• 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!

Multibillionaire Ray Dalio speaks on how to reduce wealth inequality in America -- 60 minutes clip

OscarLevant

OscarLevant

Gadfly Extraordinaire
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
16,876
Reaction score
7,397
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
It's not rocket science




I know the standard retort by those on the right is to say (to Ray ) "well, then send the IRS more of your money".

No, that's anecdotal, that's not a policy. Brains are required to make good policy.
 
`:idea: ~ "Take those tax dollars and make them productive."

Yeah - right. OK ... problem solved. Now all we need is a federal government that will actually do that . Good luck !
money-with-wings_1f4b8.jpg
 
LosAngelesAngel said:
`:idea: ~ "Take those tax dollars and make them productive."

Yeah - right. OK ... problem solved. Now all we need is a federal government that will actually do that . Good luck !
View attachment 67260791
Click to expand...



The ratio between CEOs and the bottom rung was about 50 to one in the 50s, when taxes were very high on the rich. Today, they are about 300 to 1.


It's not rocket science.
 
OscarLevant said:
It's not rocket science




I know the standard retort by those on the right is to say (to Ray ) "well, then send the IRS more of your money".

No, that's anecdotal, that's not a policy. Brains are required to make good policy.
Click to expand...


Well stated.

The fact of the matter is you have an entire party whose take on the matter is that fertilizing the leaves of the tree is somehow more beneficial than fertilizing the base of the tree. They seem to think that one mulitbillonaire giving money to another multibillionaire for another mega yacht is better for the economy than a million Joe Public's spending 300 bucks at the grocery store.

Its truly confusing.
 
LosAngelesAngel said:
`:idea: ~ "Take those tax dollars and make them productive."

Yeah - right. OK ... problem solved. Now all we need is a federal government that will actually do that . Good luck !
View attachment 67260791
Click to expand...

So is it your contention that until that starts happening, that that top 1% should continue getting an ever increasing slice of the pie? As we have seen since Reagan started trying to get it implemented, that doesn't work.
 
If he is building an argument that the way to alleviate the 'problem' is by making that dumb-ass claim that all you have to do is take money from the wealthy and give it to the government...that's the stupidest ****ing thing Ive heard in a loooooooong time.

The government is not a player in revenue generation. At BEST what that ****ing moron is claiming that what he would really like to see is the rich become poorer...not the poor become richer.

Idiot.
 
OscarLevant said:
It's not rocket science.
Click to expand...

You'd really think it was, though, as much trouble as most people have understanding it. I don't understand at all how conservatives are able to do the mental gymnastics necessary to support the Republican party.
 
OscarLevant said:
The ratio between CEOs and the bottom rung was about 50 to one in the 50s, when taxes were very high on the rich. Today, they are about 300 to 1.


It's not rocket science.
Click to expand...

Except that that ratio difference in rewards also existed in BEFORE taxed income. Hence, the difference between now and then was not due to higher income tax rates in the 50s.
 
OscarLevant said:
The ratio between CEOs and the bottom rung was about 50 to one in the 50s, when taxes were very high on the rich. Today, they are about 300 to 1.


It's not rocket science.
Click to expand...

Why do people keep bringing up this stupid lie? The average CEO makes roughly 200k which is around 4x the median wage in America. The 300-to-1 ratio is by looking at only the top .0000001% of CEOs, when you are looking at the top of any industry you are going to see those types of numbers. This is like saying professional baseball players are insanely rich, and you would be correct for the Mike Trouts of the world (430 million contract) but then you have minor league players making 25k a year.
 
Nap said:
Why do people keep bringing up this stupid lie? The average CEO makes roughly 200k which is around 4x the median wage in America. The 300-to-1 ratio is by looking at only the top .0000001% of CEOs, when you are looking at the top of any industry you are going to see those types of numbers. This is like saying professional baseball players are insanely rich, and you would be correct for the Mike Trouts of the world (430 million contract) but then you have minor league players making 25k a year.
Click to expand...

~ Yup - like the man said : "It's not rocket science."
 
Give money to the Government and politician will use it to grow voter farms.
 
Nap said:
Why do people keep bringing up this stupid lie? The average CEO makes roughly 200k which is around 4x the median wage in America. The 300-to-1 ratio is by looking at only the top .0000001% of CEOs, when you are looking at the top of any industry you are going to see those types of numbers. This is like saying professional baseball players are insanely rich, and you would be correct for the Mike Trouts of the world (430 million contract) but then you have minor league players making 25k a year.
Click to expand...

I always find it interesting that when leftists start glomming on to their attacks on the ‘rich’ they never focus on the movie stars, musicians, and athletes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Nap said:
Why do people keep bringing up this stupid lie? The average CEO makes roughly 200k which is around 4x the median wage in America. The 300-to-1 ratio is by looking at only the top .0000001% of CEOs, when you are looking at the top of any industry you are going to see those types of numbers. This is like saying professional baseball players are insanely rich, and you would be correct for the Mike Trouts of the world (430 million contract) but then you have minor league players making 25k a year.
Click to expand...


As long as the two stats are using the same yard stick, it's a valid relative comparison. That has a value within the yardstick class ( maybe it's based on fortune 500 not sure ).

It's like how entrepeneur investment advisor Harry Browne once stated about gov employment and gov stats in general, that the truth cannot be known in terms of absolute values, but if the measuring algorithms being used are the same, we the relative comparitive info is useful, ( are the stats going up or down, and by how much? etc ).


But Trump is disingenuous, when Obama was in office, and the employment figures were very low, Trump was going around shouting that "true unemployment" was around 25% or something like that.

Now that he is president, he is trusting the government. So, if the numbers are good for Trump, they are correct, if they are not, we cannot trust them.

Got it.
 
OscarLevant said:
As long as the two stats are using the same yard stick, it's a valid relative comparison. That has a value within the yardstick class ( maybe it's based on fortune 500 not sure ).

It's like how entrepeneur investment advisor Harry Browne once stated about gov employment and gov stats in general, that the truth cannot be known in terms of absolute values, but if the measuring algorithms being used are the same, we the relative comparitive info is useful, ( are the stats going up or down, and by how much? etc ).


But Trump is disingenuous, when Obama was in office, and the employment figures were very low, Trump was going around shouting that "true unemployment" was around 25% or something like that.

Now that he is president, he is trusting the government. So, if the numbers are good for Trump, they are correct, if they are not, we cannot trust them.

Got it.
Click to expand...

Except that your statement is an outright lie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom