them *magically* hurts them (because "dependent").
 
Absentglare said:
They didn't earn it in a vacuum. That's what you don't get. They earned it because the society enabled them to earn it. Tell me, what are they paid in ? US Dollars- public currency. Now, that currency would not exist without the US government (i find it hard to believe that this is news for you).

This isn't anti-rich, it is pro-economic-growth. Wealth inequality becomes prohibitive for economic growth when the poor are priced out of the articles of production.

Money only has value based on the values of the goods and services that are produced. When labor is underutilized, production suffers. Less production, less wealth.

My goal is to make the US wealthier. Yours seems myopically concerned with your own household. I want to help Americans, whereas you think helping them *magically* hurts them (because "dependent").
Click to expand...

:roll: Lets not rehash Obama's you didn't build that argument, ok.
 
Absentglare said:
When the represented people levy taxes unto themselves, that's justice. Robbery is injustice.

When the rich force the government to fail to represent the poor, that's injustice. Taxation without representation caused a war before, and for good reason.
Click to expand...

When people demand other people have their property taken by a robber that doesn't just somehow make it not robbery.
 
Henrin said:
:roll: Lets not rehash Obama's you didn't build that argument, ok.
Click to expand...

Henry Ford didn't invent the wheel.

Eli Whitney did not invent cotton.

Thomas Edison did not invent electricity.

We are all beholden to our ancestors, but many are willfully ignorant of the investments of better men.

Henrin said:
When people demand other people have their property taken by a robber that doesn't just somehow make it not robbery.
Click to expand...

Robbery is illegal. Taxes are legal. The government gets legitimate authority from the people.
 
Absentglare said:
Henry Ford didn't invent the wheel.

Eli Whitney did not invent cotton.

Thomas Edison did not invent electricity.

We are all beholden to our ancestors, but many are willfully ignorant of the investments of better men.
Click to expand...

Ok, that argument is just annoying. Benefiting from something someone else did does not award them credit for your work. When video game studios use some gaming engine like say Unreal to make their game Epic Games didn't make the game and they don't deserve credit for doing anything during the development of the game. The developers of all the software they might use to make the game are in the same boat as Epic Games and don't deserve one ounce of credit for doing anything during the development of the game. Using someones creations to make a creation of your own isn't somehow permission for the state or anyone else to take credit for your work.

Robbery is illegal. Taxes are legal. The government gets legitimate authority from the people.
Click to expand...
The difference is only in terms of legality, nothing more.
 
Henrin said:
Ok, that argument is just annoying. Benefiting from something someone else did does not award them credit for your work. When video game studios use some gaming engine like say Unreal to make their game Epic Games didn't make the game and they don't deserve credit for doing anything during the development of the game. The developers of all the software they might use to make the game are in the same boat as Epic Games and don't deserve one ounce of credit for doing anything during the development of the game. Using someones creations to make a creation of your own isn't somehow permission for the state or anyone else to take credit for your work.


The difference is only in terms of legality, nothing more.
Click to expand...

Legality is a meaningful difference.

What do people deserve ? Society is obligated to provide for a fair system. Left to anarchy, the state of man is chaotic and this is undesirable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom