How the rich get richer

[Bass v 2.0]

The Redistribution Of Wealth To The Rich

 

[Rambunctious]

When someone works hard and achieves wealth sometimes his or her achievement comes at the expense of the interest of other people, it's unavoidable. The good thing about our economic system is that everyone has an opportunity to be a wealth earner.
Wealth is not a 0-sum gain, when I earn a thousand dollars I'm not taking it from a poor person. If you want to see real poverty than keep supporting the current economic path our country is on now. Opportunity should never be limited especially by government.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

When someone works hard and achieves wealth sometimes his or her achievement comes at the expense of the interest of other people, it's unavoidable. The good thing about our economic system is that everyone has an opportunity to be a wealth earner.
Wealth is not a 0-sum gain, when I earn a thousand dollars I'm not taking it from a poor person. If you want to see real poverty than keep supporting the current economic path our country is on now. Opportunity should never be limited especially by government.

Read the links about tax loopholes and corporate welfare, those are things that are not earned, middle class and lower class people work just as hard and put in even more hours than the rich yet they are not getting richer, the rich put in less hours and get richer, the notion that everyone can somehow get rich and have the same opportunities to get rich just like the wealthy is pure individualistic lies and propaganda.

 

[momonkey]

Take it up with your bought and paid for president.


Goldman Sachs $994,795

Citigroup Inc $701,290

JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132

UBS AG $543,219

Morgan Stanley $514,881


He voted for the bailouts and never raised a question about executive pay until it became a political liability.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Take it up with your bought and paid for president.


Goldman Sachs $994,795

Citigroup Inc $701,290

JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132

UBS AG $543,219

Morgan Stanley $514,881


He voted for the bailouts and never raised a question about executive pay until it became a political liability.

I never said I agreed with those bailout payments Obama pushed and I never agreed with it when Bush did it earlier, the difference between the two is that Obama didn't want to make those payments if the same people who caused the collapse of the companies were still going to be in charge.

 

[Rambunctious]

When someone works hard and achieves wealth sometimes his or her achievement comes at the expense of the interest of other people, it's unavoidable. The good thing about our economic system is that everyone has an opportunity to be a wealth earner.
Wealth is not a 0-sum gain, when I earn a thousand dollars I'm not taking it from a poor person. If you want to see real poverty than keep supporting the current economic path our country is on now. Opportunity should never be limited especially by government.

Read the links about tax loopholes and corporate welfare, those are things that are not earned, middle class and lower class people work just as hard and put in even more hours than the rich yet they are not getting richer, the rich put in less hours and get richer, the notion that everyone can somehow get rich and have the same opportunities to get rich just like the wealthy is pure individualistic lies and propaganda.

Corporate welfare? It seems to me that if I was employed by a corporation I would be happy to see that my government values the worth of the company I work for.
Corporations do a tremendous amount of good for our society and without them we would be in a world of hurt.
If a corporation gets a tax break or a "loop Hole" and can continue to create, employ, and innovate than that's a good thing for society and a worthy investment if you ask me. A far more worthy investment than extending unemployment compensation.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Take it up with your bought and paid for president.


Goldman Sachs $994,795

Citigroup Inc $701,290

JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132

UBS AG $543,219

Morgan Stanley $514,881


He voted for the bailouts and never raised a question about executive pay until it became a political liability.

I never said I agreed with those bailout payments Obama pushed and I never agreed with it when Bush did it earlier, the difference between the two is that Obama didn't want to make those payments if the same people who caused the collapse of the companies were still going to be in charge.

Bullshit. The ONLY person he was against was ONE CEO. Which by the way, is none of his business. The President has no authority to fire Private Companies personnel. And the Bail outs did not give him that authority.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Take it up with your bought and paid for president.


Goldman Sachs $994,795

Citigroup Inc $701,290

JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132

UBS AG $543,219

Morgan Stanley $514,881


He voted for the bailouts and never raised a question about executive pay until it became a political liability.

I never said I agreed with those bailout payments Obama pushed and I never agreed with it when Bush did it earlier, the difference between the two is that Obama didn't want to make those payments if the same people who caused the collapse of the companies were still going to be in charge.

Bullshit. The ONLY person he was against was ONE CEO. Which by the way, is none of his business. The President has no authority to fire Private Companies personnel. And the Bail outs did not give him that authority.

He was against more than one CEO but as I said I was against giving companies bailouts, especially after their greed nearly killed the economy, you can't against government being involved and then turn a blind eye to the retards who mismanage a company and put employees out of work. The POTUS can't fire anyone, true, but he can refuse to bailout companies that want to keep the same corrupt people in charge.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

When someone works hard and achieves wealth sometimes his or her achievement comes at the expense of the interest of other people, it's unavoidable. The good thing about our economic system is that everyone has an opportunity to be a wealth earner.
Wealth is not a 0-sum gain, when I earn a thousand dollars I'm not taking it from a poor person. If you want to see real poverty than keep supporting the current economic path our country is on now. Opportunity should never be limited especially by government.

Read the links about tax loopholes and corporate welfare, those are things that are not earned, middle class and lower class people work just as hard and put in even more hours than the rich yet they are not getting richer, the rich put in less hours and get richer, the notion that everyone can somehow get rich and have the same opportunities to get rich just like the wealthy is pure individualistic lies and propaganda.

Corporate welfare? It seems to me that if I was employed by a corporation I would be happy to see that my government values the worth of the company I work for.
Corporations do a tremendous amount of good for our society and without them we would be in a world of hurt.
If a corporation gets a tax break or a "loop Hole" and can continue to create, employ, and innovate than that's a good thing for society and a worthy investment if you ask me. A far more worthy investment than extending unemployment compensation.

They're using the loopholes to make themselves richer, not to do anything for the good of the employees, thats why they reward the highest ranking people in the companies with bonuses and give people at the bottom very little.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I never said I agreed with those bailout payments Obama pushed and I never agreed with it when Bush did it earlier, the difference between the two is that Obama didn't want to make those payments if the same people who caused the collapse of the companies were still going to be in charge.

Bullshit. The ONLY person he was against was ONE CEO. Which by the way, is none of his business. The President has no authority to fire Private Companies personnel. And the Bail outs did not give him that authority.

He was against more than one CEO but as I said I was against giving companies bailouts, especially after their greed nearly killed the economy, you can't against government being involved and then turn a blind eye to the retards who mismanage a company and put employees out of work. The POTUS can't fire anyone, true, but he can refuse to bailout companies that want to keep the same corrupt people in charge.

No he can not, That is Congresses fake job. They have no legal or Constitutional right to involve themselves in Private Companies to begin with. But they NOT the President control the purse strings.

 

[editec]

I find it sort of amusing that this think-piece immediately becomes the grounds for partisan bickering.

Nothing in that linked article is not true, and both parties are responsible for it.

Do any of you Republican loyals really think McCain wouldn't have bailed out the banks?

Why?

Bush II did, and ain't he a Republican?

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Bullshit. The ONLY person he was against was ONE CEO. Which by the way, is none of his business. The President has no authority to fire Private Companies personnel. And the Bail outs did not give him that authority.

He was against more than one CEO but as I said I was against giving companies bailouts, especially after their greed nearly killed the economy, you can't against government being involved and then turn a blind eye to the retards who mismanage a company and put employees out of work. The POTUS can't fire anyone, true, but he can refuse to bailout companies that want to keep the same corrupt people in charge.

No he can not, That is Congresses fake job. They have no legal or Constitutional right to involve themselves in Private Companies to begin with. But they NOT the President control the purse strings.

The President always has veto power which is hard to override. If companies want to receive federal funds for any reason they must meet certain guidelines that are laid down, congress and the POTUS cannot run a company, but they can restrict funds to them.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

I find it sort of amusing that this think-piece immediately becomes the grounds for partisan bickering.

Nothing in that linked article is not true, and both parties are responsible for it.

Do any of you Republican loyals really think McCain wouldn't have bailed out the banks?

Why?

Bush II did, and ain't he a Republican?

Precisely my thoughts, thats why I said I did agreed with neither Obama nor Bush granting the funds.

But getting back on topic and not to sound a bit partisan, I find it funny that people rally behind the right when it comes to taxation yet don't understand how the system works. They think less taxes equals more money which is partly true, but is irrelevant when it comes to the rich people who pay tax consultants and lawyers to skim tax codes and laws for loopholes which effectively lower down their tax rate. Thats translates into the middleclass and lower class being leaned on more heavily to anchor the tax burden.

 

[rightwinger]

The rich get rich by applying the golden rule......

He who has the Gold....makes the rules

They are able to adjust the tax code, labor laws, environmental laws, workplace protections, tarrifs and comerce laws to ensure they take a larger portion of available wealth.

If available wealth were a pie of ten slices to be divided by ten people, One person would take nine slices while the other nine fight over the remaining slice.

The key to the rich is they are able to get eight of the nine to turn their wrath on the one person who is only getting crumbs instead of on them

 

[The Rabbi]

Typical leftist class envy warfare piece.
Suddenly taking less of someone's money is corporate welfare.
"The rich" are not a static group. People rise up into the ranks of the rich and fall from it quite regularly.
Total claptrap. Next.

 

[Douger]

Take it up with your bought and paid for president.


Goldman Sachs $994,795

Citigroup Inc $701,290

JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132

UBS AG $543,219

Morgan Stanley $514,881


He voted for the bailouts and never raised a question about executive pay until it became a political liability.

I never said I agreed with those bailout payments Obama pushed and I never agreed with it when Bush did it earlier, the difference between the two is that Obama didn't want to make those payments if the same people who caused the collapse of the companies were still going to be in charge.

Bullshit. The ONLY person he was against was ONE CEO. Which by the way, is none of his business. The President has no authority to fire Private Companies personnel. And the Bail outs did not give him that authority.

Bullshit.
The fucking CEO would be standing in a Walmart parking lot looking for a job he isn't capable of doing.
If I bail a motherfucker out I make the rules

 

[midcan5]

All the brain washed right wingnuts will be telling how hard the rich have it as they pay so much in taxes. Of course when you make millions that ain't so bad. Has America become the only working plutocracy in history?

Myth: The rich get rich because of their merit. The rich get rich because of their merit.


"How large are these externalities, which must be regarded as owned jointly by members of the whole society? When we compare the poorest with the richest nations, it is hard to conclude that social capital can produce less than about 90 percent of income in wealthy societies like those of the United States or Northwestern Europe. On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned." UBI and the Flat Tax

The conservative welfare state. The Conservative Nanny State

"....conservatives favor the market over government intervention. In fact, conservatives rely on a range of “nanny state” policies that ensure the rich get richer while leaving most Americans worse off. It’s time for the rules to change. Sound economic policy should harness the market in ways that produce desirable social outcomes – decent wages, good jobs and affordable health care."

 

[The Rabbi]

So your basic thesis is that if people work hard and make lots of money then they have no right to it. Right?

 

[rightwinger]

All the brain washed right wingnuts will be telling how hard the rich have it as they pay so much in taxes. Of course when you make millions that ain't so bad. Has America become the only working plutocracy in history?

Myth: The rich get rich because of their merit. The rich get rich because of their merit.


"How large are these externalities, which must be regarded as owned jointly by members of the whole society? When we compare the poorest with the richest nations, it is hard to conclude that social capital can produce less than about 90 percent of income in wealthy societies like those of the United States or Northwestern Europe. On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned." UBI and the Flat Tax

The conservative welfare state. The Conservative Nanny State

"....conservatives favor the market over government intervention. In fact, conservatives rely on a range of “nanny state” policies that ensure the rich get richer while leaving most Americans worse off. It’s time for the rules to change. Sound economic policy should harness the market in ways that produce desirable social outcomes – decent wages, good jobs and affordable health care."

There is little doubt that the game is skewed to favor those who have wealth. The "nanny state" for the wealthy ensures that the risk of their investments is minimized and that any potential impediments to increasing wealth are removed.

The super wealthy do not get that way by taking risks, they get that way by ensuring there are no risks in their investments

 

[Big Black Dog]

I build wealth by keeping my wife out of Wal-Mart.