comment by baz ta’rd (U19119)
posted 3 hours, 13 minutes ago
think Warren beats Trump if the Russian collusion thing is true. Big if though. She has too many knocks against her at the moment and is too far left. It's easy to prey on her from Trump's perspective.
—
If that is true then trump won’t get to run.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is why I said that lol
She's ripe for the pickings for someone like Trump.
@thebluebellsareblue
People are getting turned off by the socialism thing. If any of these far left or socialist candidates are even on the ballot, the Republicans game plan is probably going involve spamming the unrest that's going on in Venezuela.
Dems are all about identity politics and the feel good factor. Robert O'Rourke, or Beto since he wants to sound all authentic to the Hispanic population is your feel good factor who ran on the same positions as Bernie Sanders. I think he's more likable than other candidates but isn't experienced enough AND can dish but can't take the hits.
So y'all heard about Cortez now. Yeah her new Green New Deal is laughable and people on both sides of the aisle are distancing themselves from it. Nice to know her plans of eradicating cow farts into our atmosphere
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Dave NotSo (U11711)
posted 3 hours ago
Freedom, AOC's taxation proposal is popular among both left and right of the political spectrum. Fox even ran polls that showed her suggestions are clearly popular in well over 50 % of the right.
Your country NEEDS more socialism. You already rely on plenty of socialist policies, but many folks get conned into believing that socialism is the devil. A terrified nation that is played on by fear.
When a sensible policy is laid out, many agree with it. Your country needs it for many reasons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which European country did the super tax thing again? Wasn’t it France? How did that work out for them?
Let’s see how many billionaires move out the country over this tax proposals. If I were in the .5%, I’m getting the fack out. I will not have the government take all the hard earned dime I worked for over some random inequality nonsense. Some of the money goes into super PACs too so that kitty is going to be a lot lighter than before. When this trickles down and the lawmakers pockets get lighter, they will oppose this.
To the general public this might be popular since we’re getting lazier by the year and want more free stuff. Highly doubt this has a majority in either houses.
We don’t need more socialism. I’ve seen what it’s done to other countries. Pass.
Agree with your last paragraph. AOC’s plans are not sensible nor possible so that draft should go into the bin.
And that guy in Maryland shot up the newspaper place because he lost a defamation suit against them not because of political motives. He’s just nuts. That’s not really politics related.
comment by Freedom FC 🇺🇸 (U7214)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Dave NotSo (U11711)
posted 3 hours ago
Freedom, AOC's taxation proposal is popular among both left and right of the political spectrum. Fox even ran polls that showed her suggestions are clearly popular in well over 50 % of the right.
Your country NEEDS more socialism. You already rely on plenty of socialist policies, but many folks get conned into believing that socialism is the devil. A terrified nation that is played on by fear.
When a sensible policy is laid out, many agree with it. Your country needs it for many reasons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which European country did the super tax thing again? Wasn’t it France? How did that work out for them?
Let’s see how many billionaires move out the country over this tax proposals. If I were in the .5%, I’m getting the fack out. I will not have the government take all the hard earned dime I worked for over some random inequality nonsense. Some of the money goes into super PACs too so that kitty is going to be a lot lighter than before. When this trickles down and the lawmakers pockets get lighter, they will oppose this.
To the general public this might be popular since we’re getting lazier by the year and want more free stuff. Highly doubt this has a majority in either houses.
We don’t need more socialism. I’ve seen what it’s done to other countries. Pass.
Agree with your last paragraph. AOC’s plans are not sensible nor possible so that draft should go into the bin.
And that guy in Maryland shot up the newspaper place because he lost a defamation suit against them not because of political motives. He’s just nuts. That’s not really politics related.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
some extreme indoctrination here.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Dave NotSo (U11711)
posted 17 minutes ago
How did it work out for America? Fecking spectacularly! Under more extreme tax rates to what AOC is proposing the US became and cemented their position as the unequivocal superpower of the world.
Of course there are other factors, but it certainly helped.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's nuts how this sensible approach has been written out of history and turned into the boogeyman (often parroted by the people it would have helped most )
The American dream has morphed into: accept abuse, treat everyone "above you" like a gaawwd and maybe one day you'll be rich and powerful enough to treat everyone below you like shiiit.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by thebluebellsareblue (U9292)
posted 13 hours, 17 minutes ago
Freedom
Several female dems are putting their nsmes forward to challenge, but it appears the bloke who ran Ted Cruz close in Texas is the charasmatic choice.....And i even hear the Hilary camp are contemplating a rematch👿
What about Mr Saunders....the Socialist and..non-democrat up against Donald, the non-republican?
New Yorks Cortez has helped make socialism more acceptable and she is clued in...On getting backing from Corbyn she was informed of anti semitism on his watch, and kindly declined his advances, emphasizing the nee d for no racism or antisemitism in politics!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If there is no room for racism in politics, who should she work with at the top level?
Dave
There are a whole host of reasons why it's better for *everyone*, including high earners and corporations, to employ a higher top rate of income tax. The majority of macroeconomists agree that the US's top rate should be somewhere between 70 and 73 per cent, all things considered.
You are right that I have written about this before. I'm not sure I have the energy or inclination to do again in depth right now.
But I think your are referring primarily to the benefits seen in redistribution of marginal utility of consumption, so I'll touch quickly on that.
Very basically, proportionately, rich people don't spend a lot of their money. They don't invest it in new ventures, R&D, the means of production or other areas likely to directly or indirectly influence output. They also don't otherwise recirculate their wealth (and economists know that circulation of as much capital as possible is critical for a healthy economy).
When they do spend it, large chunks of it often end up being pointed at economically relatively unproductive endeavours - real estate, bankrolling lawyers, financiers, etc. - funding industries that do relatively little for the economy.
(I'll post a link on this last point because a lot of people don't realise that there are much better and much, much worse ways to spend money, as far as fuelling the economy goes. Conversely, few are surprised to learn that spending money on lawyers is about the most unproductive way you can choose to empty your wallet )
The lower and middle classes, on the other hand, are absolute experts at spending money.
They hand over just about all of their monthly income as soon as they have it, and they spend it in areas most likely to deliver development, job creation, increased productivity and growth.
Through their spending, they also deliver a huge amount of GST (and other such regressive taxes) to the state and federal purses by proportion of their wages.
They are the real drivers of the economy, not the billionaires. And the economy is likely to prosper the more money, and the higher proportion of personal income, they have to spend.
One thing that *just about all* macroeconomists agree on is that trickle down is dead. From an economic standpoint, it's a (very badly) failed experiment. And it is now a myth, at best.
Contemporary proponents of trickle down economics either aren't listening to economists, or they are more interested in ideology than the economy.
comment by Freedom FC 🇺🇸 (U7214)
posted 5 hours, 41 minutes ago
comment by Dave NotSo (U11711)
posted 3 hours ago
Freedom, AOC's taxation proposal is popular among both left and right of the political spectrum. Fox even ran polls that showed her suggestions are clearly popular in well over 50 % of the right.
Your country NEEDS more socialism. You already rely on plenty of socialist policies, but many folks get conned into believing that socialism is the devil. A terrified nation that is played on by fear.
When a sensible policy is laid out, many agree with it. Your country needs it for many reasons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which European country did the super tax thing again? Wasn’t it France? How did that work out for them?
Let’s see how many billionaires move out the country over this tax proposals. If I were in the .5%, I’m getting the fack out. I will not have the government take all the hard earned dime I worked for over some random inequality nonsense. Some of the money goes into super PACs too so that kitty is going to be a lot lighter than before. When this trickles down and the lawmakers pockets get lighter, they will oppose this.
To the general public this might be popular since we’re getting lazier by the year and want more free stuff. Highly doubt this has a majority in either houses.
We don’t need more socialism. I’ve seen what it’s done to other countries. Pass.
Agree with your last paragraph. AOC’s plans are not sensible nor possible so that draft should go into the bin.
And that guy in Maryland shot up the newspaper place because he lost a defamation suit against them not because of political motives. He’s just nuts. That’s not really politics related.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the issue, I'm a business owner myself trying to make it on my own, I've never claimed benefit, I lived totally off my savings and money earned.
I've sacrificed going on holidays, eating in nice restaurants, sometimes I only have £10 to last me 2 weeks.
These are the sacrifices that most rich people have gone through, no one sees the hard work or sacrifices they've put in just the wealth.
If I were ever taxed that much, I would definitely leave the US. We need less government control not more of it, socialism stops innovation, creativity and just makes people lazy to find solutions for problems.
You might be surprised to learn, then, that Roosevelt's Revenue Act that introduced the 94% tax rate didn't result in the US haemorrhaging multimillionaires.
They stayed, paid their taxes, and helped build the strongest economic powerhouse the world had seen since the days of the Roman Empire.
"These are the sacrifices that most rich people have gone through, no one sees the hard work or sacrifices they've put in just the wealth. "
----------------------------
PP well done on giving it a go. But don't kid yourself that the majority of rich people got rich through hard work. For most it's generally the inverse that is true, having access to money is the key driver towards success.
I've no idea what you do...but Imagine two PR companies set up, one gets 200k from daddy, so gets plush central offices, nice furniture, iMac's , iPads, and pays to get promotional videos done, branding commissioned etc.
The other person has to pay a mortgage, design own cards and branding, use a cheap windows laptop, hire a small office in an industrial estate etc.
If you were a betting person, who is likely to succeed out the two of those?
It's rotten but definitely a false narrative the rich and successful like to spin. There are exceptions obviously.
My richest friend is probably worth about 90m, but it was his parents who helped pay for his Harvard MBA which opened lots and lots of doors.
My other mate probably has 15-20m and just happened to be chatting to a CEO at an investment firm, when Tories lost an election and he said "f labour" and got a fund managers gig, from that was able to use a 4m bonus and his contacts to get 200m to invest from some capital company and set up his own funds.
Freedom
I agree with your analysis of dems being into identity politics too heavily...this only creates more tension as Trump plays on similar prejudices from his base.Hence why America makes my little NI look calm and collected?
I thought the left and socialism was less of a dirty word, but Donald named them as enemies of America and folk listen.The state of Venezuela and Castro legacy is not good for the far left....even if Sinn Fein and Corbyn back the leftist regimes and leaders.
Then again backing right wing juntas is not wise either.
Not sure who I would vote for in America or GB.
Bad enough choosing between Dup and SF here.
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 17 minutes ago
"These are the sacrifices that most rich people have gone through, no one sees the hard work or sacrifices they've put in just the wealth. "
----------------------------
PP well done on giving it a go. But don't kid yourself that the majority of rich people got rich through hard work. For most it's generally the inverse that is true, having access to money is the key driver towards success.
I've no idea what you do...but Imagine two PR companies set up, one gets 200k from daddy, so gets plush central offices, nice furniture, iMac's , iPads, and pays to get promotional videos done, branding commissioned etc.
The other person has to pay a mortgage, design own cards and branding, use a cheap windows laptop, hire a small office in an industrial estate etc.
If you were a betting person, who is likely to succeed out the two of those?
It's rotten but definitely a false narrative the rich and successful like to spin. There are exceptions obviously.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
both can succeed but it would be easier for the 1st to survive for the money they got through their parents.
But don't be deceived yourself not every rich person is like that.
Especially in the new age of the internet.
I thought the left and socialism was less of a dirty word, but Donald named them as enemies of America and folk listen
----------------
Tbbab..
It's amazing, how millions of impoverished Americans fear having the wealth they don't yet have taxed.
It's how pervasive the idea of the American dream really is. One story about a guy who shined shoes and cleaned toilets and went on to become a billionaire and folk lap it up.
For every one of them there is thousands of the guy with two jobs who slips on ice, breaks a leg, loses his jobs ends out with $12,000 medical bill, can't pay his rent and ends up on the streets.
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 6 minutes ago
I thought the left and socialism was less of a dirty word, but Donald named them as enemies of America and folk listen
----------------
Tbbab..
It's amazing, how millions of impoverished Americans fear having the wealth they don't yet have taxed.
It's how pervasive the idea of the American dream really is. One story about a guy who shined shoes and cleaned toilets and went on to become a billionaire and folk lap it up.
For every one of them there is thousands of the guy with two jobs who slips on ice, breaks a leg, loses his jobs ends out with $12,000 medical bill, can't pay his rent and ends up on the streets.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. The current notion of the "American dream" is poisonous
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Dave NotSo (U11711)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by rosso is facking happy(U17054)
posted 1 hour, 53 minutes ago
Dave
There are a whole host of reasons why it's better for *everyone*, including high earners and corporations, to employ a higher top rate of income tax. The majority of macroeconomists agree that the US's top rate should be somewhere between 70 and 73 per cent, all things considered.
You are right that I have written about this before. I'm not sure I have the energy or inclination to do again in depth right now.
But I think your are referring primarily to the benefits seen in redistribution of marginal utility of consumption, so I'll touch quickly on that.
Very basically, proportionately, rich people don't spend a lot of their money. They don't invest it in new ventures, R&D, the means of production or other areas likely to directly or indirectly influence output. They also don't otherwise recirculate their wealth (and economists know that circulation of as much capital as possible is critical for a healthy economy).
When they do spend it, large chunks of it often end up being pointed at economically relatively unproductive endeavours - real estate, bankrolling lawyers, financiers, etc. - funding industries that do relatively little for the economy.
(I'll post a link on this last point because a lot of people don't realise that there are much better and much, much worse ways to spend money, as far as fuelling the economy goes. Conversely, few are surprised to learn that spending money on lawyers is about the most unproductive way you can choose to empty your wallet)
The lower and middle classes, on the other hand, are absolute experts at spending money.
They hand over just about all of their monthly income as soon as they have it, and they spend it in areas most likely to deliver development, job creation, increased productivity and growth.
Through their spending, they also deliver a huge amount of GST (and other such regressive taxes) to the state and federal purses by proportion of their wages.
They are the real drivers of the economy, not the billionaires. And the economy is likely to prosper the more money, and the higher proportion of personal income, they have to spend.
One thing that *just about all* macroeconomists agree on is that trickle down is dead. From an economic standpoint, it's a (very badly) failed experiment. And it is now a myth, at best.
Contemporary proponents of trickle down economics either aren't listening to economists, or they are more interested in ideology than the economy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's what I was thinking about Rosso.
Sorry for putting you on the spot to type some of it out all over again, but it's truly worth it.
Thank you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosso is an absolute beast when it comes to this stuff
Not sure why you included me originally though Dave, you're infinitely more eloquent and read up than I'll ever be
No, no, no, no, no! I'm no expert.
It's amazing what you can learn if you dedicate a little time to listening to people leading in their fields and researching the basic facts, rather than listening to populist propaganda and political spin coming from either end of the spectrum though.
The fact is that those economic and political strategists, commentators and actors on the left *and* the right know - or at least have reams and reams of incontrovertible evidence at their fingertips - that a healthy economy is positively driven by the enrichment of the working and middle classes and positively curbed by the enrichment of the already moneyed. There isn't an argument anymore.
Quite simply, this is one of those areas that should transcend party politics and see policy written and legislation acted based on the evidence.
Learned patriots pay taxes, and they should actually champion the redistribution of wealth.
Sign in if you want to comment
Anything Goes Politics Edition
Page 260 of 274
261 | 262 | 263 | 264 | 265
posted on 12/2/19
comment by baz ta’rd (U19119)
posted 3 hours, 13 minutes ago
think Warren beats Trump if the Russian collusion thing is true. Big if though. She has too many knocks against her at the moment and is too far left. It's easy to prey on her from Trump's perspective.
—
If that is true then trump won’t get to run.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is why I said that lol
She's ripe for the pickings for someone like Trump.
posted on 12/2/19
@thebluebellsareblue
People are getting turned off by the socialism thing. If any of these far left or socialist candidates are even on the ballot, the Republicans game plan is probably going involve spamming the unrest that's going on in Venezuela.
Dems are all about identity politics and the feel good factor. Robert O'Rourke, or Beto since he wants to sound all authentic to the Hispanic population is your feel good factor who ran on the same positions as Bernie Sanders. I think he's more likable than other candidates but isn't experienced enough AND can dish but can't take the hits.
So y'all heard about Cortez now. Yeah her new Green New Deal is laughable and people on both sides of the aisle are distancing themselves from it. Nice to know her plans of eradicating cow farts into our atmosphere
posted on 13/2/19
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 13/2/19
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 13/2/19
comment by Dave NotSo (U11711)
posted 3 hours ago
Freedom, AOC's taxation proposal is popular among both left and right of the political spectrum. Fox even ran polls that showed her suggestions are clearly popular in well over 50 % of the right.
Your country NEEDS more socialism. You already rely on plenty of socialist policies, but many folks get conned into believing that socialism is the devil. A terrified nation that is played on by fear.
When a sensible policy is laid out, many agree with it. Your country needs it for many reasons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which European country did the super tax thing again? Wasn’t it France? How did that work out for them?
Let’s see how many billionaires move out the country over this tax proposals. If I were in the .5%, I’m getting the fack out. I will not have the government take all the hard earned dime I worked for over some random inequality nonsense. Some of the money goes into super PACs too so that kitty is going to be a lot lighter than before. When this trickles down and the lawmakers pockets get lighter, they will oppose this.
To the general public this might be popular since we’re getting lazier by the year and want more free stuff. Highly doubt this has a majority in either houses.
We don’t need more socialism. I’ve seen what it’s done to other countries. Pass.
Agree with your last paragraph. AOC’s plans are not sensible nor possible so that draft should go into the bin.
And that guy in Maryland shot up the newspaper place because he lost a defamation suit against them not because of political motives. He’s just nuts. That’s not really politics related.
posted on 13/2/19
comment by Freedom FC 🇺🇸 (U7214)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Dave NotSo (U11711)
posted 3 hours ago
Freedom, AOC's taxation proposal is popular among both left and right of the political spectrum. Fox even ran polls that showed her suggestions are clearly popular in well over 50 % of the right.
Your country NEEDS more socialism. You already rely on plenty of socialist policies, but many folks get conned into believing that socialism is the devil. A terrified nation that is played on by fear.
When a sensible policy is laid out, many agree with it. Your country needs it for many reasons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which European country did the super tax thing again? Wasn’t it France? How did that work out for them?
Let’s see how many billionaires move out the country over this tax proposals. If I were in the .5%, I’m getting the fack out. I will not have the government take all the hard earned dime I worked for over some random inequality nonsense. Some of the money goes into super PACs too so that kitty is going to be a lot lighter than before. When this trickles down and the lawmakers pockets get lighter, they will oppose this.
To the general public this might be popular since we’re getting lazier by the year and want more free stuff. Highly doubt this has a majority in either houses.
We don’t need more socialism. I’ve seen what it’s done to other countries. Pass.
Agree with your last paragraph. AOC’s plans are not sensible nor possible so that draft should go into the bin.
And that guy in Maryland shot up the newspaper place because he lost a defamation suit against them not because of political motives. He’s just nuts. That’s not really politics related.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
some extreme indoctrination here.
posted on 13/2/19
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 13/2/19
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 13/2/19
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 13/2/19
comment by Dave NotSo (U11711)
posted 17 minutes ago
How did it work out for America? Fecking spectacularly! Under more extreme tax rates to what AOC is proposing the US became and cemented their position as the unequivocal superpower of the world.
Of course there are other factors, but it certainly helped.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's nuts how this sensible approach has been written out of history and turned into the boogeyman (often parroted by the people it would have helped most )
The American dream has morphed into: accept abuse, treat everyone "above you" like a gaawwd and maybe one day you'll be rich and powerful enough to treat everyone below you like shiiit.
posted on 13/2/19
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 13/2/19
comment by thebluebellsareblue (U9292)
posted 13 hours, 17 minutes ago
Freedom
Several female dems are putting their nsmes forward to challenge, but it appears the bloke who ran Ted Cruz close in Texas is the charasmatic choice.....And i even hear the Hilary camp are contemplating a rematch👿
What about Mr Saunders....the Socialist and..non-democrat up against Donald, the non-republican?
New Yorks Cortez has helped make socialism more acceptable and she is clued in...On getting backing from Corbyn she was informed of anti semitism on his watch, and kindly declined his advances, emphasizing the nee d for no racism or antisemitism in politics!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If there is no room for racism in politics, who should she work with at the top level?
posted on 13/2/19
Dave
There are a whole host of reasons why it's better for *everyone*, including high earners and corporations, to employ a higher top rate of income tax. The majority of macroeconomists agree that the US's top rate should be somewhere between 70 and 73 per cent, all things considered.
You are right that I have written about this before. I'm not sure I have the energy or inclination to do again in depth right now.
But I think your are referring primarily to the benefits seen in redistribution of marginal utility of consumption, so I'll touch quickly on that.
Very basically, proportionately, rich people don't spend a lot of their money. They don't invest it in new ventures, R&D, the means of production or other areas likely to directly or indirectly influence output. They also don't otherwise recirculate their wealth (and economists know that circulation of as much capital as possible is critical for a healthy economy).
When they do spend it, large chunks of it often end up being pointed at economically relatively unproductive endeavours - real estate, bankrolling lawyers, financiers, etc. - funding industries that do relatively little for the economy.
(I'll post a link on this last point because a lot of people don't realise that there are much better and much, much worse ways to spend money, as far as fuelling the economy goes. Conversely, few are surprised to learn that spending money on lawyers is about the most unproductive way you can choose to empty your wallet )
The lower and middle classes, on the other hand, are absolute experts at spending money.
They hand over just about all of their monthly income as soon as they have it, and they spend it in areas most likely to deliver development, job creation, increased productivity and growth.
Through their spending, they also deliver a huge amount of GST (and other such regressive taxes) to the state and federal purses by proportion of their wages.
They are the real drivers of the economy, not the billionaires. And the economy is likely to prosper the more money, and the higher proportion of personal income, they have to spend.
One thing that *just about all* macroeconomists agree on is that trickle down is dead. From an economic standpoint, it's a (very badly) failed experiment. And it is now a myth, at best.
Contemporary proponents of trickle down economics either aren't listening to economists, or they are more interested in ideology than the economy.
posted on 13/2/19
comment by Freedom FC 🇺🇸 (U7214)
posted 5 hours, 41 minutes ago
comment by Dave NotSo (U11711)
posted 3 hours ago
Freedom, AOC's taxation proposal is popular among both left and right of the political spectrum. Fox even ran polls that showed her suggestions are clearly popular in well over 50 % of the right.
Your country NEEDS more socialism. You already rely on plenty of socialist policies, but many folks get conned into believing that socialism is the devil. A terrified nation that is played on by fear.
When a sensible policy is laid out, many agree with it. Your country needs it for many reasons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which European country did the super tax thing again? Wasn’t it France? How did that work out for them?
Let’s see how many billionaires move out the country over this tax proposals. If I were in the .5%, I’m getting the fack out. I will not have the government take all the hard earned dime I worked for over some random inequality nonsense. Some of the money goes into super PACs too so that kitty is going to be a lot lighter than before. When this trickles down and the lawmakers pockets get lighter, they will oppose this.
To the general public this might be popular since we’re getting lazier by the year and want more free stuff. Highly doubt this has a majority in either houses.
We don’t need more socialism. I’ve seen what it’s done to other countries. Pass.
Agree with your last paragraph. AOC’s plans are not sensible nor possible so that draft should go into the bin.
And that guy in Maryland shot up the newspaper place because he lost a defamation suit against them not because of political motives. He’s just nuts. That’s not really politics related.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the issue, I'm a business owner myself trying to make it on my own, I've never claimed benefit, I lived totally off my savings and money earned.
I've sacrificed going on holidays, eating in nice restaurants, sometimes I only have £10 to last me 2 weeks.
These are the sacrifices that most rich people have gone through, no one sees the hard work or sacrifices they've put in just the wealth.
If I were ever taxed that much, I would definitely leave the US. We need less government control not more of it, socialism stops innovation, creativity and just makes people lazy to find solutions for problems.
posted on 13/2/19
You might be surprised to learn, then, that Roosevelt's Revenue Act that introduced the 94% tax rate didn't result in the US haemorrhaging multimillionaires.
They stayed, paid their taxes, and helped build the strongest economic powerhouse the world had seen since the days of the Roman Empire.
posted on 13/2/19
"These are the sacrifices that most rich people have gone through, no one sees the hard work or sacrifices they've put in just the wealth. "
----------------------------
PP well done on giving it a go. But don't kid yourself that the majority of rich people got rich through hard work. For most it's generally the inverse that is true, having access to money is the key driver towards success.
I've no idea what you do...but Imagine two PR companies set up, one gets 200k from daddy, so gets plush central offices, nice furniture, iMac's , iPads, and pays to get promotional videos done, branding commissioned etc.
The other person has to pay a mortgage, design own cards and branding, use a cheap windows laptop, hire a small office in an industrial estate etc.
If you were a betting person, who is likely to succeed out the two of those?
It's rotten but definitely a false narrative the rich and successful like to spin. There are exceptions obviously.
posted on 13/2/19
My richest friend is probably worth about 90m, but it was his parents who helped pay for his Harvard MBA which opened lots and lots of doors.
My other mate probably has 15-20m and just happened to be chatting to a CEO at an investment firm, when Tories lost an election and he said "f labour" and got a fund managers gig, from that was able to use a 4m bonus and his contacts to get 200m to invest from some capital company and set up his own funds.
posted on 13/2/19
Freedom
I agree with your analysis of dems being into identity politics too heavily...this only creates more tension as Trump plays on similar prejudices from his base.Hence why America makes my little NI look calm and collected?
I thought the left and socialism was less of a dirty word, but Donald named them as enemies of America and folk listen.The state of Venezuela and Castro legacy is not good for the far left....even if Sinn Fein and Corbyn back the leftist regimes and leaders.
Then again backing right wing juntas is not wise either.
Not sure who I would vote for in America or GB.
Bad enough choosing between Dup and SF here.
posted on 13/2/19
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 17 minutes ago
"These are the sacrifices that most rich people have gone through, no one sees the hard work or sacrifices they've put in just the wealth. "
----------------------------
PP well done on giving it a go. But don't kid yourself that the majority of rich people got rich through hard work. For most it's generally the inverse that is true, having access to money is the key driver towards success.
I've no idea what you do...but Imagine two PR companies set up, one gets 200k from daddy, so gets plush central offices, nice furniture, iMac's , iPads, and pays to get promotional videos done, branding commissioned etc.
The other person has to pay a mortgage, design own cards and branding, use a cheap windows laptop, hire a small office in an industrial estate etc.
If you were a betting person, who is likely to succeed out the two of those?
It's rotten but definitely a false narrative the rich and successful like to spin. There are exceptions obviously.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
both can succeed but it would be easier for the 1st to survive for the money they got through their parents.
But don't be deceived yourself not every rich person is like that.
Especially in the new age of the internet.
posted on 13/2/19
I thought the left and socialism was less of a dirty word, but Donald named them as enemies of America and folk listen
----------------
Tbbab..
It's amazing, how millions of impoverished Americans fear having the wealth they don't yet have taxed.
It's how pervasive the idea of the American dream really is. One story about a guy who shined shoes and cleaned toilets and went on to become a billionaire and folk lap it up.
For every one of them there is thousands of the guy with two jobs who slips on ice, breaks a leg, loses his jobs ends out with $12,000 medical bill, can't pay his rent and ends up on the streets.
posted on 13/2/19
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 6 minutes ago
I thought the left and socialism was less of a dirty word, but Donald named them as enemies of America and folk listen
----------------
Tbbab..
It's amazing, how millions of impoverished Americans fear having the wealth they don't yet have taxed.
It's how pervasive the idea of the American dream really is. One story about a guy who shined shoes and cleaned toilets and went on to become a billionaire and folk lap it up.
For every one of them there is thousands of the guy with two jobs who slips on ice, breaks a leg, loses his jobs ends out with $12,000 medical bill, can't pay his rent and ends up on the streets.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. The current notion of the "American dream" is poisonous
posted on 13/2/19
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 13/2/19
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 13/2/19
comment by Dave NotSo (U11711)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by rosso is facking happy(U17054)
posted 1 hour, 53 minutes ago
Dave
There are a whole host of reasons why it's better for *everyone*, including high earners and corporations, to employ a higher top rate of income tax. The majority of macroeconomists agree that the US's top rate should be somewhere between 70 and 73 per cent, all things considered.
You are right that I have written about this before. I'm not sure I have the energy or inclination to do again in depth right now.
But I think your are referring primarily to the benefits seen in redistribution of marginal utility of consumption, so I'll touch quickly on that.
Very basically, proportionately, rich people don't spend a lot of their money. They don't invest it in new ventures, R&D, the means of production or other areas likely to directly or indirectly influence output. They also don't otherwise recirculate their wealth (and economists know that circulation of as much capital as possible is critical for a healthy economy).
When they do spend it, large chunks of it often end up being pointed at economically relatively unproductive endeavours - real estate, bankrolling lawyers, financiers, etc. - funding industries that do relatively little for the economy.
(I'll post a link on this last point because a lot of people don't realise that there are much better and much, much worse ways to spend money, as far as fuelling the economy goes. Conversely, few are surprised to learn that spending money on lawyers is about the most unproductive way you can choose to empty your wallet)
The lower and middle classes, on the other hand, are absolute experts at spending money.
They hand over just about all of their monthly income as soon as they have it, and they spend it in areas most likely to deliver development, job creation, increased productivity and growth.
Through their spending, they also deliver a huge amount of GST (and other such regressive taxes) to the state and federal purses by proportion of their wages.
They are the real drivers of the economy, not the billionaires. And the economy is likely to prosper the more money, and the higher proportion of personal income, they have to spend.
One thing that *just about all* macroeconomists agree on is that trickle down is dead. From an economic standpoint, it's a (very badly) failed experiment. And it is now a myth, at best.
Contemporary proponents of trickle down economics either aren't listening to economists, or they are more interested in ideology than the economy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's what I was thinking about Rosso.
Sorry for putting you on the spot to type some of it out all over again, but it's truly worth it.
Thank you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosso is an absolute beast when it comes to this stuff
Not sure why you included me originally though Dave, you're infinitely more eloquent and read up than I'll ever be
posted on 13/2/19
No, no, no, no, no! I'm no expert.
It's amazing what you can learn if you dedicate a little time to listening to people leading in their fields and researching the basic facts, rather than listening to populist propaganda and political spin coming from either end of the spectrum though.
The fact is that those economic and political strategists, commentators and actors on the left *and* the right know - or at least have reams and reams of incontrovertible evidence at their fingertips - that a healthy economy is positively driven by the enrichment of the working and middle classes and positively curbed by the enrichment of the already moneyed. There isn't an argument anymore.
Quite simply, this is one of those areas that should transcend party politics and see policy written and legislation acted based on the evidence.
Learned patriots pay taxes, and they should actually champion the redistribution of wealth.
Page 260 of 274
261 | 262 | 263 | 264 | 265