Choice
 

"We must make a choice. We can have democracy in this country or we can have all wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, but we cannot have both." Louis Brandies

The courts have already ceded justice weighted to the wealthy. Just how many of the Wall Street thief's got time. But a poor inner city kid with a joint gets time.

Steal a little and go to jail steal a lot, pay a fine do no time.

Barney

Quoting myself from a parallel thread;
"I consider the Progressive era and it's reforms the time this country matured into an admirable 1st world nation, and abhor the aggressive overt and covert tearing away of the checks and balances and protections that were achieved and established then by forces I associate with the Conservative movement and lately the Tea Party in order to IMO return the country to a pre-Progressive era 19th Century industrial feudal State."

Yeah, pay a fine that turns out to be a small fraction of the amount you stole.

"What?? You stole $3 billion??? You naughty, naughty bankster! Well, we'll show you! What about a $200 million fine, eh? Eh?! How'd you like that?"

John

Sounds like a pretty good incentive to me. Work for it and we'll tax you a billion, but if you steal it, we'll only fine you 20% of what your tax bill would have been.

If we can't have both, then I guess we're screwed, because we already have the latter.

Legally, you owe the taxes too. Hence the imprisonment of Al Capone. Though I doubt the taxman gets what he should from crooks, generally....

I am pretty sure "legally" is a pretty suspect term in this arena.

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:

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m...ps997fc47e.png

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

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

Hey thats the best post I have seen from you. However you didn't mention some things so I'll add.

So basically BS based on assumptions:eek:

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

Yes Dave, that is precisely what I meant.

Thought so.

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

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

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.

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.

We chose to invest our money in equity instruments and not only did we expect a return, we have had a quite nice return. I'm long past running my ass into the ground building a business.

So I hope this doesn't mean that anybody is assuming that we are in any way ultra-rich or that we are weaseling out of paying whatever taxes we are exposed to. Which is the expectation with most equity investors in this country.

And, THERE it is!!! Bravo, Old Boy!!!!

And, when those dying of thirst finally get tired of waiting for his better nature to shine through.....................

I'm just sayin'.

Dave

I have investments too, Ike. But, I'm one hell of a long way from rubbing elbows with Ann and Mitt. And, I suspect you are too.

Dave

See, that is the Achilles heel of "trickle Down" economics. In theory, it looks great. You allow people to accrue as much wealth as they can, they create businesses, expand them, hire workers, pay fair wages and voila! Prosperity for all!!! Yippee!!!!

Sounds great, right?

Except.....

What do you do when they start refusing to follow through? They make their money, then decide they don't need us anymore. They either refuse to create any jobs here, or they do, but not unless they alone get to decide what fair wage is......and their idea of a fair wage does nothing to enable workers to become viable consumers. And, they start using their position to demand deregulation that further reduces the rewards of work; for example the minimum wage, union membership, overtime, etc., etc., etc.........and whatever else.

Then start insisting on cuts to unemployment and the social safety net so that disenfranchised workers become more desperate, more quickly and therefore become willing to return to work for less?

Ummm...Let me know when any of this starts to sound familiar.

Dave

trickle down economics = piss on economics

Ahhhh, yes. That warm and gentle yellow rain drifting down the currents of air flowing through the canyons of steel and glass ain't manna from heaven, you can bet your sweet bippy on that.

Tinkle down economics, actually.

http://foreseeblog.com/wp-content/up...012/07/bam.png

I've got mine, piss on you!

Bob are you a Union shop yet? Did you incorporate yet so lawsuits don't wipe you out?

See how they think about you Icky Banana

Go spin up some Ted Nugent and zone out, dude.:rolleyes:

I think one of your customers is calling from the bath house. He needs you to mount some sconces on either side of the rack in his dungeon. Better run along toady boy.............:p

Dave

You all are heavy in the trolling today.

I thought it was well written.

Dae

I got a chuckle. :D

How who thinks about me? You think BAM! had something to do with my investment choices? Last time I checked lousy reading comprehension had nothing to do with dyslexia.