With only around 500 billionaires in the country

[bripat9643]

Why are the expected to carry the weight of the other 300 million?

Merely because they own ninety percent of the wealth.

So what does that have to do with anything?

Any fiscal policy is affected more by the one percent that own ninety percent of the wealth. I thought it was self-evident under Any form of capitalism.

No, it's not.

We do not live in a bubble. That's a liberal fallacy. There is no finite amount of money in the US where if one has too much, it's responsible for others not having enough.

In a great country such as ours, money is endless, it's just that you have to go out and get yours. The people that have the most are those who were obsessed with money their entire lives. But that obsession and accomplishment does not or should not make them responsible for those of us that never had that compulsion.

Still missing the point or are you just a lousy capitalist who doesn't understand the concept of leverage.

Leverage has nothing to do with the subject under discussion, but that's true of most of the things you post.

 

[danielpalos]

Merely because they own ninety percent of the wealth.

So what does that have to do with anything?

Any fiscal policy is affected more by the one percent that own ninety percent of the wealth. I thought it was self-evident under Any form of capitalism.

No, it's not.

We do not live in a bubble. That's a liberal fallacy. There is no finite amount of money in the US where if one has too much, it's responsible for others not having enough.

In a great country such as ours, money is endless, it's just that you have to go out and get yours. The people that have the most are those who were obsessed with money their entire lives. But that obsession and accomplishment does not or should not make them responsible for those of us that never had that compulsion.

Still missing the point or are you just a lousy capitalist who doesn't understand the concept of leverage.

Leverage has nothing to do with the subject under discussion, but that's true of most of the things you post.

Yes dear, leverage has everything to do with it when one percent of the People own ninety percent of the wealth, under Any form of capitalism. Only lousy capitalists and the right are ignorant of the facts of life under capitalism.

 

[bripat9643]

So what does that have to do with anything?

Any fiscal policy is affected more by the one percent that own ninety percent of the wealth. I thought it was self-evident under Any form of capitalism.

No, it's not.

We do not live in a bubble. That's a liberal fallacy. There is no finite amount of money in the US where if one has too much, it's responsible for others not having enough.

In a great country such as ours, money is endless, it's just that you have to go out and get yours. The people that have the most are those who were obsessed with money their entire lives. But that obsession and accomplishment does not or should not make them responsible for those of us that never had that compulsion.

Still missing the point or are you just a lousy capitalist who doesn't understand the concept of leverage.

Leverage has nothing to do with the subject under discussion, but that's true of most of the things you post.

Yes dear, leverage has everything to do with it when one percent of the People own ninety percent of the wealth, under Any form of capitalism. Only lousy capitalists and the right are ignorant of the facts of life under capitalism.

You don't know what the term "leverage" means.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why are the expected to carry the weight of the other 300 million?

Merely because they own ninety percent of the wealth.

So what does that have to do with anything?

Any fiscal policy is affected more by the one percent that own ninety percent of the wealth. I thought it was self-evident under Any form of capitalism.

No, it's not.

We do not live in a bubble. That's a liberal fallacy. There is no finite amount of money in the US where if one has too much, it's responsible for others not having enough.

In a great country such as ours, money is endless, it's just that you have to go out and get yours. The people that have the most are those who were obsessed with money their entire lives. But that obsession and accomplishment does not or should not make them responsible for those of us that never had that compulsion.

Still missing the point or are you just a lousy capitalist who doesn't understand the concept of leverage.

Oh, I don't? Then why not treat us to a few scenarios of this leverage you speak of?

 

[Indeependent]

Why are the expected to carry the weight of the other 300 million?

Merely because they own ninety percent of the wealth.

So what does that have to do with anything?

Any fiscal policy is affected more by the one percent that own ninety percent of the wealth. I thought it was self-evident under Any form of capitalism.

There is no finite amount of money in the US where if one has too much, it's responsible for others not having enough.

So pre-WWII, Germany must have been the wealthiest nation to have ever existed.
Oh, but it WASN'T!

 

[Brain357]

Why are the expected to carry the weight of the other 300 million?

Merely because they own ninety percent of the wealth.

Apparently not since you think you're entitled to a share of it.

Dear, what do believe the social Power to Tax is for; but to find ways and means to appropriate the People's share, and not just the share of the truest Capitalists.

Taxation is theft.

There's no two ways about it.

No one is entitled to a share of what I earn. That includes the government.

That is ridiculous. It is not theft. In return we get infrastructure and military. Without those your billionaires would not be billionaires.

 

[Indeependent]

Why are the expected to carry the weight of the other 300 million?

Merely because they own ninety percent of the wealth.

Apparently not since you think you're entitled to a share of it.

Dear, what do believe the social Power to Tax is for; but to find ways and means to appropriate the People's share, and not just the share of the truest Capitalists.

Taxation is theft.

There's no two ways about it.

No one is entitled to a share of what I earn. That includes the government.

That is ridiculous. It is not theft. In return we get infrastructure and military. Without those your billionaires would not be billionaires.

Shhh...nobody's supposed to know!

 

[bripat9643]

Why are the expected to carry the weight of the other 300 million?

Merely because they own ninety percent of the wealth.

Apparently not since you think you're entitled to a share of it.

Dear, what do believe the social Power to Tax is for; but to find ways and means to appropriate the People's share, and not just the share of the truest Capitalists.

Taxation is theft.

There's no two ways about it.

No one is entitled to a share of what I earn. That includes the government.

That is ridiculous. It is not theft. In return we get infrastructure and military. Without those your billionaires would not be billionaires.

Theft: taking the belongings of another person without their permission.

How doesn't taxation meet that definition?

 

[Brain357]

Merely because they own ninety percent of the wealth.

Apparently not since you think you're entitled to a share of it.

Dear, what do believe the social Power to Tax is for; but to find ways and means to appropriate the People's share, and not just the share of the truest Capitalists.

Taxation is theft.

There's no two ways about it.

No one is entitled to a share of what I earn. That includes the government.

That is ridiculous. It is not theft. In return we get infrastructure and military. Without those your billionaires would not be billionaires.

Theft: taking the belongings of another person without their permission.

How doesn't taxation meet that definition?

If you chose to live here and use the infrastructure and are defended by the military you are giving permission. Nobody is forced to live here. Your claim is moronic.

 

[bripat9643]

Apparently not since you think you're entitled to a share of it.

Dear, what do believe the social Power to Tax is for; but to find ways and means to appropriate the People's share, and not just the share of the truest Capitalists.

Taxation is theft.

There's no two ways about it.

No one is entitled to a share of what I earn. That includes the government.

That is ridiculous. It is not theft. In return we get infrastructure and military. Without those your billionaires would not be billionaires.

Theft: taking the belongings of another person without their permission.

How doesn't taxation meet that definition?

If you chose to live here and use the infrastructure and are defended by the military you are giving permission. Nobody is forced to live here. Your claim is moronic.

I didn't choose to live here. I was born here. That doesn't constitute agreement to anything. Just ask a lawyer.

Government doesn't own the United States, so why is it entitled to charge a fee just for your presence here? When someone who isn't part of the government does that we call it "extortion."

Government is indistinguishable from an organized criminal gang.

 

[Brain357]

Dear, what do believe the social Power to Tax is for; but to find ways and means to appropriate the People's share, and not just the share of the truest Capitalists.

Taxation is theft.

There's no two ways about it.

No one is entitled to a share of what I earn. That includes the government.

That is ridiculous. It is not theft. In return we get infrastructure and military. Without those your billionaires would not be billionaires.

Theft: taking the belongings of another person without their permission.

How doesn't taxation meet that definition?

If you chose to live here and use the infrastructure and are defended by the military you are giving permission. Nobody is forced to live here. Your claim is moronic.

I didn't choose to live here. I was born here. That doesn't constitute agreement to anything. Just ask a lawyer.

Government doesn't own the United States, so why is it entitled to charge a fee just for your presence here? When someone who isn't part of the government does that we call it "extortion."

Government is indistinguishable from an organized criminal gang.

You are free to go any time. You seem to be pro freeloaders. So they should get all the benefits, but pay nothing for them?

 

[bripat9643]

Taxation is theft.

There's no two ways about it.

No one is entitled to a share of what I earn. That includes the government.

That is ridiculous. It is not theft. In return we get infrastructure and military. Without those your billionaires would not be billionaires.

Theft: taking the belongings of another person without their permission.

How doesn't taxation meet that definition?

If you chose to live here and use the infrastructure and are defended by the military you are giving permission. Nobody is forced to live here. Your claim is moronic.

I didn't choose to live here. I was born here. That doesn't constitute agreement to anything. Just ask a lawyer.

Government doesn't own the United States, so why is it entitled to charge a fee just for your presence here? When someone who isn't part of the government does that we call it "extortion."

Government is indistinguishable from an organized criminal gang.

You are free to go any time. You seem to be pro freeloaders. So they should get all the benefits, but pay nothing for them?

You leave, asshole.

I despise freeloaders. Taxation is where they get their swag. The freeloaders are all sucking on the government tit. You obviously support that.

Where did I say anything about getting these so-called "benefits?"

 

[Londoner]

Why are the expected to carry the weight of the other 300 million?

Our largest corporation, Walmart, only pays subsistence wages. This means that after the worker pays basic expenses, there is little or no surplus to tax.

When Reagan decided to dismantle our postwar wage structure (so that our capitalists could benefit from ultra cheap labor costs), he was warned that this would turn a large portion of the middle class into virtual wage serfs with no skin in the game and no taxable income.

He ignored this, and he created trade/labor laws that allowed our noble and patriotic capitalists to shift production to more profitable labor markets in freedom hating nations like communist China. By giving capital more mobility, the result was much higher profits for a narrow group of Americans, but it also caused massive deindustrialization in our cities, leaving behind an army of superfluous citizens without jobs or taxable income. And since this superfluous population now has to compete with 3rd world labor markets in order to get their jobs back, they have no hope of earning a taxable surplus income.

Of course, Reagan claimed that by cutting labor costs and allowing the rich to make more money, the effect would be higher revenues for the State, which would help pay the exorbitant costs of the advanced industrial infrastructure and the defense of overseas markets (now required by our hyper-globalized economy, which lets our noble capitalist class abandon domestic labor for freedom hating nations with sweatshops).

However, we knew that Reagan was full of shit on his promise that this newfound wealth at the top would turn into higher revenue for the State. We knew that the big businesses who put him in power would fund an anti-tax revolution that would result in posts like yours.

But the point remains the same. If you want the growing army of wage-serfs to have a taxable income, you have to move us closer to the wage/benefit formula we had during the postwar years when the father's factory job supported the whole family, and there was a taxable surplus remaining so that the working and middle class could greatly offset the revenue burden of the wealthy.

However, if you're going to keep Reagan's low-wage model (because you want to give investors higher returns and thereby incentivize investment), than the revenue burden will naturally fall upon the group making all the gains (that is, the surplus, i.e., the surplus that is leftover after basic expenses).

 

[bripat9643]

Why are the expected to carry the weight of the other 300 million?

Our largest corporation, Walmart, only pays subsistence wages. This means that after basic expenses, there is no remaining surplus to tax.

When Reagan decided to dismantle our postwar wage structure (so that our capitalists could benefit from ultra cheap labor costs), he was warned that this would turn a large portion of the middle class into virtual wage serfs with no skin in the game and no taxable income.

He ignored this, and he created trade/labor laws that allowed our noble and patriotic capitalists to shift production to more profitable labor markets in freedom hating nations like communist China. By giving capital more mobility, the result was in the form of much higher profits for a narrow group of Americans, but it caused massive deindustrialization in our cities, leaving behind an army of superfluous citizens without jobs or taxable income. And since this superfluous population has to compete with 3rd world labor markets in order to get their jobs back, they have no hope of earning a taxable surplus income.

Of course, Reagan claimed that by cutting labor costs and allowing the rich to make more money, the effect would be higher revenues for the State, which would help pay the exorbitant costs of the advanced industrial infrastructure and defense of overseas markets that his new global system required.

However, we new that Reagan was full of shit on his promise that this newfound wealth at the top would turn into higher revenue for the State. We new that the big businesses who put him in power would fund an anti-tax revolution that would result in posts like yours.

But the point remains the same. If you want the growing army of wage-serfs to have a taxable income, you have to move us closer to the wage/benefit formula we had during the postwar years when the father's factory job supported the whole family, and there was a taxable surplus remaining so that the working and middle class could greatly offset the revenue burden of the wealthy.

However, if you're going to keep Reagan's low-wage model (because you want to give investors higher returns and thereby incentivize investment), than the revenue burden will naturally fall upon the group making all the gains (that is, the surplus, i.e., the surplus that is leftover after basic expenses).

I was unable to detect a single fact in the pile of manure you spewed into the forum.

You have a special talent for posting non-falsifiable claims. That means you spew total bullshit.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why are the expected to carry the weight of the other 300 million?

Merely because they own ninety percent of the wealth.

Apparently not since you think you're entitled to a share of it.

Dear, what do believe the social Power to Tax is for; but to find ways and means to appropriate the People's share, and not just the share of the truest Capitalists.

Taxation is theft.

There's no two ways about it.

No one is entitled to a share of what I earn. That includes the government.

That is ridiculous. It is not theft. In return we get infrastructure and military. Without those your billionaires would not be billionaires.

We also get Cash for Clunkers, bank bailouts, government air conditioners, Planned Parenthood, midnight basketball, Obama Care, NPR funding, PBS funding, and even money to fund overseas projects that don't benefit the US.

Theft is the action of taking property from somebody against their will.

 

[Clementine]

Why are the expected to carry the weight of the other 300 million?

Because the left has convinced enough low information voters into believing that those 500 people stole money from them and somehow kept them down.

 

[Indeependent]

Merely because they own ninety percent of the wealth.

Apparently not since you think you're entitled to a share of it.

Dear, what do believe the social Power to Tax is for; but to find ways and means to appropriate the People's share, and not just the share of the truest Capitalists.

Taxation is theft.

There's no two ways about it.

No one is entitled to a share of what I earn. That includes the government.

That is ridiculous. It is not theft. In return we get infrastructure and military. Without those your billionaires would not be billionaires.

We also get Cash for Clunkers, bank bailouts, government air conditioners, Planned Parenthood, midnight basketball, Obama Care, NPR funding, PBS funding, and even money to fund overseas projects that don't benefit the US.

Theft is the action of taking property from somebody against their will.

You pardon crony Capitalism because of Civil Cronyism?

 

[Londoner]

I was unable to detect a single fact in the pile of manure you spewed into the forum.

You have a special talent for posting non-falsifiable claims. That means you spew total bullshit.

Study supply side economics.

It holds that if you reduce the cost of production (by lowering the labor/regulatory burden, for instance), this will increase the incentive for investment, which will lead to greater economic growth and higher revenue.

The problem is that by lowering labor costs (wages), you cannibalize Consumer Demand, which, in our case, was repaired by a radical expansion of credit.

This solution lead to Morning in America, as a generation of Americans poured into shopping malls waiving credit cards.

Here is the thing my dear boy. Debt-based consumption is like any drug. You sail high before crashing hard, like in 2008 when we turned our homes into ATMs in order to make up for the money that never trickled down.

But I digress. Reagan and his advocates in the business community believed that our postwar labor costs were too high and, consequently, hampered investment + economic growth. So Reaganomics did everything to turn the GM Job Model (with strong unions, high wages, good benefits) into the Walmart Job Model (with low wages and terrible or non-existent benefits). As a result we now have a growing number of workers who don't have any taxable income left over after they pay basic expenses. This isn't complicated or controversial.

Reaganomics made sense in 1980. Labor costs and regulations had grown too much over the postwar years, and business was having trouble competing with our newly re-industrialized global competition, but I believe Reaganomics overcorrected with its goal to re-energize capital.

 

[danielpalos]

Any fiscal policy is affected more by the one percent that own ninety percent of the wealth. I thought it was self-evident under Any form of capitalism.

No, it's not.

We do not live in a bubble. That's a liberal fallacy. There is no finite amount of money in the US where if one has too much, it's responsible for others not having enough.

In a great country such as ours, money is endless, it's just that you have to go out and get yours. The people that have the most are those who were obsessed with money their entire lives. But that obsession and accomplishment does not or should not make them responsible for those of us that never had that compulsion.

Still missing the point or are you just a lousy capitalist who doesn't understand the concept of leverage.

Leverage has nothing to do with the subject under discussion, but that's true of most of the things you post.

Yes dear, leverage has everything to do with it when one percent of the People own ninety percent of the wealth, under Any form of capitalism. Only lousy capitalists and the right are ignorant of the facts of life under capitalism.

You don't know what the term "leverage" means.

Of course I do, dear. Capitalism is only useless to the right, much like logic and reason. Any more diversions, dear?

 

[danielpalos]

Merely because they own ninety percent of the wealth.

So what does that have to do with anything?

Any fiscal policy is affected more by the one percent that own ninety percent of the wealth. I thought it was self-evident under Any form of capitalism.

No, it's not.

We do not live in a bubble. That's a liberal fallacy. There is no finite amount of money in the US where if one has too much, it's responsible for others not having enough.

In a great country such as ours, money is endless, it's just that you have to go out and get yours. The people that have the most are those who were obsessed with money their entire lives. But that obsession and accomplishment does not or should not make them responsible for those of us that never had that compulsion.

Still missing the point or are you just a lousy capitalist who doesn't understand the concept of leverage.

Oh, I don't? Then why not treat us to a few scenarios of this leverage you speak of?

Is one percent of the People owning ninety percent of the wealth, not self-evident enough for the right?