Top 20% of households pay vast majority of income taxes

[Hutch Starskey]

If your goal is to lower taxes for the rich even more and force those who can't afford it to should more of the burden

Do the rich pay more or less for gas tax?

Much less as a percentage of their income.

Of course. But in absolute $$ it’s the same. I like A consumption tax. Seems most fair.

It's not the same at all. The idea of not being able to afford gas never enters into the mind of rich folks.

Rich folks already pay the majority of the taxes. They may consume a lot more gas with their high priced cars and boats. They already pay nearly 90% of our taxes so how much more should they pay? 40% of the country pays nothing.

You're missing the forest for the trees. Those who earn the most pay the most. That's the way it's always been. Tax fairness will only begin when the bulk of Americans earn enough to actually pay tax on that income.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Do the rich pay more or less for gas tax?

Much less as a percentage of their income.

Of course. But in absolute $$ it’s the same. I like A consumption tax. Seems most fair.

It's not the same at all. The idea of not being able to afford gas never enters into the mind of rich folks.

Rich folks already pay the majority of the taxes. They may consume a lot more gas with their high priced cars and boats. They already pay nearly 90% of our taxes so how much more should they pay? 40% of the country pays nothing.

You're missing the forest for the trees. Those who earn the most pay the most. That's the way it's always been. Tax fairness will only begin when the bulk of Americans earn enough to actually pay tax on that income.

I get it. So they pay ~88% now. How much more should they pay? 99%? I would like an actual number.

 

[Flash]

Flat tax works

Minimum size of government and minimum taxation works even better.

Not feasible for a country the size of the US but technically yes, that works.

Yes it is feasible to have smaller government.

Not too long ago Ron Paul came up with a budget to reduce the filthy Federal budget by a trillion a year while still maintaining a growth in defense, SS and Medicare.

Just think how much stronger this country would be economically if that trillion was returned to the taxpayers and spent in the productive economy.

We could have a great Federal government doing all the necessary things it should do for a third or fourth of what we spend now.

Just think how much stronger this country would be economically if that trillion was returned to the taxpayers and spent in the productive economy.

Well, per the premise of the thread, that "trillion" would logically go to the top 20% who would not spend it in the economy. Rich folks are already rich. They don't need a tax cut to spend. They can already spend what they wish at anytime.

What we need is higher wages. The govt wouldn't then have to subsidize those folks.

Everybody in this country needs a tax cut, especially the people that earned the money the ******* government taxes.

That top 20% are the job producers in this country.

I am actually in the top 20% of income earners in the US. Before retirement I was in the top 10%. Thanks to Trump I am getting an almost $3K reduction in income tax this year and I will spend it in the productive economy instead of giving it to some stupid bureaucrat to give to some filthy ass welfare queen or Illegal or waste on some worthless no benefit government program. If the federal budget was reduced a trillion a year and I got a corresponding reduction in taxes I would have a lot more money to spend to stimulate the productive economy.

The country is not more prosperous when the stupid government takes money from the person that earned it and then gives it to a person that didn't earn it. You usually learn things like that in Economics 101. Liberals don't understand Economics, do they?

 

[Flash]

Interesting article.

When you are a greedy asshole demanding higher income taxes so that somebody else pay your bills though government transfer payments just remember this:

Most Americans Make It To The Top 20 Percent (At Least For A While)

Most Americans Make It To The Top 20 Percent (At Least For A While)

61 out of 100 U.S. households will break into the top 20% of incomes (roughly $111,000*) for at least 2 consecutive years.

39 out of 100 U.S. households will break into the top 10% of incomes (roughly $153,000*) for at least 2 consecutive years.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Much less as a percentage of their income.

Of course. But in absolute $$ it’s the same. I like A consumption tax. Seems most fair.

It's not the same at all. The idea of not being able to afford gas never enters into the mind of rich folks.

Rich folks already pay the majority of the taxes. They may consume a lot more gas with their high priced cars and boats. They already pay nearly 90% of our taxes so how much more should they pay? 40% of the country pays nothing.

You're missing the forest for the trees. Those who earn the most pay the most. That's the way it's always been. Tax fairness will only begin when the bulk of Americans earn enough to actually pay tax on that income.

I get it. So they pay ~88% now. How much more should they pay? 99%? I would like an actual number.

The top 20% earn 50% of the income.
That leaves 50% for the other 80%.

How much should they pay?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Flat tax works

Minimum size of government and minimum taxation works even better.

Not feasible for a country the size of the US but technically yes, that works.

Yes it is feasible to have smaller government.

Not too long ago Ron Paul came up with a budget to reduce the filthy Federal budget by a trillion a year while still maintaining a growth in defense, SS and Medicare.

Just think how much stronger this country would be economically if that trillion was returned to the taxpayers and spent in the productive economy.

We could have a great Federal government doing all the necessary things it should do for a third or fourth of what we spend now.

Just think how much stronger this country would be economically if that trillion was returned to the taxpayers and spent in the productive economy.

Well, per the premise of the thread, that "trillion" would logically go to the top 20% who would not spend it in the economy. Rich folks are already rich. They don't need a tax cut to spend. They can already spend what they wish at anytime.

What we need is higher wages. The govt wouldn't then have to subsidize those folks.

Everybody in this country needs a tax cut, especially the people that earned the money the ******* government taxes.

That top 20% are the job producers in this country.

I am actually in the top 20% of income earners in the US. Before retirement I was in the top 10%. Thanks to Trump I am getting an almost $3K reduction in income tax this year and I will spend it in the productive economy instead of giving it to some stupid bureaucrat to give to some filthy ass welfare queen or Illegal or waste on some worthless no benefit government program. If the federal budget was reduced a trillion a year and I got a corresponding reduction in taxes I would have a lot more money to spend to stimulate the productive economy.

The country is not more prosperous when the stupid government takes money from the person that earned it and then gives it to a person that didn't earn it. You usually learn things like that in Economics 101. Liberals don't understand Economics, do they?

That top 20% are the job producers in this country.

Nonsense.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Of course. But in absolute $$ it’s the same. I like A consumption tax. Seems most fair.

It's not the same at all. The idea of not being able to afford gas never enters into the mind of rich folks.

Rich folks already pay the majority of the taxes. They may consume a lot more gas with their high priced cars and boats. They already pay nearly 90% of our taxes so how much more should they pay? 40% of the country pays nothing.

You're missing the forest for the trees. Those who earn the most pay the most. That's the way it's always been. Tax fairness will only begin when the bulk of Americans earn enough to actually pay tax on that income.

I get it. So they pay ~88% now. How much more should they pay? 99%? I would like an actual number.

The top 20% earn 50% of the income.
That leaves 50% for the other 80%.

How much should they pay?

You just answered my question with a question. Would you mind answering my question first please?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Minimum size of government and minimum taxation works even better.

Not feasible for a country the size of the US but technically yes, that works.

Yes it is feasible to have smaller government.

Not too long ago Ron Paul came up with a budget to reduce the filthy Federal budget by a trillion a year while still maintaining a growth in defense, SS and Medicare.

Just think how much stronger this country would be economically if that trillion was returned to the taxpayers and spent in the productive economy.

We could have a great Federal government doing all the necessary things it should do for a third or fourth of what we spend now.

Just think how much stronger this country would be economically if that trillion was returned to the taxpayers and spent in the productive economy.

Well, per the premise of the thread, that "trillion" would logically go to the top 20% who would not spend it in the economy. Rich folks are already rich. They don't need a tax cut to spend. They can already spend what they wish at anytime.

What we need is higher wages. The govt wouldn't then have to subsidize those folks.

Everybody in this country needs a tax cut, especially the people that earned the money the ******* government taxes.

That top 20% are the job producers in this country.

I am actually in the top 20% of income earners in the US. Before retirement I was in the top 10%. Thanks to Trump I am getting an almost $3K reduction in income tax this year and I will spend it in the productive economy instead of giving it to some stupid bureaucrat to give to some filthy ass welfare queen or Illegal or waste on some worthless no benefit government program. If the federal budget was reduced a trillion a year and I got a corresponding reduction in taxes I would have a lot more money to spend to stimulate the productive economy.

The country is not more prosperous when the stupid government takes money from the person that earned it and then gives it to a person that didn't earn it. You usually learn things like that in Economics 101. Liberals don't understand Economics, do they?

That top 20% are the job producers in this country.

Nonsense.

The top 1% even are not set in stone the people move in and out of that bracket.

 

[Flash]

[Q

The top 1% even are not set in stone the people move in and out of that bracket.

Absolutely.

So if stupid greedy Moon Bats demand higher taxation and if they aren't complete losers they may wind up having to shell out their money for other people.

It is actually not hard for professional people to be in the top 5% of earners. 10% quite common. As an Engineer I was always 10+%. For some years in the top 5%. I paid a ton of taxes then.

 

[Andylusion]

Minimum size of government and minimum taxation works even better.

Not feasible for a country the size of the US but technically yes, that works.

Yes it is feasible to have smaller government.

Not too long ago Ron Paul came up with a budget to reduce the filthy Federal budget by a trillion a year while still maintaining a growth in defense, SS and Medicare.

Just think how much stronger this country would be economically if that trillion was returned to the taxpayers and spent in the productive economy.

We could have a great Federal government doing all the necessary things it should do for a third or fourth of what we spend now.

Just think how much stronger this country would be economically if that trillion was returned to the taxpayers and spent in the productive economy.

Well, per the premise of the thread, that "trillion" would logically go to the top 20% who would not spend it in the economy. Rich folks are already rich. They don't need a tax cut to spend. They can already spend what they wish at anytime.

What we need is higher wages. The govt wouldn't then have to subsidize those folks.

Everybody in this country needs a tax cut, especially the people that earned the money the ******* government taxes.

That top 20% are the job producers in this country.

I am actually in the top 20% of income earners in the US. Before retirement I was in the top 10%. Thanks to Trump I am getting an almost $3K reduction in income tax this year and I will spend it in the productive economy instead of giving it to some stupid bureaucrat to give to some filthy ass welfare queen or Illegal or waste on some worthless no benefit government program. If the federal budget was reduced a trillion a year and I got a corresponding reduction in taxes I would have a lot more money to spend to stimulate the productive economy.

The country is not more prosperous when the stupid government takes money from the person that earned it and then gives it to a person that didn't earn it. You usually learn things like that in Economics 101. Liberals don't understand Economics, do they?

That top 20% are the job producers in this country.

Nonsense.

Nonsense? How many of the bottom income people, produce jobs? How many poor people have offered you full time jobs? Do tell. I can't wait to see your statistical numbers of how many poor people create long-term jobs in the country.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It's not the same at all. The idea of not being able to afford gas never enters into the mind of rich folks.

Rich folks already pay the majority of the taxes. They may consume a lot more gas with their high priced cars and boats. They already pay nearly 90% of our taxes so how much more should they pay? 40% of the country pays nothing.

You're missing the forest for the trees. Those who earn the most pay the most. That's the way it's always been. Tax fairness will only begin when the bulk of Americans earn enough to actually pay tax on that income.

I get it. So they pay ~88% now. How much more should they pay? 99%? I would like an actual number.

The top 20% earn 50% of the income.
That leaves 50% for the other 80%.

How much should they pay?

You just answered my question with a question. Would you mind answering my question first please?

I answered your question with a perspective you've left out.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Not feasible for a country the size of the US but technically yes, that works.

Yes it is feasible to have smaller government.

Not too long ago Ron Paul came up with a budget to reduce the filthy Federal budget by a trillion a year while still maintaining a growth in defense, SS and Medicare.

Just think how much stronger this country would be economically if that trillion was returned to the taxpayers and spent in the productive economy.

We could have a great Federal government doing all the necessary things it should do for a third or fourth of what we spend now.

Just think how much stronger this country would be economically if that trillion was returned to the taxpayers and spent in the productive economy.

Well, per the premise of the thread, that "trillion" would logically go to the top 20% who would not spend it in the economy. Rich folks are already rich. They don't need a tax cut to spend. They can already spend what they wish at anytime.

What we need is higher wages. The govt wouldn't then have to subsidize those folks.

Everybody in this country needs a tax cut, especially the people that earned the money the ******* government taxes.

That top 20% are the job producers in this country.

I am actually in the top 20% of income earners in the US. Before retirement I was in the top 10%. Thanks to Trump I am getting an almost $3K reduction in income tax this year and I will spend it in the productive economy instead of giving it to some stupid bureaucrat to give to some filthy ass welfare queen or Illegal or waste on some worthless no benefit government program. If the federal budget was reduced a trillion a year and I got a corresponding reduction in taxes I would have a lot more money to spend to stimulate the productive economy.

The country is not more prosperous when the stupid government takes money from the person that earned it and then gives it to a person that didn't earn it. You usually learn things like that in Economics 101. Liberals don't understand Economics, do they?

That top 20% are the job producers in this country.

Nonsense.

The top 1% even are not set in stone the people move in and out of that bracket.

What does that have to do with my post?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Not feasible for a country the size of the US but technically yes, that works.

Yes it is feasible to have smaller government.

Not too long ago Ron Paul came up with a budget to reduce the filthy Federal budget by a trillion a year while still maintaining a growth in defense, SS and Medicare.

Just think how much stronger this country would be economically if that trillion was returned to the taxpayers and spent in the productive economy.

We could have a great Federal government doing all the necessary things it should do for a third or fourth of what we spend now.

Just think how much stronger this country would be economically if that trillion was returned to the taxpayers and spent in the productive economy.

Well, per the premise of the thread, that "trillion" would logically go to the top 20% who would not spend it in the economy. Rich folks are already rich. They don't need a tax cut to spend. They can already spend what they wish at anytime.

What we need is higher wages. The govt wouldn't then have to subsidize those folks.

Everybody in this country needs a tax cut, especially the people that earned the money the ******* government taxes.

That top 20% are the job producers in this country.

I am actually in the top 20% of income earners in the US. Before retirement I was in the top 10%. Thanks to Trump I am getting an almost $3K reduction in income tax this year and I will spend it in the productive economy instead of giving it to some stupid bureaucrat to give to some filthy ass welfare queen or Illegal or waste on some worthless no benefit government program. If the federal budget was reduced a trillion a year and I got a corresponding reduction in taxes I would have a lot more money to spend to stimulate the productive economy.

The country is not more prosperous when the stupid government takes money from the person that earned it and then gives it to a person that didn't earn it. You usually learn things like that in Economics 101. Liberals don't understand Economics, do they?

That top 20% are the job producers in this country.

Nonsense.

Nonsense? How many of the bottom income people, produce jobs? How many poor people have offered you full time jobs? Do tell. I can't wait to see your statistical numbers of how many poor people create long-term jobs in the country.

Jobs are created to meet demand. Demand comes from consumers.
There aren't wal marts all over the country because of rich people.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Rich folks already pay the majority of the taxes. They may consume a lot more gas with their high priced cars and boats. They already pay nearly 90% of our taxes so how much more should they pay? 40% of the country pays nothing.

You're missing the forest for the trees. Those who earn the most pay the most. That's the way it's always been. Tax fairness will only begin when the bulk of Americans earn enough to actually pay tax on that income.

I get it. So they pay ~88% now. How much more should they pay? 99%? I would like an actual number.

The top 20% earn 50% of the income.
That leaves 50% for the other 80%.

How much should they pay?

You just answered my question with a question. Would you mind answering my question first please?

I answered your question with a perspective you've left out.

??? No you answered my question with another question ???

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Yes it is feasible to have smaller government.

Not too long ago Ron Paul came up with a budget to reduce the filthy Federal budget by a trillion a year while still maintaining a growth in defense, SS and Medicare.

Just think how much stronger this country would be economically if that trillion was returned to the taxpayers and spent in the productive economy.

We could have a great Federal government doing all the necessary things it should do for a third or fourth of what we spend now.

Just think how much stronger this country would be economically if that trillion was returned to the taxpayers and spent in the productive economy.

Well, per the premise of the thread, that "trillion" would logically go to the top 20% who would not spend it in the economy. Rich folks are already rich. They don't need a tax cut to spend. They can already spend what they wish at anytime.

What we need is higher wages. The govt wouldn't then have to subsidize those folks.

Everybody in this country needs a tax cut, especially the people that earned the money the ******* government taxes.

That top 20% are the job producers in this country.

I am actually in the top 20% of income earners in the US. Before retirement I was in the top 10%. Thanks to Trump I am getting an almost $3K reduction in income tax this year and I will spend it in the productive economy instead of giving it to some stupid bureaucrat to give to some filthy ass welfare queen or Illegal or waste on some worthless no benefit government program. If the federal budget was reduced a trillion a year and I got a corresponding reduction in taxes I would have a lot more money to spend to stimulate the productive economy.

The country is not more prosperous when the stupid government takes money from the person that earned it and then gives it to a person that didn't earn it. You usually learn things like that in Economics 101. Liberals don't understand Economics, do they?

That top 20% are the job producers in this country.

Nonsense.

Nonsense? How many of the bottom income people, produce jobs? How many poor people have offered you full time jobs? Do tell. I can't wait to see your statistical numbers of how many poor people create long-term jobs in the country.

Jobs are created to meet demand. Demand comes from consumers.
There aren't wal marts all over the country because of rich people.

But it was the "rich people" who developed, financed and executed on the WalMart premise. If it were easy then anyone could do it.

 

[Andylusion]

Yes it is feasible to have smaller government.

Not too long ago Ron Paul came up with a budget to reduce the filthy Federal budget by a trillion a year while still maintaining a growth in defense, SS and Medicare.

Just think how much stronger this country would be economically if that trillion was returned to the taxpayers and spent in the productive economy.

We could have a great Federal government doing all the necessary things it should do for a third or fourth of what we spend now.

Just think how much stronger this country would be economically if that trillion was returned to the taxpayers and spent in the productive economy.

Well, per the premise of the thread, that "trillion" would logically go to the top 20% who would not spend it in the economy. Rich folks are already rich. They don't need a tax cut to spend. They can already spend what they wish at anytime.

What we need is higher wages. The govt wouldn't then have to subsidize those folks.

Everybody in this country needs a tax cut, especially the people that earned the money the ******* government taxes.

That top 20% are the job producers in this country.

I am actually in the top 20% of income earners in the US. Before retirement I was in the top 10%. Thanks to Trump I am getting an almost $3K reduction in income tax this year and I will spend it in the productive economy instead of giving it to some stupid bureaucrat to give to some filthy ass welfare queen or Illegal or waste on some worthless no benefit government program. If the federal budget was reduced a trillion a year and I got a corresponding reduction in taxes I would have a lot more money to spend to stimulate the productive economy.

The country is not more prosperous when the stupid government takes money from the person that earned it and then gives it to a person that didn't earn it. You usually learn things like that in Economics 101. Liberals don't understand Economics, do they?

That top 20% are the job producers in this country.

Nonsense.

Nonsense? How many of the bottom income people, produce jobs? How many poor people have offered you full time jobs? Do tell. I can't wait to see your statistical numbers of how many poor people create long-term jobs in the country.

Jobs are created to meet demand. Demand comes from consumers.
There aren't wal marts all over the country because of rich people.

Yes, actually there are.

Was there no demand for a walmart like store, for decades before walmart existed? Yes there was.

So why didn't walmart like stores magically pop out of the grounds, and spontaneously exist?

Because you need rich people. The average walmart costs $10 Million, before hiring employees, buying product, and opening the store. Before a single sale to one of your consumers, millions must be spent.

Do tell... please explain how a store can open without a rich person?

You can't, because it is impossible.

Just like there is demand for oil or all energy, in Venezuela, and because the government has driven out the wealthy.... oil production has fallen. Electricity production has fallen.

Demand is there, for sure.

https://abcnews.go.com/beta-story-c...tage-leaves-hospitals-power/story?id=58556615

And yet you have wide spread power outages. Why isn't the demand for power, magically creating power plants to pop into existence?

But it can't be because the wealthy have left the country. Nope, that can't be it. Can't be that no rich person will invest into a power company, when the government is nationalizing companies.

You show me one impoverished poor person that hired even one full time employee, and I'll believe you.

Otherwise you are full of crap. The rich create jobs. Period. No amount of demand on the face of the earth will create a job, until there is a rich person who can pay the wage. Without that person.... nothing happens.

There are plenty of nations that have tons of demand for things, and no jobs.

Even if you look at China, you can see this. There was a story about a guy that built a company supplying metal roofs to peasants. Why didn't he supply roofs in the decades before the 80s? Because he wasn't able to build capital and become wealthy. Without a reason to do it, why do it? The demand for roofs was always there. People shockingly, don't like being rained on.

When he was free to run his own business, make money, and hire people, he did so.

Capitalism always works. Rich people always create jobs and wealth.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Well, per the premise of the thread, that "trillion" would logically go to the top 20% who would not spend it in the economy. Rich folks are already rich. They don't need a tax cut to spend. They can already spend what they wish at anytime.

What we need is higher wages. The govt wouldn't then have to subsidize those folks.

Everybody in this country needs a tax cut, especially the people that earned the money the ******* government taxes.

That top 20% are the job producers in this country.

I am actually in the top 20% of income earners in the US. Before retirement I was in the top 10%. Thanks to Trump I am getting an almost $3K reduction in income tax this year and I will spend it in the productive economy instead of giving it to some stupid bureaucrat to give to some filthy ass welfare queen or Illegal or waste on some worthless no benefit government program. If the federal budget was reduced a trillion a year and I got a corresponding reduction in taxes I would have a lot more money to spend to stimulate the productive economy.

The country is not more prosperous when the stupid government takes money from the person that earned it and then gives it to a person that didn't earn it. You usually learn things like that in Economics 101. Liberals don't understand Economics, do they?

That top 20% are the job producers in this country.

Nonsense.

Nonsense? How many of the bottom income people, produce jobs? How many poor people have offered you full time jobs? Do tell. I can't wait to see your statistical numbers of how many poor people create long-term jobs in the country.

Jobs are created to meet demand. Demand comes from consumers.
There aren't wal marts all over the country because of rich people.

But it was the "rich people" who developed, financed and executed on the WalMart premise. If it were easy then anyone could do it.

Sure, because it's profitable. A good investment and only because there were and are consumers demanding what they offer. It's the bulk of America that makes our economy work. Not rich people.

Investment only makes up 15% of GDP.
Consumer spending is 70%.

 

[dblack]

Everybody in this country needs a tax cut, especially the people that earned the money the ******* government taxes.

That top 20% are the job producers in this country.

I am actually in the top 20% of income earners in the US. Before retirement I was in the top 10%. Thanks to Trump I am getting an almost $3K reduction in income tax this year and I will spend it in the productive economy instead of giving it to some stupid bureaucrat to give to some filthy ass welfare queen or Illegal or waste on some worthless no benefit government program. If the federal budget was reduced a trillion a year and I got a corresponding reduction in taxes I would have a lot more money to spend to stimulate the productive economy.

The country is not more prosperous when the stupid government takes money from the person that earned it and then gives it to a person that didn't earn it. You usually learn things like that in Economics 101. Liberals don't understand Economics, do they?

That top 20% are the job producers in this country.

Nonsense.

Nonsense? How many of the bottom income people, produce jobs? How many poor people have offered you full time jobs? Do tell. I can't wait to see your statistical numbers of how many poor people create long-term jobs in the country.

Jobs are created to meet demand. Demand comes from consumers.
There aren't wal marts all over the country because of rich people.

But it was the "rich people" who developed, financed and executed on the WalMart premise. If it were easy then anyone could do it.

Sure, because it's profitable. A good investment and only because there were and are consumers demanding what they offer. It's the bulk of America that makes our economy work. Not rich people.

Investment only makes up 15% of GDP.
Consumer spending is 70%.

But investment is what steers the economy. That's why we want smart people to control the most money. Of course, smart investors follow consumer desires, so it's always going to be collaborative.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Everybody in this country needs a tax cut, especially the people that earned the money the ******* government taxes.

That top 20% are the job producers in this country.

I am actually in the top 20% of income earners in the US. Before retirement I was in the top 10%. Thanks to Trump I am getting an almost $3K reduction in income tax this year and I will spend it in the productive economy instead of giving it to some stupid bureaucrat to give to some filthy ass welfare queen or Illegal or waste on some worthless no benefit government program. If the federal budget was reduced a trillion a year and I got a corresponding reduction in taxes I would have a lot more money to spend to stimulate the productive economy.

The country is not more prosperous when the stupid government takes money from the person that earned it and then gives it to a person that didn't earn it. You usually learn things like that in Economics 101. Liberals don't understand Economics, do they?

That top 20% are the job producers in this country.

Nonsense.

Nonsense? How many of the bottom income people, produce jobs? How many poor people have offered you full time jobs? Do tell. I can't wait to see your statistical numbers of how many poor people create long-term jobs in the country.

Jobs are created to meet demand. Demand comes from consumers.
There aren't wal marts all over the country because of rich people.

But it was the "rich people" who developed, financed and executed on the WalMart premise. If it were easy then anyone could do it.

Sure, because it's profitable. A good investment and only because there were and are consumers demanding what they offer. It's the bulk of America that makes our economy work. Not rich people.

Investment only makes up 15% of GDP.
Consumer spending is 70%.

Yet Sears failed. Sometimes "rich people" make mistakes. Consumers have a plethora of options. The key is to build the best mousetrap.

 

[Flash]

[


Jobs are created to meet demand. Demand comes from consumers.
There aren't wal marts all over the country because of rich people.

You are really not very astute when it comes to basic economics, are you?

The means to meet demand does not magically appear.

It comes from investment with the expectations of making a profit..

If you are poor you don't have any money tp invest. If you are rich you do. You provide the capital to create the means to meet demand.

God bless the rich people in this country. They are the job producers.

God damn the greedy Moon Bat that want to use the filthy government to steal money from them.