The Rich Are Taking All The Wealth.

[The Rabbi]

But "unprecedented prosperity for these 207 Americans" does not necessarily mean national prosperity, argues the New York Evening World:

"The fact that a fraction of 1 per cent. pays 95 per cent. of the income tax is startling enough. This means that a fraction of 1 per cent. makes the greater part of the profits, and that does not indicate a healthy prosperity for the nation.

"Nor does the fact that 82 per cent. do not make enough to pay any income tax, mean national prosperity."

Source: Literary Digest, April 16th.




1927.
http://www.1920-30.com/business/millionaires.html
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Demagogues will always cavil at some people making very large amounts of money.

 

[jwoodie]

Idiotic quote. Income tax rates/policy have nothing to do with "national prosperity."

 

[The Rabbi]

Idiotic quote. Income tax rates/policy have nothing to do with "national prosperity."

No, see. If we soak the rich and redistribute the money then everyone does better. That's the idea anyway.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Idiotic quote. Income tax rates/policy have nothing to do with "national prosperity."

No, see. If we soak the rich and redistribute the money then everyone does better. That's the idea anyway.

How much money has a rich person ever taken from you?
How much money has a rich person prevented you from investing in a business?

 

[OKTexas]

Yep

 

[Mr. Shaman]

But "unprecedented prosperity for these 207 Americans" does not necessarily mean national prosperity, argues the New York Evening World:

"The fact that a fraction of 1 per cent. pays 95 per cent. of the income tax is startling enough. This means that a fraction of 1 per cent. makes the greater part of the profits, and that does not indicate a healthy prosperity for the nation.

"Nor does the fact that 82 per cent. do not make enough to pay any income tax, mean national prosperity."

Source: Literary Digest, April 16th.




1927.
Millionaires of the Twenties
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Demagogues will always cavil at some people making very large amounts of money.

The New York Evening World, huh??

Never heard of it.

Here's a lil' education for Teabaggers & FAUX Noise bubbleheads.....​

"...if tax rates increased for individuals making over $250,000, it would still benefit people if they earned more than $250,000. Only the income individuals earn over $250,000 would be taxed at a higher rate. All of their income below $250,000 would still be taxed at the same rate it is now."

Elementary-Level Taxes For Dummies....and, Bubbleheads​

 

[g5000]

But "unprecedented prosperity for these 207 Americans" does not necessarily mean national prosperity, argues the New York Evening World:

"The fact that a fraction of 1 per cent. pays 95 per cent. of the income tax is startling enough. This means that a fraction of 1 per cent. makes the greater part of the profits, and that does not indicate a healthy prosperity for the nation.

"Nor does the fact that 82 per cent. do not make enough to pay any income tax, mean national prosperity."

Source: Literary Digest, April 16th.




1927.
Millionaires of the Twenties
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Demagogues will always cavil at some people making very large amounts of money.

1927. Just before the great crash and Great Depression.


See a pattern?

Damn straight nothing changes.

The unnatural concentration of wealth leads to disaster.


.

 

[g5000]

Idiotic quote. Income tax rates/policy have nothing to do with "national prosperity."

No, see. If we soak the rich and redistribute the money then everyone does better. That's the idea anyway.

How much money has a rich person ever taken from you?
How much money has a rich person prevented you from investing in a business?

The financial services sector (Wall Street) has taken a great deal from you. It's your fault if you didn't feel their hands in your pockets ripping you off blind.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

Idiotic quote. Income tax rates/policy have nothing to do with "national prosperity."

No, see. If we soak the rich and redistribute the money then everyone does better. That's the idea anyway.

How much money has a rich person ever taken from you?
How much money has a rich person prevented you from investing in a business?

Well, take the average salary and wealth of a rich person and deduct my salary and wealth and that's what they're preventing me from having. It's mine, dammit! All mine! And I want it now!

 

[The Rabbi]

But "unprecedented prosperity for these 207 Americans" does not necessarily mean national prosperity, argues the New York Evening World:

"The fact that a fraction of 1 per cent. pays 95 per cent. of the income tax is startling enough. This means that a fraction of 1 per cent. makes the greater part of the profits, and that does not indicate a healthy prosperity for the nation.

"Nor does the fact that 82 per cent. do not make enough to pay any income tax, mean national prosperity."

Source: Literary Digest, April 16th.




1927.
Millionaires of the Twenties
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Demagogues will always cavil at some people making very large amounts of money.

1927. Just before the great crash and Great Depression.


See a pattern?

Damn straight nothing changes.

The unnatural concentration of wealth leads to disaster.


.

It was actually two year before the Crash and several more before the Great Depression. It was a Great depression because of Democratic policies that turned a mild recession into the worst in US history.
Notice that the top 1% paid 95% of taxes then. More than today.
There was nothing unnatural about it. The opposite in fact. Same as today.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, see. If we soak the rich and redistribute the money then everyone does better. That's the idea anyway.

How much money has a rich person ever taken from you?
How much money has a rich person prevented you from investing in a business?

The financial services sector (Wall Street) has taken a great deal from you. It's your fault if you didn't feel their hands in your pockets ripping you off blind.

.

Really? How did they take a great deal from him? Did they rob his house at night? Did they mug him in the alleyway?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I learned that Mr Shaman is consistantly the stupidest fuck on OSMB

 

[Skull Pilot]

No, see. If we soak the rich and redistribute the money then everyone does better. That's the idea anyway.

How much money has a rich person ever taken from you?
How much money has a rich person prevented you from investing in a business?

The financial services sector (Wall Street) has taken a great deal from you. It's your fault if you didn't feel their hands in your pockets ripping you off blind.

.

No it hasn't because I don't use financial service companies to manage my investments. I do it myself.

I buy my own stocks, bonds, etfs and mutual funds through a discount on line brokerage where I pay a small transaction fee and nothing else.

It's your fault if you don't learn how to handle your own money so no one can rip you off.

 

[g5000]

Your insurance company has a very thin margin between what it takes in in premiums and what it has in outlays. It takes this thin margin and invests that money. That is how they make their profits. Not from premiums, but from investments.

Insurance companies lost billions and billions when they invested in Wall Street's derivative rip-off schemes.



Your state employee pension fund likewise invests the taxpayer and employee contributions to the fund. Otherwise, those contributions would have to be much higher.

Just google the name of your state employer retirement fund and any of the big 5 firms for 2007-2008 (Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, etc.). See how much your state employee fund lost in those firms.



Colleges and universities also invest in derivatives. Check how much their endowment funds lost. Remember Larry Summers? Clinton's SecTreas. He had a lot to do with derivatives being completely unregulated going into the New Millenium. Then, after he left office, he went on to manage Harvard's endowment fund. He lost them billions in derivatives trading.



And then there is your 401k manager. He thinks proximity to your money and billions of dollars of other people's money makes him smart. When Wall Street gave him box seats to the Super Bowl and all the hookers and blow he could handle, he bought all the derivatives they could throw at him. Then, when he lost a big chunk of your grandparents' nest egg, he cried ignorance.




Have your insurance rates gone up? Has your state raised taxes to fix the broken public employee pension fund in your state? Have your college tuition rates gone up? Did your grandparents and parent lose their asses just as they were preparing to retire?


And there you are, thinking no rich guy ever ripped you off...

The financial services sector was making 40 percent of ALL corporate profits in the US just before the crash. And they have already worked their way back to making 33 percent of all corporate profits in the US today.

Talk about redistribution of wealth!!! This is the greatest redistribution of wealth in history!


If you can't feel their hand in your pocket, you are not paying attention.



.

 

[koshergrl]

I learned that Mr Shaman is consistantly the stupidest fuck on OSMB

I don't know, several vie for that honor.

Pballs, tdm, rtard, joeb, jake and a few others leap to mind.

 

[The Rabbi]

Wow, a stupid class warrior.
Not all insurance companies make their profits from investments. Google "combined ratio" for more info on this.
Even so, so what? Insurance companies offer policies and customers are free to sign up or not sign up. No one is ripped off as it is a voluntary action with full disclosure of costs and benefits.
You think every time some company loses money in investments it constitutes a rip-off? You have some growing up to do, junior.

 

[g5000]

Wow, a stupid class warrior.
Not all insurance companies make their profits from investments. Google "combined ratio" for more info on this.
Even so, so what? Insurance companies offer policies and customers are free to sign up or not sign up. No one is ripped off as it is a voluntary action with full disclosure of costs and benefits.
You think every time some company loses money in investments it constitutes a rip-off? You have some growing up to do, junior.

You are the one who needs to wake up.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Traders-Guns-Money-unknowns-derivatives/dp/0273704745]Traders, Guns & Money: Knowns and unknowns in the dazzling world of derivatives: Satyajit Das: 9780273704744: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

Written by a man in the derivatives trading business for over 25 years. This book was published in 2006, warning of the great ripoff being perpetrated.

Read it. Learn something.

.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Wow, a stupid class warrior.
Not all insurance companies make their profits from investments. Google "combined ratio" for more info on this.
Even so, so what? Insurance companies offer policies and customers are free to sign up or not sign up. No one is ripped off as it is a voluntary action with full disclosure of costs and benefits.
You think every time some company loses money in investments it constitutes a rip-off? You have some growing up to do, junior.

Of course not.

It's the premium-increases....to cover those losses....that constitutes the rip-off.​

 

[g5000]

There was massive fraud committed against investors by the financial sector. Massive fraud.

And every time one of the fraudsters is caught, they get a fine which is less than the amount they netted from the fraud, and "no admission of wrongdoing".

Wakey wakey!

.

 

[Mustang]

If people had a more realistic understanding of human nature, our nation's leaders never would have bought into the nonsensical argument that the leaders of financial institutions sense of self-preservation would have kept 'the markets' honest, and hence, regulation was not really necessary.

The simple fact is that people are greedy. Who hasn't heard the old axiom that too much is never enough?

So, now let's talk about the rich. Does anyone really think that individually or collectively they're satisfied with their current share of the pie when human nature is figured into the equation?