The super rich do not hurt you

[iguanaman]

Why is it no surprise that another leftist has no idea how to read a chart.
Why is it no surprise that another leftist has no clue about the information in the chart
and why it ends up like that?

no one should be and we aren't because this is like the 1000 time he has posted this same thing and the 1000 time he still doesn't understand it.

Productivity is mutually exclusive to wage. The only time that productivity and wage connects is in the persons skill to do a job.

I have used this before because it fits.

If you come to work to cut trees and i pay people 200 dollars per tree and you use an ax to chop tree's then your productivity isn't that good.
I will still pay your 200 a tree though. Now i hear about this new invention that will cut trees automatically. I go out and buy these things called
chainsaws. I put out thousands of dollars in time and money to buy and train people how to use them.

now though I am only paying 150 unless you bring your own chain saw. why? I have to recoup my costs.
now if you already know how to use a chain saw and you bring your own i will still pay 200.

I have additional costs in maintaining the saws etc now. so while your productivity might increase your labor is not as valuable.


automation and engineering has increased people's ability to do a great deal that doesn't mean that their labor value has increased.
During the 80's 2 things happened.

interest rates plummeted and the markets broke open with better technology and investments. computers replaced typewriters.
printers did as well.

And CEO's worked 300 times as hard as before so they deserved to take the employee's share of the increased profits? But when workers can do 10 times as much work that means they deserve less money? That is what happened and that is why our GDP growth has slowed ever since Reagan cut the CEO's tax rates and broke the unions back. You seem to like slow growth and the fact that 2 people working full time cannot even equal the quality of life that one earner had for his family in the 1950's - 70's. Those things pale in the face of the wonder of the top 1% socking away billions that they never can possibly spend. What fascinates you about that?

 

[ludin]

And CEO's worked 300 times as hard as before so they deserved to take the employee's share of the increased profits?

The profit of the capital belong to those that own the capital. If you bring your own chainsaw and know how to use it I will pay more than someone that doesn't have the equipment
and i have to teach them. Yes the CEO usually does work hard. just on a different level. The company is the one supplying your ability.

If i am the one that buys all the pencil making machines in the factory and your only job is to load wood sticks in the machine. why do you get to profit from something you have
no hand in purchasing?

But when workers can do 10 times as much work that means they deserve less money? That is what happened and that is why our GDP growth has slowed ever since Reagan cut the CEO's tax rates and broke the unions back. You seem to like slow growth and the fact that 2 people working full time cannot even equal the quality of life that one earner had for his family in the 1950's - 70's. Those things pale in the face of the wonder of the top 1% socking away billions that they never can possibly spend. What fascinates you about that?

They are not doing 10x more work. the machine is helping them do their job 10x better than what they could do it without it.
They didn't buy the machine the company bought the machine so the company gets the benefit of it.

Now if you as an employee learn to program the machine and maintain the machine now you are of more benefit than the people that just push buttons on the machine.
No our GDP growth hasn't slowed. The issue is that there has been a transfer of knowledge from working in factories into technology itself.

Where 20 30 years ago the big bucks was in a factory now the big bucks is designing apps and software. If you can do that and create new useful products
you can earn a great deal. It is why programmers at google bring in 200k a year or more.

FACTS NOT FEELINGS: Shapiro demolishes & humiliates little socialist comrade - YouTube

this pretty much sums up why you are wrong.
you should watch it not that you will.

The 1% doesn't sock away billions they can never spend.
they invest that money.

PS to get to the 1% all you need is an AGI of about 450k a year.
so basically open up a really good sandwhich shop in a decent location and you can be in the top 1%.

rich people didn't get rich by just stuffing it into mattresses.
they invest it they put it in banks they put it into stocks they buy other stuff with it.

you just proved you have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[swing_voter]

Taxes have everything to do with it. Before Reagan a rising tide raised all ships.

After the top marginal tax rate went from 70% to 28% the wealthy realized they could keep it all and they did.

To fix it go back to pre-reagan rates. Then the wealthy have 2 choices give it to the gov. In the form of taxes or invest in their companies and workers. Seems the middle class has had their best runs when the wealthy were heavily taxed.

Notice the last time taxes were this low and income inequality so high were the Hoover days

View attachment 67290195

View attachment 67290196

View attachment 67290197

Remember that America had the only working infrastructure after the war. Europe, China, Japan, were all destroyed.

That's why the 1950's were such good years for the American working man.

Today, all the economies have been repaired, and there's lots of competition. It's a struggle to make a dollar.



.

 

[iguanaman]

The profit of the capital belong to those that own the capital. If you bring your own chainsaw and know how to use it I will pay more than someone that doesn't have the equipment
and i have to teach them. Yes the CEO usually does work hard. just on a different level. The company is the one supplying your ability.

If i am the one that buys all the pencil making machines in the factory and your only job is to load wood sticks in the machine. why do you get to profit from something you have
no hand in purchasing?



They are not doing 10x more work. the machine is helping them do their job 10x better than what they could do it without it.
They didn't buy the machine the company bought the machine so the company gets the benefit of it.

Now if you as an employee learn to program the machine and maintain the machine now you are of more benefit than the people that just push buttons on the machine.
No our GDP growth hasn't slowed. The issue is that there has been a transfer of knowledge from working in factories into technology itself.

Where 20 30 years ago the big bucks was in a factory now the big bucks is designing apps and software. If you can do that and create new useful products
you can earn a great deal. It is why programmers at google bring in 200k a year or more.

FACTS NOT FEELINGS: Shapiro demolishes & humiliates little socialist comrade - YouTube

this pretty much sums up why you are wrong.
you should watch it not that you will.

The 1% doesn't sock away billions they can never spend.
they invest that money.

PS to get to the 1% all you need is an AGI of about 450k a year.
so basically open up a really good sandwhich shop in a decent location and you can be in the top 1%.

rich people didn't get rich by just stuffing it into mattresses.
they invest it they put it in banks they put it into stocks they buy other stuff with it.

you just proved you have no clue what you are talking about.

The world is awash with capital because of income maldistibution we don't need anymore. In fact it is the cause of the last recession as banks manufactured "safe" havens and returns for all that excess capital. Machines speeding production are also nothing new. It started with the industrial revolution in the late 1800's and companies abused and underpaid their workers then too. It was the notion that in America we were going to be different after the Great Depression that created our great middle class. It was obvious that labor needed help to receive fair treatment and fair wages as we saw in the 1920's where the greed of the wealthy collapsed the economy. That was the reason for the punitive tax rates for top earners after war. It forced employers to use their increased profits to reinvest in their business and to share them with the workers or just hand the money over to the Govt.. When those rates were demolished we have seen a return to the same malady as in the 1920's. The slow strangling of wage earners as business owners extract more and more of the profits for themselves and the inevitable collapse of the system gets closer and closer. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that when wages for the middle class are restricted consumption slows and so does GDP growth. The current trends are unsustainable.

 

[jaeger19]

Taxes have everything to do with it. Before Reagan a rising tide raised all ships.

After the top marginal tax rate went from 70% to 28% the wealthy realized they could keep it all and they did.

To fix it go back to pre-reagan rates. Then the wealthy have 2 choices give it to the gov. In the form of taxes or invest in their companies and workers. Seems the middle class has had their best runs when the wealthy were heavily taxed.

Notice the last time taxes were this low and income inequality so high were the Hoover days

View attachment 67290195

View attachment 67290196

View attachment 67290197

Yeah.. taxes have nothing to do with it.

You are looking at marginal tax rates.. which are not actually what income is taxed at. Here is a graph of tax receipts as a percentage of GDP. IF as you say.. the rich were really paying those high marginal tax rates..why that tax as a percentage of gdp (basically the countries effective tax rate).. should be really high..much higher than today...

Oooops.. but its not. And thats because the though marginal rates were high... the rich weren;t actually paying those taxes.. because of tax shelters etc.

Federal Receipts as Percent of Gross Domestic Product (FYFRGDA188S) | FRED | St. Louis Fed

'


As you can see.. even though marginal rates have gone as high as 90% and low as well... the "Effective" national tax rate has hovered around 18%.

So no.. the taxation really had nothing to do with the inequity of today.. it has more to do with the decline in wage pressure.

 

[jaeger19]

Remember that America had the only working infrastructure after the war. Europe, China, Japan, were all destroyed.

That's why the 1950's were such good years for the American working man.

Today, all the economies have been repaired, and there's lots of competition. It's a struggle to make a dollar.



.

Yeah.. thats not quite true because corporations are more profitable than ever. Yet wages have not increased so there is a dynamic where workers are not able to exert wage pressure for more wages.. despite higher profits and low unemployment.. things that normally would have caused increases in wages.

 

[Lfl]

Remember that America had the only working infrastructure after the war. Europe, China, Japan, were all destroyed.

That's why the 1950's were such good years for the American working man.

Today, all the economies have been repaired, and there's lots of competition. It's a struggle to make a dollar.



.

The good ole 1950s where Trump wants to go back to with white only seating counters at diners and white only water fountains

But he doesn't want to go back to the good ole days of 70 to 90% taxation.

 

[Nickyjo]

It goes both ways, some bribe for their benefit sure, but the unwashed masses have power to, and they yield it with their vote oppressing the rich with high taxes, tyranny of the majority. Neither side has a monopoly on the power. If they did, either the rich would have all their wealth confiscated, or everyone would live in a mud hut serving the rich.

"Oppressing the rich with high taxes"?!?! Would that I could be so oppressed, Mario Antoinette. Actually I do fairly well, but long for further oppression.

Keep in mind the words of Mel Brooks: "It's good to be the king." (History of the World, Part I)

 

[ludin]

The world is awash with capital because of income maldistibution we don't need anymore. In fact it is the cause of the last recession as banks manufactured "safe" havens and returns for all that excess capital. Machines speeding production are also nothing new. It started with the industrial revolution in the late 1800's and companies abused and underpaid their workers then too. It was the notion that in America we were going to be different after the Great Depression that created our great middle class. It was obvious that labor needed help to receive fair treatment and fair wages as we saw in the 1920's where the greed of the wealthy collapsed the economy. That was the reason for the punitive tax rates for top earners after war. It forced employers to use their increased profits to reinvest in their business and to share them with the workers or just hand the money over to the Govt.. When those rates were demolished we have seen a return to the same malady as in the 1920's. The slow strangling of wage earners as business owners extract more and more of the profits for themselves and the inevitable collapse of the system gets closer and closer. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that when wages for the middle class are restricted consumption slows and so does GDP growth. The current trends are unsustainable.

The majority of a companies money is reinvested back into their company. My company is always buying new equipment better software and developing better platforms for our customers.
Why is it so difficult to understand that wages can only go so high. Even for the CEO wages can only go so high?

YOu didn't watch the video did you? nope if you did you would have already understood why your reasoning is wrong.

It is all about risk. the person that takes on the risk gets the benefit.
If you as a worker want to take on the risk of owning the company then you get the benefit when the company does well.

most companies have stock purchase programs.

If you are the owner then you take on all the risk so you get the lion share of the income.
We live in a free market where if you don't like what you are being paid at a place you can go somewhere else and try and get more.

The only cap on your wage is your skill and your ability to negotiate those skills into better pay.

 

[iguanaman]

The majority of a companies money is reinvested back into their company. My company is always buying new equipment better software and developing better platforms for our customers.
Why is it so difficult to understand that wages can only go so high. Even for the CEO wages can only go so high?

YOu didn't watch the video did you? nope if you did you would have already understood why your reasoning is wrong.

It is all about risk. the person that takes on the risk gets the benefit.
If you as a worker want to take on the risk of owning the company then you get the benefit when the company does well.

most companies have stock purchase programs.

If you are the owner then you take on all the risk so you get the lion share of the income.
We live in a free market where if you don't like what you are being paid at a place you can go somewhere else and try and get more.

The only cap on your wage is your skill and your ability to negotiate those skills into better pay.

Talk is cheap but the data tells the story. There is just no way around the fact that the bulk of the higher profits since 1980 have been transferred from the workers to management. The timing of this shift that coincided with the massive cuts in income tax rates for the top brackets is undeniable.

C. The Astounding Deterioration in the Distribution of Income Since 1980

Aside from demographic effects (including the impact of women entering the labor force), and the differential impact of certain price increases (medical costs, as well as others), the reason median real wages have been flat since around 1980 despite an increase of real GDP per capita of close to 80% over this period, is distributional. The share of wages in GDP has been reduced while the share of profits has increased, and the distribution within wages has favored the better off compared to the less well off (leading to a rise in the average wage even though the median wage has been flat).

That is, the US has a distribution problem. Wages have lost relative to profits (and profits largely accrue to the rich and wealthy), and the wages of lower paid workers have fallen even while the wages of higher paid workers have risen.

Why Wages Have Stagnated While GDP Has Grown: The Proximate Factors | An Economic Sense

 

[ludin]

Talk is cheap but the data tells the story. There is just no way around the fact that the bulk of the higher profits since 1980 have been transferred from the workers to management. The timing of this shift that coincided with the massive cuts in income tax rates for the top brackets is undeniable.
Why Wages Have Stagnated While GDP Has Grown: The Proximate Factors | An Economic Sense

*Sigh* nothing has been transferred except how people generate money. During the 70-80's interest rates were huge on CD's, savings and other accounts that most middle class people invested in.
CD rates were 15-20% and saving account rates were 5-8%. The middle class did very well in that time and i know a lot of chemical plant workers that made a fortune as well.

WHen the 90's hit the mode of investing changed. The markets moved from CD's, bonds, and savings accounts to the stock market. The major contributor to this was the fact that interest rates went from
15-20% to 5-8%. CD market rates dived as well. Yet most people still had their money tied up in CD's for 5-10 years. why? because they were earning 15-20% and just rolling it over.

When the stock market investment hit because those rates dropped many people in the middle class were still locked into the CD and bond rates. Stock market was expensive to invest in and most brokerage firms wouldn't look
at you if you didn't have at least 5k or more to invest. It has 0 to do with tax rates on the rich. That is just the butt hurt leftist cry.

During the 80's and 90's there was s fundimental shift in the market industry as well. Most of the factory jobs went overseas for cheap slave labor.
The industry that rose up was the IT industry. People that worked in factories never made the transition a lot of them.

A lot of reason that our purchasing power has gone down is because the value of the dollar in general had depreciated over the years.
this is due to inflation etc ...

This is where facts just destroy you not that you care about them.

 

[iguanaman]

*Sigh* nothing has been transferred except how people generate money. During the 70-80's interest rates were huge on CD's, savings and other accounts that most middle class people invested in.
CD rates were 15-20% and saving account rates were 5-8%. The middle class did very well in that time and i know a lot of chemical plant workers that made a fortune as well.

WHen the 90's hit the mode of investing changed. The markets moved from CD's, bonds, and savings accounts to the stock market. The major contributor to this was the fact that interest rates went from
15-20% to 5-8%. CD market rates dived as well. Yet most people still had their money tied up in CD's for 5-10 years. why? because they were earning 15-20% and just rolling it over.

When the stock market investment hit because those rates dropped many people in the middle class were still locked into the CD and bond rates. Stock market was expensive to invest in and most brokerage firms wouldn't look
at you if you didn't have at least 5k or more to invest. It has 0 to do with tax rates on the rich. That is just the butt hurt leftist cry.

During the 80's and 90's there was s fundimental shift in the market industry as well. Most of the factory jobs went overseas for cheap slave labor.
The industry that rose up was the IT industry. People that worked in factories never made the transition a lot of them.

A lot of reason that our purchasing power has gone down is because the value of the dollar in general had depreciated over the years.
this is due to inflation etc ...

This is where facts just destroy you not that you care about them.

What do investments have to do with stagnant salaries that in many cases have not even kept up with inflation? Saying you are right does not make it so either. The current trends are unsustainable and will lead to economic collapse if not reversed. That is what you seem to be unable to understand. Just like the economists in the 1920's had no clue either. The cycle is repeating itself.

 

[ludin]

What do investments have to do with stagnant salaries that in many cases have not even kept up with inflation? Saying you are right does not make it so either. The current trends are unsustainable and will lead to economic collapse if not reversed. That is what you seem to be unable to understand. Just like the economists in the 1920's had no clue either. The cycle is repeating itself.

A lot.
How do you not know this?

There is a day trade investor by the name of Ross Cameron.
He took a 500 investment account and day traded it to over 1m dollars.

that is where the 1% make their money so it has everything to do with investments.

In 1 trade he was making 1k + dollars. when he earned more money he was making 10k a trade.
he had losses but he had more winners than losses.

That is how they make their money. Warren buffett and long term stock holders invest their money mostly using the buy and hold method.
they look for stocks that pay good dividends for shareholders and buy 1000's of shares at a time.

So if you as an investor have 1000 bucks and you find a company that is paying .25 cents a share and you buy say 250 shares.
Every quarter you will earn 62.5 dollars. which means you will get 250 bucks a year.

Now lets say you take 5k dollars and invest it into multiple companies that pay dividends you basically have free income as long as you hold onto the stock.
that money grows and when the stock reaches a good profit and selling price you get rid of it and take that profit plus what you earn off the dividends.

 

[jaeger19]

A lot.
How do you not know this?

There is a day trade investor by the name of Ross Cameron.
He took a 500 investment account and day traded it to over 1m dollars.

that is where the 1% make their money so it has everything to do with investments.

In 1 trade he was making 1k + dollars. when he earned more money he was making 10k a trade.
he had losses but he had more winners than losses.

That is how they make their money. Warren buffett and long term stock holders invest their money mostly using the buy and hold method.
they look for stocks that pay good dividends for shareholders and buy 1000's of shares at a time.

So if you as an investor have 1000 bucks and you find a company that is paying .25 cents a share and you buy say 250 shares.
Every quarter you will earn 62.5 dollars. which means you will get 250 bucks a year.

Now lets say you take 5k dollars and invest it into multiple companies that pay dividends you basically have free income as long as you hold onto the stock.
that money grows and when the stock reaches a good profit and selling price you get rid of it and take that profit plus what you earn off the dividends.

Well a couple of things.

First.. some of the charts presented have shown that while corporate/business profits are UP.. workers salaries are stagnant while unemployment remained low. That has nothing to do with investment and the stock market vs CD's.

Secondly the move from cd's etc to stocks was really more due to the change in capital gains.. as putting money into stocks and holding them over a year.. means a lot less in taxes.. than getting that same income as earned income.

 

[ludin]

Well a couple of things.
First.. some of the charts presented have shown that while corporate/business profits are UP.. workers salaries are stagnant while unemployment remained low. That has nothing to do with investment and the stock market vs CD's.

Companies have hired more people they have created new jobs. They have invested that money and they have made their own investments and have put it in rainy day funds.
They don't stuff it under a mattress.

Secondly the move from cd's etc to stocks was really more due to the change in capital gains.. as putting money into stocks and holding them over a year.. means a lot less in taxes.. than getting that same income as earned income.

Also cd's do not pay anything. you are wasting your money putting it into a cd.
The best cd rate out there is 1% for losing your money for 18 months.

why in the world would you do that?

 

[danielpalos]

A lot.
How do you not know this?

There is a day trade investor by the name of Ross Cameron.
He took a 500 investment account and day traded it to over 1m dollars.

that is where the 1% make their money so it has everything to do with investments.

In 1 trade he was making 1k + dollars. when he earned more money he was making 10k a trade.
he had losses but he had more winners than losses.

That is how they make their money. Warren buffett and long term stock holders invest their money mostly using the buy and hold method.
they look for stocks that pay good dividends for shareholders and buy 1000's of shares at a time.

So if you as an investor have 1000 bucks and you find a company that is paying .25 cents a share and you buy say 250 shares.
Every quarter you will earn 62.5 dollars. which means you will get 250 bucks a year.

Now lets say you take 5k dollars and invest it into multiple companies that pay dividends you basically have free income as long as you hold onto the stock.
that money grows and when the stock reaches a good profit and selling price you get rid of it and take that profit plus what you earn off the dividends.

With equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States, anyone on unemployment could do the same. How equal is that?

 

[jaeger19]

Companies have hired more people they have created new jobs. They have invested that money and they have made their own investments and have put it in rainy day funds.
They don't stuff it under a mattress.

No.. they have taken it out in PROFITS.. which is what we are talking about corporate PROFITS.. money beyond investing it back into the company. Investing in the company is not a profit.

Also cd's do not pay anything. you are wasting your money putting it into a cd.
The best cd rate out there is 1% for losing your money for 18 months.

why in the world would you do that?

You wouldn;t.. And when CD rates were higher back in the 80's and 90's... income from CD;s was taxed as earned income

When a stock held over a year was taxed at a much lower rate..

Why would you want to pay so much more in taxes?

 

[ludin]

No.. they have taken it out in PROFITS.. which is what we are talking about corporate PROFITS.. money beyond investing it back into the company. Investing in the company is not a profit.

That profit is used to fund the next years budgets etc ... Corporations needs profit to survive. We are seeing first hand what happens to companies when they don't make profit.
They close up shop.

You wouldn;t.. And when CD rates were higher back in the 80's and 90's... income from CD;s was taxed as earned income

Exactly you wouldn't but you bet your bottom dollar i would take 30k right now and put it in a cd for 18-20%. for 6 months.
Then I would roll it over for another 6 months. which is what these guys did. They just kept rolling their CD's over with the previous interest.
they earned a fortune during that time.

When a stock held over a year was taxed at a much lower rate..

Back then stocks were expensive to get into and they were expensive to trade.
things now are not the same.

Why would you want to pay so much more in taxes?

back then if i am earning 18-20% who cares the tax rate on the interest earned isn't going to bother me.