butt pat
That is really dumb. You take ten dollars from millions of people and give it to the rich and they suddenly get much richer.The idea that they never had it is wrong. They have something. but you can still take a bit of it away.
The trillions of dollars in the financial fiasco was a few hundred or thousand for every person who got a mortgage. It added up to huge salaries and bonuses for the originators. The process created multi-millionaires.
So, the system works! Sure, the rest of us got boned, but they still got theirs, didn’t they? And they’ll get to keep it, pretty much, won’t they? Risk taking and entrepreneurship, what makes America…what it is.
Sorry. I had gathered that SA felt you *did *get the point. But if you missed it as well - High five to Robot Arm.
Yeah, well, you’ll be singing a different song just as soon as he gets back from the really important stuff he’s doing. Just you wait. Any minute now.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28418678/the_death_tax_scam/1 There are people who argue against the estate tax. People who get no benefit from it at all. Yet some extremely wealthy people have pangs about the miserable distribution of wealth that exists in America today. When it was approx. the same in the 1920s or so, the government passed tax laws to keep from generating incredibly wealthy families that could just pass on power and money indefinitely. It seemed to be un-American to allow it to continue. Now a few generations of wailing by the poor disadvantaged wealthy classes has gotten traction from the very people who will have to pick up the slack as the rich exempt more and more of their wealth. How the hell people can think the wealthy should continue to get special tax treatment beats me. Does the average man really think he will be so rich that the estate tax will garner his descendants an advantage? What fools we are.
luci, luci, luci, how you do go on. I merely said your posts were off the mark of what I was talking about. You were attempting to refute my arguments about apples by arguing the taste of oranges.
Unfortunately, I’ve been rather busy the last couple of days and just haven’t been doing much in the way of posting, and now I find that, given that the thread has virtually played out and I’d have to arse myself to go back and refamiliarize myself with your post, and that my passion for arguing in this thread has frankly waned, I may or may not return to point out where apples and oranges meet.
But seeing as how you guys are so eagerly awaiting my return, I’d thought I’d stop in for a moment to let you know what’s going on and why I haven’t returned, and to correct your, ahem, apparent misunderstanding of what I said I’d do when I return.
[Apologies for not reading the thread] It’s because they think they’ll be rich one day and they don’t want anyone else’s grubby paws on all their millions. This concept is what allows capitalism to work. And I’m ok with that-- some of us don’t mind our fellow citizens’ grubby paws as much.
Search term: Starving Artist. Parameter: last 2 days Result: 15 posts
You’ve been seeing other threads, haven’t you? That’s what you’re so “busy” about. Oh, sure, lots of sweet talk and promises about what you’re just about to do, but some other, younger thread sashays by, and you’re gone…
Those were just quickies. They didn’t mean anything. I promise!
Well, I’m curious to hear your response to my post, which was the one you said you were going to respond to in the first place. I await it patiently.
Your last paragraph is about the financial experts with Ivy League degrees who caused the financial meltdown isn’t it ? It certainly applies. They only wanted a trillion in taxpayer money to bail them out. They are of course amongst our most conservative people too. Do you resent them?
So, anyone with over $80,000 a year is a mortgate scamster taking advantage of an openly redistributive law that inflated the mortgage bubble?
Blaming the CRA again?
Explain why areas which never saw the impact of the CRA were in the bubble. Your own cite says “consistent with safe and sound operation.” Explain why mortgage brokers, like Countrywide, which were not covered by the CRA wrote subprimes anyway. Explain why the unnaturally low interest rates set by that Objectivist darling Greenspan had nothing to do with it. Explain why the CRA somehow forgot to cause a bubble for the first 25 years or so of its existence.
Now, by encouraging demand the CRA did inflate the bubble - just about the amount a mosquito would inflate a balloon relative to an air pump.
The trickle-down theory has been around a long, long time and there’s some truth to it. The more the rich have the more they will spend (not all will, but enough), and the more they spend the more work they indirectly provide for others.
Alexander Pope’s Epistle to Burlington, 1731, puts it succinctly, when he imagines spending a day at the villa of the extravagant Timon (based on the Duke of Chandos).
And the unintentionally charitable vanity of the rich still passes on its benefits to those lower down the economic scale.
And, as one Democrat senator commented recently,“Tax cuts for the rich aren’t popular with my constituents. They plan to be rich themselves one day. It’s the American way.”
Who said that? That doesn’t even make any sense. If they plan to be rich someday, wouldn’t they *want *tax cuts for the rich?
Personaly I like the description of trickle down economy from the TV series Dinosaurs. Rich people usually live in the hills, poor in the valley, so let’s stuff the richmen pockets to such a point that loose change may fall off and roll downhill towards the poor.
What do you think poor people do with their money? They either spend it- which is no different than rich people spending it- or stick it in the bank, in which case it increases the money supply in the form of loans.
The only time that anyone’s money doesn’t indirectly provide jobs for others is when they stick in under a mattress, a practice limited neither to the rich nor the poor, but to children of the Depression of all income levels.
Is there anyone dense enough to look at our surrent situation and think the problem is that we don’t have enough industrial capacity or enough capital available for expansion? Really?
Our current problem is that we don’t have enough demand. We have tons of excess capacity and an idle work force ready to produce items, but we don’t have sufficient demand.
No matter what persuasion an economist is, they would all agree that the less well off spend a greater proportion of their income than the wealthy do. Lowering the taxes on the less well off, increasing the minimum wage, or increasing taxes on the wealthy and spending it, will all increase demand.
Right now we have a huge portion of our Federal budget going to service the debt that the conservatives created while cutting tax rates and increasing spending. Much of the interest paid goes overseas where it does nothing to stimulate the US economy.
Escape Artist - International Strategies For The Globally Minded Here is one thing they can do. They hide it in foreign banks to avoid paying taxes on it. One address in the Caymans has 12,000 people using it. It is a lot bigger than you think .