Choice

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Income is proportionate to wealth, for the wealthy.
Income increases wealth, so the income of the wealthy grows.
Wages, meantime, are flat.
The percentage of income going to the wealthy, now vastly increased, will continue increasing.

Here's a simple table, that assumes wealth grows at a net rate of 10% a year:



Wealth % = wealthy income / total income (worker + wealthy)

This is just a figure demonstration, to illustrate the basic process at work.

So basically BS based on assumptions

[mpholland]

Precisely. Not to mention, there are ample opportunities for them to take that capital and make even more on certain investments, where the worker doesn't have enough or can't spare the cash to take advantage of it. More money can also be tied up for longer periods which commands even higher return rates. If you can make more money in the market than you can investing it in the "real" economy, why would you invest it. Then, if you get tax breaks on top of it because you "say" you are going to invest it in the economy, you can make even more. Then, when you finally got so much money, the market actually watches you and you become a market manipulator.

Back before Reagan, when the tax rates were a lot higher for the uber-wealthy, it wasn't as easy to attain that stature. Now things are just getting stupid.

I don't remember who said it, but I remember reading a statement on here once that 1,000 millionaires is much better for the economy than a single billionaire, and I wholeheartedly agree.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by mpholland

Precisely. Not to mention, there are ample opportunities for them to take that capital and make even more on certain investments, where the worker doesn't have enough or can't spare the cash to take advantage of it. More money can also be tied up for longer periods which commands even higher return rates. If you can make more money in the market than you can investing it in the "real" economy, why would you invest it. Then, if you get tax breaks on top of it because you "say" you are going to invest it in the economy, you can make even more. Then, when you finally got so much money, the market actually watches you and you become a market manipulator.

Back before Reagan, when the tax rates were a lot higher for the uber-wealthy, it wasn't as easy to attain that stature. Now things are just getting stupid.

I don't remember who said it, but I remember reading a statement on here once that 1,000 millionaires is much better for the economy than a single billionaire, and I wholeheartedly agree.

By "real economy", I'm assuming you mean investing directly in starting a business and hiring people as opposed to simply buying stock and expecting a return? Is that correct?

If so then I agree. Tax cuts for the ultra-rich and corporations who weasel out of paying anyways, are a waste of time and money. It must be invested in the middle class, the people who do the bulk of buying things and building businesses.

Dave

[mpholland]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

By "real economy", I'm assuming you mean investing directly in starting a business and hiring people as opposed to simply buying stock and expecting a return? Is that correct?

If so then I agree. Tax cuts for the ultra-rich and corporations who weasel out of paying anyways, are a waste of time and money. It must be invested in the middle class, the people who do the bulk of buying things and building businesses.

Dave

Yes Dave, that is precisely what I meant.

[BlueStreak]

Thought so.

Do you still agree with this entirely reasonable line of thinking, Dan?

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by mpholland

Precisely. Not to mention, there are ample opportunities for them to take that capital and make even more on certain investments, where the worker doesn't have enough or can't spare the cash to take advantage of it. More money can also be tied up for longer periods which commands even higher return rates. If you can make more money in the market than you can investing it in the "real" economy, why would you invest it. Then, if you get tax breaks on top of it because you "say" you are going to invest it in the economy, you can make even more. Then, when you finally got so much money, the market actually watches you and you become a market manipulator.

Back before Reagan, when the tax rates were a lot higher for the uber-wealthy, it wasn't as easy to attain that stature. Now things are just getting stupid.

I don't remember who said it, but I remember reading a statement on here once that 1,000 millionaires is much better for the economy than a single billionaire, and I wholeheartedly agree.

I can agree with that on individuals have a verity of needs and wants. They will spend and be divers in there needs.

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

By "real economy", I'm assuming you mean investing directly in starting a business and hiring people as opposed to simply buying stock and expecting a return? Is that correct?

If so then I agree. Tax cuts for the ultra-rich and corporations who weasel out of paying anyways, are a waste of time and money. It must be invested in the middle class, the people who do the bulk of buying things and building businesses.

Dave

I don't agree with this, "MUST" nope not at all. It's individual wealth and they are entitled to utilize it in what ever way they chose.

Originally Posted by mpholland

Yes Dave, that is precisely what I meant.

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Thought so.

Do you still agree with this entirely reasonable line of thinking, Dan?

Some of it, but not the attitude you display that others must do things with their money to help others.

If you believe that I got dibs on your Challenger. You "must" help me since you have more than I do.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

I can agree with that on individuals have a verity of needs and wants. They will spend and be divers in there needs.



I don't agree with this, "MUST" nope not at all. It's individual wealth and they are entitled to utilize it in what ever way they chose.





Some of it, but not the attitude you display that others must do things with their money to help others.

If you believe that I got dibs on your Challenger. You "must" help me since you have more than I do.

Sorry, Cliven Bundy took my Challenger this morning after he and his armed thugs let his cattle graze on my lawn. I had no right to stop them. I know it's true, they told me so.

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

I can agree with that on individuals have a verity of needs and wants. They will spend and be divers in there needs.



I don't agree with this, "MUST" nope not at all. It's individual wealth and they are entitled to utilize it in what ever way they chose.





Some of it, but not the attitude you display that others must do things with their money to help others.

If you believe that I got dibs on your Challenger. You "must" help me since you have more than I do.

BTW, I did not mean "must" as in they should be forced. I meant "must" as in the economic system won't work any other way. If they choose to fuck the rest of us, that is their choice. Just don't lose sight of who did it or blame anyone else when they do it.

Dave

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

BTW, I did not mean "must" as in they should be forced. I meant "must" as in the economic system won't work any other way. If they choose to fuck the rest of us, that is their choice. Just don't lose sight of who did it or blame anyone else when they do it.

Dave

And they also need not be surprised when the whole country folds, just take a look at what is going on right now in that big casino on Wall Street.

[mpholland]

Let's see here. If everyone were to just stick their money into the bank and not buy anything with it, how long do you think it would take for the economy to collapse?

That is essentially what is happening. The little guys are only spending what is necessary and saving (or trying to save) whatever they have left over. The big guys are spending, but only on necessities and luxuries, nothing that supports the mass economy, and it is a tiny fraction of their wealth.

I guess you can't fathom the concept that if 10 people start out with 10 bucks, and 1 person has all the water, those 10 people will go broke and die and the one person will have all the water still. It won't really do him any good, as he now has nobody left to sell water to, but he will be fine.

How did he get all the water? When his great, great, great, great grandfather settled this country, his family homesteaded all the property that had standing water on it, then since he was the only one with water, he became rich by selling it. Only he was smart and employed people to make irrigation systems, purify it, bottle it, etc., so that they could afford to buy the water. When he was rich and powerful enough, he patented all these ideas that others had designed and made even more money. He wasn't considered a monopoly, because there were still people out there that had devised ways of pumping water out of the ground, but he was keeping them broke by constantly bombarding them with infringement lawsuits. Even though they were bogus, it kept them spending money on litigation, and put all but the very strong ones out of business. Most of the others he bought out, but left a few, just so he could get past the monopoly laws.

Now, the lazy great, great, great, great grandson doesn't want to work anymore, and doesn't want to keep all the residual infrastructure up because it interferes with his leisure, so he just sits on his ass and counts his money. Meanwhile, people are dying because they don't have any water. That isn't his problem. He didn't take all their water, it wasn't theirs to begin with. Why should he care? God only knows what he is going to do with all that money and water. Nobody left to make things for him to buy.