1%er$ Are Strangling Our Economy

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you believe money is a commodity?

"What’s scary is that doubling the amount of people who have more than $10M per household (from 300K to 600K) means there’s $3,000,000,000,000 less available for the other 98% of the of the households as MONEY IS A COMMODITY and can only be possessed by one person OR another."

The Dooh Nibor Economy (that’s “Robin Hood” backwards!) | Phil

OMG! That's hilariously ignorant! If I make $10 million and put it in the bank, is that money unavailable for another person to "possess"?

 

[daveman]

"What’s scary is that doubling the amount of people who have more than $10M per household (from 300K to 600K) means there’s $3,000,000,000,000 less available for the other 98% of the of the households...

Amazing, people actually believing in 'zero-sum' wealth --let's run with it!!!

Whoa, somebody wrote a book --what's scary is that now there are fewer books to be written by the rest of the world's population!!

Oh no, somebody discovered a new medical cure --what's scary is that now there are fewer new medicines to be discovered by the rest of the world's population!!

Aw hell, another evil musician just wrote a new song --what's scary is that now there are fewer songs that the rest of us can make up!!

I'd come up with more but then there would be fewer that the rest to y'all could post...

Stop typing!! We're running out of letters!!

 

[georgephillip]

Based on what you type running out of letters would be an act of charity.

Are "your" letters a commodity in the same sense "your" dollars are?

Are your dollars available for possession by another person?

How about those of the richest 10,000 Americans?

 

[georgephillip]

"What’s scary is that doubling the amount of people who have more than $10M per household (from 300K to 600K) means there’s $3,000,000,000,000 less available for the other 98% of the of the households...

Amazing, people actually believing in 'zero-sum' wealth --let's run with it!!!

Whoa, somebody wrote a book --what's scary is that now there are fewer books to be written by the rest of the world's population!!

Oh no, somebody discovered a new medical cure --what's scary is that now there are fewer new medicines to be discovered by the rest of the world's population!!

Aw hell, another evil musician just wrote a new song --what's scary is that now there are fewer songs that the rest of us can make up!!

I'd come up with more but then there would be fewer that the rest to y'all could post...

Let's swim with it in the deep end of the pool.

"The main problem with the system of distribution of wealth in this country is the TOTAL LACK of distribution.

"Of course you don’t see that when you are in the deep end of the distribution pool…

"10,000 people make 30% of the income in the United States of America and the next 29.99M people make another 40% and the next 30M people make 12% and THE OTHER 240M people have to fight over the remaining 18%.

"This is your idea of fair?

" Let’s say it’s a poker tournament:

Table 1 has 10,000 people who have $1M each to play with
Table 2 (top 10-0.01%) has 30M people who have $433 each to play with
Table 3 (top 20-10%) has 30M people who have $133 each to play with
Table 4 (bottom 60%) has 240M people who have $25 each to play with.

America is 234 Years Old Today – Is It Finished? | Phil

 

[daveman]

Based on what you type running out of letters would be an act of charity.

Are "your" letters a commodity in the same sense "your" dollars are?

Are your dollars available for possession by another person?

How about those of the richest 10,000 Americans?

My dollars are available to other people by three means:

1. Confiscation by the government in the form of taxes.

2. Theft by individuals.

3. Voluntary purchase of goods and services.

You support a combination of 1 and 2, using the government to confiscate money from those who earned it and giving it to people who didn't.

You don't much like 3, due to your irrational hatred of business.

Tell me, if money is a finite resource, how come the GDP keeps going up? Wouldn't that be impossible?

Hint: Yes, it would.

 

[Wiseacre]

" "Of course you don’t see that when you are in the deep end of the distribution pool… "

"10,000 people make 30% of the income in the United States of America and the next 29.99M people make another 40% and the next 30M people make 12% and THE OTHER 240M people have to fight over the remaining 18%. "


" This is your idea of fair? "


First of all, there are about 150 million or so employed in the US, so that leaves 90 million instead of 240. These people have no skills, many don't even want a job or if they do it has to be for a paycheck that they aren't worth. That's the way it is dude, there's only so many jobs and if you are not qualified you don't get one of the higher paying ones. Is that fair? Yes.

Which leaves the 10,000 that you said were making 30% of the income, which I think is bogus. Nevertheless, the rich guys are sucking up a big part ofthe income, in relation to their numbers. I don't think there's any doubt that many CEOs and top execs are way overpaid, and that certain athletes and celebrities are overpaid too. But their excesses do not impact what everyone else gets in any meaningful way, it's not like they're taking food out of hungry children's mouths.

Is it fair? In some cases, probaably not. But in most cases, yes it is. And there's another point to make here. You gotta understand, if you raise taxes to take away some of the big money then you end up with more people hiding their money or funneling it offshore or something. It basically disincentives people to build businesses here or expand existing one here; instead they'llvgo somewhere else. Some are even renouncing their citizenship and some are just selling out, packing up, taking their money, and leaving the country. So it's a fairness issue but it also bumps up against reality.

 

[auditor0007]

This is what happens when a few people control all the wealth.

Then take some of it for yourself. Find a good idea, dedicate yourself to it, and take some of that wealth.

It's not about taking wealth; it's about creating wealth. In today's economy a few are taking the vast majority of the wealth, but they are not creating any new wealth. And it's not because taxes are too high.

 

[Chris]

At one point during the derivatives Ponzi scheme on Wall Street, the top 26 hedge fund managers were averaging $826 million dollars a year in income.

 

[daveman]

At one point during the derivatives Ponzi scheme on Wall Street, the top 26 hedge fund managers were averaging $826 million dollars a year in income.

No one has ever adequately explain why those hedge fund managers should give their money to you. NOTE: Childishly screeching "It's not FAAAAAIIIR!!!" is NOT an adequate explanation.

 

[georgephillip]

Based on what you type running out of letters would be an act of charity.

Are "your" letters a commodity in the same sense "your" dollars are?

Are your dollars available for possession by another person?

How about those of the richest 10,000 Americans?

My dollars are available to other people by three means:

1. Confiscation by the government in the form of taxes.

2. Theft by individuals.

3. Voluntary purchase of goods and services.

You support a combination of 1 and 2, using the government to confiscate money from those who earned it and giving it to people who didn't.

You don't much like 3, due to your irrational hatred of business.

Tell me, if money is a finite resource, how come the GDP keeps going up? Wouldn't that be impossible?

Hint: Yes, it would.

Hint Two:

Money is a commodity, not a finite resource.

How many of your dollars are available to others AT THE SAME TIME they are in your possession?

Stupid *****

 

[daveman]

Based on what you type running out of letters would be an act of charity.

Are "your" letters a commodity in the same sense "your" dollars are?

Are your dollars available for possession by another person?

How about those of the richest 10,000 Americans?

My dollars are available to other people by three means:

1. Confiscation by the government in the form of taxes.

2. Theft by individuals.

3. Voluntary purchase of goods and services.

You support a combination of 1 and 2, using the government to confiscate money from those who earned it and giving it to people who didn't.

You don't much like 3, due to your irrational hatred of business.

Tell me, if money is a finite resource, how come the GDP keeps going up? Wouldn't that be impossible?

Hint: Yes, it would.

Hint Two:

Money is a commodity, not a finite resource.

How many of your dollars are available to others AT THE SAME TIME they are in your possession?

Stupid *****

You really need to make up your stupid little mind, dumbass.

If money isn't a finite resource, then it's not a zero-sum game. The rich got richer, but not by making poor people poorer.

Quit making that argument. That is, if you care at all about being consistent. History suggests you don't.

Dumbass.

 

[georgephillip]

" "Of course you don’t see that when you are in the deep end of the distribution pool… "

"10,000 people make 30% of the income in the United States of America and the next 29.99M people make another 40% and the next 30M people make 12% and THE OTHER 240M people have to fight over the remaining 18%. "


" This is your idea of fair? "


First of all, there are about 150 million or so employed in the US, so that leaves 90 million instead of 240. These people have no skills, many don't even want a job or if they do it has to be for a paycheck that they aren't worth. That's the way it is dude, there's only so many jobs and if you are not qualified you don't get one of the higher paying ones. Is that fair? Yes.

Which leaves the 10,000 that you said were making 30% of the income, which I think is bogus. Nevertheless, the rich guys are sucking up a big part ofthe income, in relation to their numbers. I don't think there's any doubt that many CEOs and top execs are way overpaid, and that certain athletes and celebrities are overpaid too. But their excesses do not impact what everyone else gets in any meaningful way, it's not like they're taking food out of hungry children's mouths.

Is it fair? In some cases, probaably not. But in most cases, yes it is. And there's another point to make here. You gotta understand, if you raise taxes to take away some of the big money then you end up with more people hiding their money or funneling it offshore or something. It basically disincentives people to build businesses here or expand existing one here; instead they'llvgo somewhere else. Some are even renouncing their citizenship and some are just selling out, packing up, taking their money, and leaving the country. So it's a fairness issue but it also bumps up against reality.

Thanks for pointing out the discrepancy between total population and work force.
My bad.

I haven't seen official data showing that the richest 0.01% of US earners (approximately 10,000 individuals) take home 30% of annual US income. What source would you consider credible?

I think you're mistaken about some of the rich taking food away from starving children.

The richest of the rich manage hedge funds, and those funds produce spectacular returns, in part, by speculating on food. Much of the "Arab Spring" is being driven by food shortages, and there are some good reasons to believe it's coming here.

As far as taxes are concerned, do you think that raising individual and corporate rates to where they stood in the '70s would be an unfair burden on the richest 1% of Americans?

 

[Chris]

At one point during the derivatives Ponzi scheme on Wall Street, the top 26 hedge fund managers were averaging $826 million dollars a year in income.

No one has ever adequately explain why those hedge fund managers should give their money to you. NOTE: Childishly screeching "It's not FAAAAAIIIR!!!" is NOT an adequate explanation.

Who is being childish here?

I don't need any money. I make plenty.

But the hedge fund managers WERE COMMITTING FRAUD.

They should be arrested and put in prison.

 

[Chris]

My dollars are available to other people by three means:

1. Confiscation by the government in the form of taxes.

2. Theft by individuals.

3. Voluntary purchase of goods and services.

You support a combination of 1 and 2, using the government to confiscate money from those who earned it and giving it to people who didn't.

You don't much like 3, due to your irrational hatred of business.

Tell me, if money is a finite resource, how come the GDP keeps going up? Wouldn't that be impossible?

Hint: Yes, it would.

Hint Two:

Money is a commodity, not a finite resource.

How many of your dollars are available to others AT THE SAME TIME they are in your possession?

Stupid *****

You really need to make up your stupid little mind, dumbass.

If money isn't a finite resource, then it's not a zero-sum game. The rich got richer, but not by making poor people poorer.

Quit making that argument. That is, if you care at all about being consistent. History suggests you don't.

Dumbass.

Actually you are wrong.

The rich got richer by getting a bigger tax cut from the Republicans than the middle class did. This effectively transferred $10 trillion dollars of wealth from the middle class taxpayer to the wealthy.

 

[Wiseacre]

" "Of course you don’t see that when you are in the deep end of the distribution pool… "

"10,000 people make 30% of the income in the United States of America and the next 29.99M people make another 40% and the next 30M people make 12% and THE OTHER 240M people have to fight over the remaining 18%. "


" This is your idea of fair? "


First of all, there are about 150 million or so employed in the US, so that leaves 90 million instead of 240. These people have no skills, many don't even want a job or if they do it has to be for a paycheck that they aren't worth. That's the way it is dude, there's only so many jobs and if you are not qualified you don't get one of the higher paying ones. Is that fair? Yes.

Which leaves the 10,000 that you said were making 30% of the income, which I think is bogus. Nevertheless, the rich guys are sucking up a big part ofthe income, in relation to their numbers. I don't think there's any doubt that many CEOs and top execs are way overpaid, and that certain athletes and celebrities are overpaid too. But their excesses do not impact what everyone else gets in any meaningful way, it's not like they're taking food out of hungry children's mouths.

Is it fair? In some cases, probaably not. But in most cases, yes it is. And there's another point to make here. You gotta understand, if you raise taxes to take away some of the big money then you end up with more people hiding their money or funneling it offshore or something. It basically disincentives people to build businesses here or expand existing one here; instead they'llvgo somewhere else. Some are even renouncing their citizenship and some are just selling out, packing up, taking their money, and leaving the country. So it's a fairness issue but it also bumps up against reality.

Thanks for pointing out the discrepancy between total population and work force.
My bad.

I haven't seen official data showing that the richest 0.01% of US earners (approximately 10,000 individuals) take home 30% of annual US income. What source would you consider credible?

I think you're mistaken about some of the rich taking food away from starving children.

The richest of the rich manage hedge funds, and those funds produce spectacular returns, in part, by speculating on food. Much of the "Arab Spring" is being driven by food shortages, and there are some good reasons to believe it's coming here.

As far as taxes are concerned, do you think that raising individual and corporate rates to where they stood in the '70s would be an unfair burden on the richest 1% of Americans?

Here's what I got from the TaxFoundation.org website, which uses IRS tax returns for their data.

The top .1% (didn't have top .01%) is about 140,000 filers, basically gets 10% of the total AGI. The top 1% is 1.4 million filers, they get 20% of the total AGI, and pay 38% of the total income taxes received. I believe the median value for these people is about $380k.

The top 5% - 35% of all AGI (Adjusted Gross Income)
10% - 46%
25% - 67%
50% - 87%
Bottom 50% - 12.75%. (Some of these numbers were rounded, by me).

I recently saw data from Social Security, if I can find it I'll pass it along. But here's the deal: rich guys make more money because they're usually worth more to their employer or to the company and also because they benefit the most from their investments. Look, there's no doubt many are overpaid, some obscenely so. But the degree of overpayment is hard to define, who's going decide what's fair for one person over another. Ultimately it's up to the company or corporation, if they're going to overpay somebody then they'll have to deal with any consequences. I would say that the compensation for senior execs oughta be known to the stockholders and they should have some power to control it.

I think raises individual and corporate rates back to what they were in the 70s would be economic suicide. It would absolutely kill growth and job creation. You could argue it would be a fairer rate, but it would also be a disaster.

 

[Wiseacre]

Hint Two:

Money is a commodity, not a finite resource.

How many of your dollars are available to others AT THE SAME TIME they are in your possession?

Stupid *****

You really need to make up your stupid little mind, dumbass.

If money isn't a finite resource, then it's not a zero-sum game. The rich got richer, but not by making poor people poorer.

Quit making that argument. That is, if you care at all about being consistent. History suggests you don't.

Dumbass.

Actually you are wrong.

The rich got richer by getting a bigger tax cut from the Republicans than the middle class did. This effectively transferred $10 trillion dollars of wealth from the middle class taxpayer to the wealthy.

The link shows no such thing, you sir are full of shit.

 

[daveman]

At one point during the derivatives Ponzi scheme on Wall Street, the top 26 hedge fund managers were averaging $826 million dollars a year in income.

No one has ever adequately explain why those hedge fund managers should give their money to you. NOTE: Childishly screeching "It's not FAAAAAIIIR!!!" is NOT an adequate explanation.

Who is being childish here?

I don't need any money. I make plenty.

But the hedge fund managers WERE COMMITTING FRAUD.

They should be arrested and put in prison.

If they did indeed break the law, certainly. No one disputes that.

But did they really break the law? Getting rich isn't illegal, is it?

 

[daveman]

Hint Two:

Money is a commodity, not a finite resource.

How many of your dollars are available to others AT THE SAME TIME they are in your possession?

Stupid *****

You really need to make up your stupid little mind, dumbass.

If money isn't a finite resource, then it's not a zero-sum game. The rich got richer, but not by making poor people poorer.

Quit making that argument. That is, if you care at all about being consistent. History suggests you don't.

Dumbass.

Actually you are wrong.

The rich got richer by getting a bigger tax cut from the Republicans than the middle class did. This effectively transferred $10 trillion dollars of wealth from the middle class taxpayer to the wealthy.

Well, yeah, except that's nonsense.

Why don't any of you seem to grasp the astoundingly simple concept that money belongs to the person who earns it? Getting a tax cut doesn't take money away from anyone else...it allows the person who earned to keep more of it.

What's so hard to understand about that?

 

[Wiseacre]

You really need to make up your stupid little mind, dumbass.

If money isn't a finite resource, then it's not a zero-sum game. The rich got richer, but not by making poor people poorer.

Quit making that argument. That is, if you care at all about being consistent. History suggests you don't.

Dumbass.

Actually you are wrong.

The rich got richer by getting a bigger tax cut from the Republicans than the middle class did. This effectively transferred $10 trillion dollars of wealth from the middle class taxpayer to the wealthy.

Well, yeah, except that's nonsense.

Why don't any of you seem to grasp the astoundingly simple concept that money belongs to the person who earns it? Getting a tax cut doesn't take money away from anyone else...it allows the person who earned to keep more of it.

What's so hard to understand about that?

They don't want to believe it, so they don't. They have to justify the class warfare, and since the truth doesn't work they resort to bullshit.

 

[daveman]

Actually you are wrong.

The rich got richer by getting a bigger tax cut from the Republicans than the middle class did. This effectively transferred $10 trillion dollars of wealth from the middle class taxpayer to the wealthy.

Well, yeah, except that's nonsense.

Why don't any of you seem to grasp the astoundingly simple concept that money belongs to the person who earns it? Getting a tax cut doesn't take money away from anyone else...it allows the person who earned to keep more of it.

What's so hard to understand about that?

They don't want to believe it, so they don't. They have to justify the class warfare, and since the truth doesn't work they resort to bullshit.

Leftism simply can't stand the light of day.