New Rule: Rich People Who Complain About Being Vilified Should Be Vilified

[British_Rover]

I don't have time to read through this whole page right now but I'll just leave this here: http://forums.finalgear.com/political-discussion/bar-stool-economics-31215/


I can't come up with a well researched and cited argument to back up my position so here is a rerun of a joke that has been around for at least 20 years.

I remember reading that same joke, and that is what it is a joke, some 20 years ago and I am only 30 so I am sure it is even older.

One of the things it leaves out is how much benefit the top guy really get from the taxes they pay. Those top individuals get much more of a benefit then the average person.

How do I figure that you may ask?

Simply really.

Where are those super rich getting their income? Well from other people of course. Other people that buy the products they design, products their company makes or products their company sells. People that invest money in their banks or companies. They get that money because they have a skilled workforce that can get to their jobs efficiently and safely. Those come from public education and public roads or transportation. The companies they run or own benefit from a stable currency that is respected the world over as the currency of the realm. If that company exports they benefit from the safety and security our military and government tries to provide throughout the world. They wouldn't be able to do business without the full faith and credit of the US gov't backing them up.

All of those things and many more are benefits, goods or services that individuals no matter how wealthy cannot provide on their own. Even extremely large corporations that are extremely wealthy can't do the things the gov't can do.

That statistic is very old, mid 90s, so I am sure it isn't accurate but I am sure it hasn't gone down. When I did Aviation challenge back in the mid 90s one of instructors was a Naval reservist. At the time he said it cost $10,000 an hour to run a Tomcat while it was flying. That was just the cost of it in the hour flying a CAP. That didn't include all of the support it needed to stay in the air for more then a few hours or the massive cost of maintenance for the F-14.

Roads, bridges, infrastructure in general and yes Social Security and medicare are all public goods that are simply too big for private groups to run or maintain. Sure they can have a hand in building them and keeping them up, we use capitalism not communism so the gov't doesn't own all of the means of production, but they are simply too big or too expensive to be fully private. Or if they aren't too big we have deemed them to be too important and too much in the public interest for private groups to run them.


There are groups in this country that want to full privatize everything or nearly everything. They would even like it if the military and intelligence community was partially privatized. Something that is already happening with the rise in private government contractors over the past few years. And no I am not just talking about Blackwater or whatever they are calling themselves now.


The simple fact is that right now in the United States tax rates are the lowest in decades. The lowest in modern times. Lower then they were under Clinton, or H. W. Bush or even Reagan, hallowed be his name, and certain groups still think they are too high.

Stop blaming the government. According to the Congressional Budget Office, $265,000 is the average income of a household in the top 20% of the country, and $395,000 is the average for those in the top 10%. (The thresholds, of course, will be much lower). So you're near the top of the tree in the richest country in history. At the same time, contrary to what you seem to think, federal taxes are not extortionate by modern historical standards. According to the CBO, families in the top 20% pay average federal taxes of 25.1%. The figure in President Reagan's final year in office: 25.6%.

Side note this is an interesting article in the WSJ actually talking about what this thread was originally about

It is a response to this person here complaning about having to possibly pay just a bit more in taxes and the resulting hilarity that ensues. Spoiler he probably doesn't have to pay anymore taxes because he like most people doesn't understand that the $250,000 is on AGI and not actual income. If he really earns just a little over $250,000, though that is hard to line up with his claiming to pay $100,000 in state and federal income taxes then he is going to be well under the AGI cap.


We haven't fully invested in upgrades to most of infrastructure in decades. Many of the roads and bridges that we currently have are approaching the end of their planned lives as they were built during or just after the Eisenhower administration. It isn't called Thehe Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways for nothing you know.

It is going to take trillions of dollars to make the necessary improvements and upgrades to just the roadway system not even including the power grid, canal systems, airports and all other kinds of public goods.




The fact is it is going to take taxes to pay for all that. Higher taxes then we have now and almost definitely tax increases on people well below that $250,000 cap. People don't want to hear that but it is the truth. Do you want to be left behind by China in the next 30 years? If so then by all means keep cutting taxes and ignoring the needed investments in our country because that is where we are going.

 

[LeVeL]

Yes but you are American (You are are you not?) your marginal rate of tax will be much lower than ours to start with. 22% rising to 40% plus about 10% NI and then the Student Loan repayments 10kGBP per annum plus living expenses - a House costs here at least 220,00GBP in the south/London. But the government want 50% of people to go to University - well having closed manufacturing down and then thing only thing left was finance / banking - um what happened to that?

That kind of money will barely get you a house in Boston. Meanwhile I will have close to $100k to pay back (before interest is added) when I graduate...

The last time we had income disparity of this magnitude it was one of the triggers of the Great Depression.

A rather limited number of people blame "income disparity" for the Great Depression. Its rather sad to see that you are one of them.

Economic decisions were concentrated among a small group of people with too much of the country's wealth.

I never advocated for economic decisions to be in the power of the wealthy. You are getting sidetracked. You also appear to automatically equate wealth with greed and lust for power at any cost; while that may be true in some instances, you cannot generalize like that.

The only thing that avoided Great Depression the sequel was massive monetary and fiscal policy initiatives like the stimulus package, dropping interest rates to near zero and a some quantitative easing.

Some would argue that the stimulus plan hurt, not helped, the economy, although I, personally, am not one of them.

There should be a gap in wealth in a capitlastic society like we have. You need employees and employers, thinkers and builders, creators of wealth and consumers. Capitalism doesn't work without that.

Yes...

The problem is unrestrained or minimally restrained capitalism leads to huge inequalities that cause problems. Unrestrained capitalism creates monopolies and monopolies, in general with a few specific exceptions, destroy capitalism.

Who are you to restrain how much money someone has? Who are you to tell Bill Gates that he has too much money and he needs to give it to the poor (which is essentially what you are saying, isn't it?)? And the monopoly bit is yet another side issue.

But the main source of income for the top few percentile isn't regular "income" at all, it's capital gains, which are taxed at an even lower rate than actual income. 15% for the top bracket iirc. That's not money made from hard work. That's money made because you've got so much money you don't actually have to do anything but spend it ... and you still make money.

That's a whole different issue; you are also getting a bit sidetracked. Do I think there are lots and lots of people out there that are overpaid? Of course. Do I think that anyone has the right to do anything about that? Not really. Like I said, if people are willing to pay millions to see Shaq throw an orange ball around, then good for him.

For the opposite end of things (a much smaller income distribution), look at the US in the "glory days" of the late '40s into the '60s. Eisenhower set the top income tax bracket at over 90%. Paid for the arms race, paid for unprecedented infrastructure improvements and the redistribution of wealth (from the extreme minority to the majority) saw the greatest generational increase in standard of living that we've ever seen.

Source?

I know that's not as simple or as "fair" as a flat tax rate, but it's better for the majority of Americans. Shit, it's better for America period.

Well, you're right - higher tax rates for the wealthy certainly isn't "fair".

However, that isn't the class of people we are talking about. At boardroom level (in the US and increasingly in the UK) executive pay has spiralled. There was a healthcare CEO who pulled down a $23 million salary. If a nurse got $100k (I don't know, unlikely), can you honestly say that CEO does 230 times more work, or has 230 times more responsibility? Has he really earned it?

You said it yourself - not everyone who is wealthy because so because of overinflated salaries. Don't generalize. Also, executive pay and benefits/bonuses is a whole different issue.

The guy isn't alone. That executive class don't really work any more. Most of the recent wealth is in the financial sector - hedge funds, share trading. Gambling, effectively. That is all a hedge fund is, a high class betting shop. One you don't have access to, yet sucks out wealth in massive, massive amounts.

When a hedge fund gambles money away, the money doesn't exactly vanish into thin air - it gets circulated back into the economy one way or another. But yes, there are many people out there that are morally opposed to this "gambling" and they argue that it doesn't contribute anything to society.

Look at the Glazers control of Manchester United. When they took over United, it was debt free, the richest football club in the world in terms of assets, income and profit. They used financial trickery (completely legal) to buy the club with its own money. Now the club is over ?700m in debt, pays ?60m/year in interest and the Glazers pull out ?30m a year in "fees". Malcolm Glazer has never set foot in Old Trafford and managed to ruin the club (it will go bust in a few years) - yet most will say he has "earned" his money.

Right, that's one wealthy person. I'd like to mention one more: Bill Gates, who has spent billions to fight deceases, hunger, homelessness, etc.


British_Rover, what are you talking about in that last post? Are you saying that taxes are good? Well, yes, they are. Are you saying that taxes should be high enough to pay for public goods and services? Well, of course they should. What is your point exactly?

I can't come up with a well researched and cited argument to back up my position so here is a rerun of a joke that has been around for at least 20 years.

Yeah, that... or maybe I'm just busy because I have exams to study for and papers to write. Cool story bro!

 

[tigger]

Source?

Um, US History 101?

Let's see, from 1950 to 1973 GDP per capita grew at a rate of 2.45% a year, the highest recorded rate in US history (average yearly growth is 1.73%).

And tax rates here. Interesting, the top bracket rate was 91% from '51 to '63. And it never went below 79% from '36 to '63. Yet again; during that time we had the largest generational increase in standard of living, massive improvements in infrastructure (this is when much of interstate highway system was built) and funded an arms race. The argument that a lower tax rate for the wealthy improves the economy is bunk.

I'll also pose this question to you (again) LeVeL; Why is redistribution of wealth okay when it benefits 2-3% of society, but not when it benefits the majority?

 

[LeVeL]

I'll also pose this question to you (again) LeVeL; Why is redistribution of wealth okay when it benefits 2-3% of society, but not when it benefits the majority?

Depends on the reasons behind each. If economic activity leads to some people becoming wealthy, that's one thing; if you tax some people more than others, that's another. I hate to say this and to use this terminology but this really does whiff of socialism, doesn't it? Take away from the rich and give to the poor...

 

[Cobol74]

Some assumptions are being made -

1. That the richest 1% pay any tax at all is one - they employ slick lawyers and accountants to get them out of said tax.
2. That the education system is producting skilled and qualified people to do the work when as we know in this country many of the lesser degree people can not actually read and write as well as studying completely useless courses.
3. Because of this mad cap desire to get 50% of the kids into university we have failed to train artesans who were bright but perhaps not achedemic in the past - I.E. Plumbers, Sparks, Carpenters, any physical job that needs some brains
4. The people doing these jobs have to a large extent have been trained in foreign countries - like Poland and therefore we have not paid for their education at all - EU contribution excepted
5. Doing a sensible degree which involves science and/or mathematics say will get you a job, it used to but since we shut our manufacturing down in the early 1980s there is no reason to suppose it will, all it will do is depress salaries as the number of jobs are limited and the number of grads is balooning
6. Many Grads will still be living at home with mum and dad until in their 30s because they will not be able to find a place to live, capital chases bricks and mortar putting ever up the price of property as there are no capital intensive industries left
7. Our insane planning laws (NIMBYs Rule) mean that the number of properties built will never ever keep pace with the demand from single people and immigrants - house prices w00t.

The EU will want more money from us soon and I note have not fulfilled their promise to Tony (His holyness) Blair to reform the EU budget if we gave them some of our rebate back. Our Politicians are thick as sh1t.

Oh and it is not so much the rich that runs us but vested interest - bright kids from lower middle and working classes were making the jump up the class system via Grammar schools. The public school elite (of both parties but honerable mention goes to Tony Crossland Labour, RAB Butler Tory and Shirley Williams Social Democrat) caused them to be shut in the large part. Grrrrr.

 

[tigger]

Depends on the reasons behind each. If economic activity leads to some people becoming wealthy, that's one thing; if you tax some people more than others, that's another. I hate to say this and to use this terminology but this really does whiff of socialism, doesn't it? Take away from the rich and give to the poor...

I think that if anything was the antithesis of socialism;it was the US in the '50s and '60s.

And wealth redistribution doesn't mean the government turns into Robin Hood (or a robber baron), taking money from one group and cutting checks to the other. Tax policy indirectly influences a number of factors. To continue with the '40s-'60s as an example, the high tax rate made it pointless to offer execs the massive pay they get now. Sure, they still made a better living than the majority of Americans, but they weren't making 50x the salary. So where did the money go? Into higher paychecks for the majority. With more money in their pockets, people bought new cars, appliances, homes, etc etc etc. Unlike that top few percent, who mostly just invest their money, the middle class spends. They drive the economy, so when the middle class is doing well, the country does well.

All I'm getting at is the viewpoint that, if wealth is "redistributed" to the majority, that's socialism, that's class warfare, that's wrong. But, if wealth is "redistributed" to the extreme minority, because they're somehow more deserving, well that's OK, that's just fine. It's not in the majority of people's interest to support such a viewpoint, but they do wholeheartedly. Seems pretty ass backwards if you ask me.

 

[Twerp128]

Where is the ridiculous idea that the rich don't spend and INVESTING doesn't drive the economy? The fuck you smoking?

 

[Cobol74]

No the rich avoid their tax, usually legally.

Our investment is in property which the market can not supply as THE PLANNING LAWS stop people getting planning permission to build said house. Result property prices beat inflation over and over again.

If the capital is going into static property it is not generating goods and services - not even new houses as the PLANNING LAWS will stop people building new properties. Or move to Middlesborough.

 

[tigger]

Where is the ridiculous idea that the rich don't spend and INVESTING doesn't drive the economy? The fuck you smoking?

The fuck are you smoking? No one said that. You're reading shit that is not there.

All I'm saying is that the top few percent don't spend or invest nearly enough to offset lowering their taxes. Remember when Bush passed his tax cuts, Republicans were claiming that the cut for the wealthiest Americans would pay for itself, because the wealthy contributed so much to the economy? In reality all it did was tack a few hundred billion onto the national debt; which any economist with half a brain saw coming.

I'm not saying investment isn't important, I'm just saying that there is a lot more to be gained by taxing the rich at a higher rate instead of putting it off on the rest of us. Or adding to the deficit.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

No the rich avoid their tax, usually legally.

Our investment is in property which the market can not supply as THE PLANNING LAWS stop people getting planning permission to build said house. Result property prices beat inflation over and over again.

If the capital is going into static property it is not generating goods and services - not even new houses as the PLANNING LAWS will stop people building new properties. Or move to Middlesborough.

oi, whats this about Middlesbrough eh?! (check your spelling )

though if you are talking about new housing, then yeah... they seem to be buidling on absolutely everything there lately. since i left school in 2002 theres been at least 3-4 new estates, just where i live. they built one on a farm, another in a large cearing near school, another opposite the park where there was an old pub...though they had to keep the main pub building as it was listed, but they converted it into lush apartments.

the rich do invest, they need to invest or else we'd be fucked, but Cobol is right alot of rich guys here in the UK are all about property they just buy and sell property. theyre not investing in upstarts or new products or anything. a lot of big companies do that though, but thats a multinational.. not a person

 

[Plissken]

Our investment is in property which the market can not supply as THE PLANNING LAWS stop people getting planning permission to build said house. Result property prices beat inflation over and over again.

If the capital is going into static property it is not generating goods and services - not even new houses as the PLANNING LAWS will stop people building new properties. Or move to Middlesborough.

But that is a question of attitude. You don't have to buy property - IIRC, most of Europe gets by on renting quite nicely. Second, there is plenty of property, the fact that a lot of it was bought by ordinary people in an orgy of buy to let as "easy money" has screwed over the market.

People are so obsessed with postcodes that they don't look outside them. Yes, certain affluent places are overcrowded (by the middle class, the rich places seem to get on just fine - hmmm, odd that...) but short of building skyscrapers (NIMBY!) that isn't going to change.

 

[Plissken]

Where is the ridiculous idea that the rich don't spend and INVESTING doesn't drive the economy? The fuck you smoking?

They aren't INVESTING. They are BETTING.

Investing is in it for the long term. These people bet on what will go up over six months if you lucky, three months on average. Or you could choose day trading, like the banks do, and make or lose millions in hours. People put money in hedge funds who were betting that the market would collapse. There is no long term, just a vicious circle of short term thinking.

Look at what Wall Street is. You hear about the Dow going up or down, you hear about trading volumes. You hear about bear markets and bull markets, how they will "react" to todays set of figures. You hear about futures markets, which combined with short selling is buying things that don't exist using money you don't have.* You don't hear about "Buy X and sit on it for five years."

That is not investing. Investing in a company is old fashioned and doesn't make money fast enough. No-one invests in a company and waits ten years, living off the dividends. (The only people living off the dividends are the board, who awarded themselves hundred of thousands of shares in cheap stock options as addition to their salary. You and I get paid to do our job, they have to get paid and then some to do their job. These people didn't invest, they got given, at your expense, because your thousand or so shares got watered down so much as to be comparatively useless. So you just have to pray the value keeps rising, which you check on every couple of months and look, there is that vicious circle...)


*Sort of.

 

[MacGuffin]

A wealthy person certainly has the option to attempt to improve society and assist the poor but it should not be a requirement. If one does not want to help then one should have that right. I would not think lesser of that person. You count your coins, you earned them and they are yours and that is your right. Selfishness is in my opinion not a sin.

Assuming that rich people are willing to share some of their wealth freely to support the social services or their home country, is about as foolish as saying that communism can actually work.

If you believe in the good in mankind, you're already lost.

Now I know very well, that it is a typical American phenomenon, that rich people appear as sponsors and organize benefits for certain purposes but firstly that is merely a way to buy themselves a clear conscience, while having a fancy dinner and champagne with other rich people, and secondly it is only a drop in the ocean, because the money is not handed over to the federal government with the words "Here you are, do something good with it", no, it's earmarked. Fair enough but not exactly social in the true sense of the meaning.

In the final analysis it is fair to say, that the rich part of the population is only willing to give some of their money to the ones in need, if THEY decide what's to be done with it. That is not how a just social system works, because a just social system knows no such preferences but the money is spread equally to all in need and not only a few chosen ones.

But let's assume for a moment, that society American style is actually a good thing and vastly superior to systems like in Sweden or other liberal countries, and everyone in the USA simply gets what they deserve, that all the money is in the right hands and fairly spread and that criticizing rich people for being cheap bastards, when they complain about having to give a little bit more of their fortune to their country, is sooo unfair.

Surely the country must be in the best of conditions imaginable then and you can tick the right boxes behind the statements that follow below:


- The USA have the best infrastructure in the world, all roads are great and the bridges never collapse
TRUE ( ) NOT TRUE ( ) NO IDEA ( )

- The energy supply is so good, that power losses never happen in the USA
TRUE ( ) NOT TRUE ( ) NO IDEA ( )

- Children are getting the best education imaginable, even if their parents can't afford a private school or college
TRUE ( ) NOT TRUE ( ) NO IDEA ( )

- There are no slums or ghettos
TRUE ( ) NOT TRUE ( ) NO IDEA ( )

- The USA have the lowest crime rate in the world
TRUE ( ) NOT TRUE ( ) NO IDEA ( )

- The USA are world leaders in energy efficiency and in avoiding pollution
TRUE ( ) NOT TRUE ( ) NO IDEA ( )

- The USA aren't the Christian world's playground for religious fundamentalists and rightwing extremists
TRUE ( ) NOT TRUE ( ) NO IDEA ( )

- The USA have the healthiest population on Earth
TRUE ( ) NOT TRUE ( ) NO IDEA ( )

- All U.S. cities have a functional and reliable public transport system
TRUE ( ) NOT TRUE ( ) NO IDEA ( )

- American craftsmen are known for their good qualification and repair your household mishaps in no time
TRUE ( ) NOT TRUE ( ) NO IDEA ( )

- The USA never waste any resources
TRUE ( ) NOT TRUE ( ) NO IDEA ( )

- The USA are capable of coping with natural disasters quickly and efficiently, like for example hurricane Katrina
TRUE ( ) NOT TRUE ( ) NO IDEA ( )

- The U.S. carmakers make the best cars in the world
TRUE ( ) NOT TRUE ( ) NO IDEA ( )

- The USA produce the best kitchen appliances in the world
TRUE ( ) NOT TRUE ( ) NO IDEA ( )

- The USA produce the best TV sets in the world
TRUE ( ) NOT TRUE ( ) NO IDEA ( )

- The USA are the #1 export nation and gladden the world with their high quality consumer goods
TRUE ( ) NOT TRUE ( ) NO IDEA ( )

- The U.S. finances are resting on an undestructable fundament
TRUE ( ) NOT TRUE ( ) NO IDEA ( )

- But they have Wal Mart, Coca-Cola, Microsoft and McDonald's, that's got to be counting for something!!!
TRUE ( ) NOT TRUE ( ) NO IDEA ( )

- Okay, how about this then: The USA produce the best weapons in the world and their kick-ass military forces rule all over the world!!
YEAH, FUCKING TRUE ( ) NOT TRUE ( ) NO IDEA ( )

 

[Twerp128]

They aren't INVESTING. They are BETTING.

Investing is in it for the long term. These people bet on what will go up over six months if you lucky, three months on average. Or you could choose day trading, like the banks do, and make or lose millions in hours. People put money in hedge funds who were betting that the market would collapse. There is no long term, just a vicious circle of short term thinking.

Look at what Wall Street is. You hear about the Dow going up or down, you hear about trading volumes. You hear about bear markets and bull markets, how they will "react" to todays set of figures. You hear about futures markets, which combined with short selling is buying things that don't exist using money you don't have.* You don't hear about "Buy X and sit on it for five years."

That is not investing. Investing in a company is old fashioned and doesn't make money fast enough. No-one invests in a company and waits ten years, living off the dividends. (The only people living off the dividends are the board, who awarded themselves hundred of thousands of shares in cheap stock options as addition to their salary. You and I get paid to do our job, they have to get paid and then some to do their job. These people didn't invest, they got given, at your expense, because your thousand or so shares got watered down so much as to be comparatively useless. So you just have to pray the value keeps rising, which you check on every couple of months and look, there is that vicious circle...)


*Sort of.

I can agree with this view, I'm very much pro the Benjamin Graham investing vs. speculating mindset. But to say all the stock market caters to is speculators is absurd. There are so many great corporations out their, doing great things with other peoples money, Berkshire, Wells Fargo, etc. These great companies very much make millions off the chicken little speculators. In the end the complex schemes almost always come crashing down, "For fools rush in where angels fear to tread." Bull runs always end, margin debt, toxic assets, repackaged loans, if you can't understand the ins and outs in 5 minutes don't invest, get rich quick rarely works in the longterm.

In reality all it did was tack a few hundred billion onto the national debt; which any economist with half a brain saw coming.

How do you measure the gain? Where do you think these peoples money is going, if it's in a bank it's being invested by the bank, if it's in bonds the government or business is using it, if it's in the market they are owners in a company, if they're buying businesses it's being directly invested into local economies, if they're blowing it all on boats and houses it's being absorbed into companies. About the only way we can't see the money is if it's being hid under a mattress, and even then with a couple million it's making some mattress company very rich out there.

Ultimately, it's been proven spending by the rich is more directly linked to the economy and not taxes. Would I complain if I were in their situation, probably, would it be justified, probably not. In the end this vilifying rich people is ridiculous, it's the same head-up-your-ass stereotype that all people on welfare are leaching off unemployment while they're out buying Air Jordan's and heroin with government cheese. Because everyone fucking complains about taxes.

 

[Plissken]

But to say all the stock market caters to is speculators is absurd. There are so many great corporations out their, doing great things with other peoples money, Berkshire, Wells Fargo, etc. These great companies very much make millions off the chicken little speculators.

I notice the current fad is for Foreign Exchange Trading. ForEx, I think, sponsor Aston Villa and there is a company who name slips my mind who is pushing ads here in Dublin a lot.* Everyone is being encouraged to put their money on the market, be part of trades etc etc.

I'm wondering whether to buy some of their shares. No-one seems to be encouraging anyone to do that, though.




*Ads can't be working that well, then.

 

[tigger]

How do you measure the gain?

Long story short; it's a bitch. Hardly anyone even takes a shot at it. But the claim is that the increased revenue (from economic activity spurred by the cuts) will increase government revenue.

Unfortunately I don't know of any truly unbiased looks at it. If you do feel free to post them.Citizens for Tax Justice claimed that while the Bush cuts ('01 to '10) saved taxpayers 1.7 trillion dollars, they cost the Treasury 2.1 trillion in lost revenue, 2.5 trillion if you add interest payments. They claim that the cut for the top 1% cost the Treasury 673.9 billion in lost revenue, or 50 billion more than cost of the cuts for the bottom 80% of Americans.

Ultimately, it's been proven spending by the rich is more directly linked to the economy and not taxes.

Source?

I'm not advocating vilifying the rich simply because they're rich. But if someone is complaining about the government taking an extra 3% out of their hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more) in yearly income, and how they're already stretched thin as it is, they can go to hell.

 

[British_Rover]

That kind of money will barely get you a house in Boston. Meanwhile I will have close to $100k to pay back (before interest is added) when I graduate...

100k USD where the fuck are you going to school? I graduated with about 23k USD in student loans from a good engineering school, Virginia tech, I paid for the rest myself and got a few grants. You know that interest is tax deductible and there is no way you would ever be loaned that much money without government support and backing right?

A rather limited number of people blame "income disparity" for the Great Depression. Its rather sad to see that you are one of them.

I didn't blame the Great Depression entirely in income disparity. I said it was one of the triggers not the entire be all and end all cause. There are people that think it was a greater contributing factor. In fact on fresh air today that had Robert Reich on who just wrote a book about this.

Listen and learn right here.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130189031&ft=1&f=13

I never advocated for economic decisions to be in the power of the wealthy. You are getting sidetracked. You also appear to automatically equate wealth with greed and lust for power at any cost; while that may be true in some instances, you cannot generalize like that.

I didn't use the terms greet, lust or any other loaded weasel words like you are. "Masters of the Universe" is a pretty common term for wall street insiders. Slightly pejorative I guess but nothing like a "lust for power at any cost. You need the proper ratio of producers to consumers and if the consumers don't have enough money to buy stuff then the economy has a hard time keeping going. If lots of money is with a small number of people, 14,588 families or the top 0.1% of income earners earning 6% of total income for example, then that small group of people can only consume so much. Sure they invest but their spending level is so elastic if they don't feel like spending they don't have to. If they don't think they should invest or invest too heavily, because of lowered demand because the middle class doesn't have enough money, then the economy slows even further.

Some would argue that the stimulus plan hurt, not helped, the economy, although I, personally, am not one of them.



Yes...

Both correct the Stimulus did help but it needed to be a bit larger and more targeted.

Who are you to restrain how much money someone has? Who are you to tell Bill Gates that he has too much money and he needs to give it to the poor (which is essentially what you are saying, isn't it?)? And the monopoly bit is yet another side issue.

I don't think you should limit how much someone can earn. That is crazy talk. That would be a vast distortion of the market to set some kind of limit like that. I don't think we should set limits on the size of companies either as long as they are not operating an illegal monopoly or as a trust or colluding. I think breaking up a company because it is supposed to be too big to fail is a very bad idea. We need to have the institutions in place to shut down a large failing company but we shouldn't set a limit ahead of time.

I don't think we should raise the top marginal tax rate back up to the 70 or 90 percent range. I don't even think it should be up above 50% but raising it a few more percent to 36% or 39% like now or up into the 41% or 42% wouldn't be so bad.

Monopolies are recognized as market failures and serious problems occur when you have monopolies operating in the wrong kind of market. They are absolutely related to this discussion.

That's a whole different issue; you are also getting a bit sidetracked. Do I think there are lots and lots of people out there that are overpaid? Of course. Do I think that anyone has the right to do anything about that? Not really. Like I said, if people are willing to pay millions to see Shaq throw an orange ball around, then good for him.



Source?

You ask for sources but provide none of your own. YOu know how to use the gooogle right?





British_Rover, what are you talking about in that last post? Are you saying that taxes are good? Well, yes, they are. Are you saying that taxes should be high enough to pay for public goods and services? Well, of course they should. What is your point exactly?

My point is that taxes are punishment like you keep saying they are taxes are necessary. Certain things should be public goods and should not be privatized. There are certain groups in this country who think that nearly everything should be privatized and I think that is dangerous. A lot of the money going into the tea party movement is coming from these people. The Koch brothers for example are extreme libertarians who want the federal and state gov'ts drastically reduced in size. There are probably places where they are right but if those people just get replaced by private contractors who actually cost more money then gov't workers how can that be any good?

These are the, "Constitution is a dead document," people where if it isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution then it shouldn't exist. We need a lot of those federal agencies that they want to abolish. Maybe not all of them maybe some can be combined, The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is one that needs to be reorganized badly, but they are needed and these people would abolish most of them.

A minimum social safety net, social security and some policies that help to limit job lock are all good things for the economy. They are also all things that these people want to get rid of.

Where is the ridiculous idea that the rich don't spend and INVESTING doesn't drive the economy? The fuck you smoking?

As Tigger said I don't think anyone is saying that. What are you smoking?

What is true is that the Rich, well the very rich and super rich really, have much more elastic spending habits then most of the rest of the population. If they don't want to spend then they just won't. Lots of other people through out the income spectrum, including people in the rich level with income in the low to mid six figure range, have to spend nearly everything they make. They can't save money or they can't save much money because they have to spend all of it.

Before the great recession people were always complaining that the saving rate was too low. We need to save more money we spend more then we make.

All of that was true.

Now we have the opposite problem. The saving rate is too high. I know that sounds Counterintuitive but it is true. It is called the Paradox of Thrift. If everyone is saving then not enough people are spending and the economy stalls out.

Krugman actually had a great line the other day summing this up.

When depression economics prevails, the usual rules of economic policy no longer apply: virtue becomes vice, caution is risky and prudence is folly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/opinion/14krugman.html

The gov't should take steps to try and stimulate demand where they can. Tax cuts for the rich won't simulate the economy as much as tax cuts for the middle class because the middle class is going to spend that money and the rich won't. The rich will start spending money once demand picks up because there will be more capital investment needed. You won't get demand picked up without more spending so that spending needs to start first.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/the-economics-of-high-end-tax-cuts/

Now, you might ask why the same arithmetic doesn?t apply to all taxpayers, not just the rich. The answer is that middle- and lower-income families are often cash-constrained, with their spending limited by their current income even if they have reason to believe they?ll be doing better in the future. High-income families are much less likely to be in that situation. As summarized here (pdf), there?s a lot of evidence suggesting that tax cuts for the rich will do less to promote spending than equal tax cuts for the middle class and below.

http://www.cbpp.org/archiveSite/10-30-01sfp.pdf


That is grounded inMilton Friedman?s Permanent income Hypothesis.


Actually reading that reminds me how much I actually enjoy reading Friedman. I love the way he writes. I don't always agree with everything he is saying, hell sometimes I don't even understand it he was a hell of a lot smarter then me, but I do like reading it.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

while we're here, has anyone ever seen "secret millionaire"? what they do is each week they film a self made millionaire, usually from a normal, workingmans background and they get sent undercover to some of the more deprived parts of the UK. they spend a few weeks, mucking in with the community, doing the manual labour jobs and all that kind of thing... all the while the people theyre with have no clue about the new guy/girl

then at the end, they reveal themselves by going round and handing out big cheques to people/community projects/services/volunteers to help them.

on the one hand this is very nice to see... some places really deserve the money, really need the money to improve things where the government has all but turned a blind eye. its cool to see them help out with 50k here, 20k there etc. but by keeping it secret the program stops short of bringing it down to the level of having lesser offs audition for money, even though thats essentially what it is... rich guy deciding who is worthy of his money.... its still slightly patronizing.

and at the end of the day, everyone feels good, especially the rich guy.... since he just bought some clear conscience

i dont really like this show to be honest, its a superb gesture and show of kindness, but some of the millionaires they get on there... its clear theyre just buying some karma. however, by the same token some a very genuine and very sincere, usually the women or the older people

 

[Plissken]

Seen it, absolutely brilliant show and incredibly moving.

I agree that some are buying karma, but I think a larger number think they are buying karma and then genuinely get affected by their experience. Mainly because they couldn't conceive of what it was like for others and had their world view changed for the better.

On balance, a heck of a lot more good is done than bad on that show.

 

[Twerp128]

What is true is that the Rich, well the very rich and super rich really, have much more elastic spending habits then most of the rest of the population. If they don't want to spend then they just won't. Lots of other people through out the income spectrum, including people in the rich level with income in the low to mid six figure range, have to spend nearly everything they make. They can't save money or they can't save much money because they have to spend all of it.

I don't know about that, mid 6 figure range is half a million, no one making 6 figures is strapped for cash.

I make 40K a year and I'm able to save nearly half of it, with no debt. Actually save is the wrong word, save is what you do when you want a vacation or a new lawnmower, I invest nearly half of it. The rich aren't saving money, they're investing it. That's how they're worth millions, they're smart with their cash. Now the ironic thing is the rich would benefit most (Net worth speaking) by a healthy economy, even with the tax bumps. I'm in the camp though, that everyone else would be better off in a better economic climate as well rather than with a couple extra tax dollars (Which I doubt they'll see anyway.) The economy is coming back but the dollar and American industry is still in the shitter. Long term, America is way behind in the race. We need to be growing American business and entrepreneurship not taking a little off the top to give to the poor.