9 out of 10 Americans completely wrong

[AmazonTania]

Yeah, it's so darn simple that the US has the lowest income mobility rate in the western world.

America may appear to have lower mobility simply because there are higher ladders to climb. Being in the Top 20% of income earners in most European countries (especially Scandinavia) wouldn't even make you Middle Class in America. Maybe that is something you would like so the playing field can be leveled, but most Americans are not willing to devalue their standard of living so you can make yourself feel better.

And like I said, it is very simple. So simple, millions of Americans were doing it during the housing bubble. This effectively shot up the amount of wealth the Top 1% of income earners were making.

Hard work only gets you taxed more. You have to start out with money so you can avoid taxes on your income.

So move to a state which is more adventitious to your tax burdens. If that doesn't help, leave the country. Leaving the country over tax reasons is a perfectly good reason why anyone should leave the country. It means that you are not free. So move to a country where you feel more free.

My personal suggestions are Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Swizterland and Chile. All strong economies and all lower taxes. Unfortunately, as a broker I can't give you so much information as to where to move and invest on a public forum, as I am required to make sure the advice I am giving is suitable for the person reading it.

You simpletons lost my vote when you started taxing work & small business harder than rich investment dividends. It's simple, cut tax on workers & small business or continue losing elections.

You are 'simpletons?' I'm not registered with any political party. I'm not registered to vote. I'm not even an American Citizen. What I do understand is that you want to broaden the powers of the Government to be able to pick winners and losers, but you are not surprised when the small guy because part of the winning team and starts influencing Government for their own purposes?

The big guys love more taxes and higher minimum wages just as much as the little guy who believes it will actually help him. Why do you think Amazon supports the internet sales tax? Why do you think Wal-mart has lobbied for minimum wage increases? Amazon is trying to prevent the next upcoming Amazon from competing with them. Wal-mart doesn't like competition from smaller businesses.

All wealthy people try to avoid their taxes. That's just the simple reality. But there are those who can use taxes as a way to discourage competition and create barriers to entry. This is called, 'Economies of Scale.'

Close the big corporate tax loopholes.

As if that is going to solve your problems. Your tax codes, regulations and red tape is what encourages people to seek out these loopholes. It would be simpler to actually figure out what is going to encourage businesses to invest in their own economy, but I guess that makes too much sense for anyone to actually want to pursue.

 

[tjvh]

Academic success does not always assure financial success, especially if you come from a poor family.

Being born to a rich family? Almost always assures financial success.

That's a problem.

So you advocate that rich people not be allowed to pass their wealth onto their children? Whatever you say comrade.

Not at all.

That's quite a logical leap.

We live in reasonably well off society..and we got that way from the sweat of labor. It's not unreasonable to add some sort of parity into the mix.

As in, you should not ever go below a certain level in terms of poverty or above a certain level in terms of income.

It's not that hard a concept, and well within the keeping of both what the founders envisioned and what real capitalists advocate for..

So people should have a limit put on their success? Well until limits are put on the cost of education and hard work, have fun with that comrade.

 

[tjvh]

Let them eat cake

And your solution is what? Making sure people aren't allowed to succeed too much. Another commie who doesn't think he should have to put forth an effort.

My solution is a simple one

Why continue programs that enable the super wealthy to preserve and accumulate more wealth when it has been shown that these programs do not result in more jobs?

Just because you didn't put forth the effort, doesn't mean you should be entitled to the wealth of those who did.

 

[rightwinger]

So you advocate that rich people not be allowed to pass their wealth onto their children? Whatever you say comrade.

Not at all.

That's quite a logical leap.

We live in reasonably well off society..and we got that way from the sweat of labor. It's not unreasonable to add some sort of parity into the mix.

As in, you should not ever go below a certain level in terms of poverty or above a certain level in terms of income.

It's not that hard a concept, and well within the keeping of both what the founders envisioned and what real capitalists advocate for..

So people should have a limit put on their success? Well until limits are put on the cost of education and hard work, have fun with that comrade.

Corporations should foot the bill for the education of their workforce....not society

Corporations are the ones who benefit the most

 

[rightwinger]

And your solution is what? Making sure people aren't allowed to succeed too much. Another commie who doesn't think he should have to put forth an effort.

My solution is a simple one

Why continue programs that enable the super wealthy to preserve and accumulate more wealth when it has been shown that these programs do not result in more jobs?

Just because you didn't put forth the effort, doesn't mean you should be entitled to the wealth of those who did.

Why do we continue programs that allow the super wealthy not to have to put forth the same effort?

 

[RKMBrown]

Is there a law that makes you work for this jerk? Why can't you work for someone else? Why can't you work for "yourself?"

having your own business today requires licenses, and hoops to jump through. You can't just sent up a lemonade stand at the side of the road anymore, even for children that is illegal today.

Its a common libertarian misdirection

An individual can quit and look for another job. That is not a solution for everyone in an economic class.

The problem is that the working class has made sacrifices during this tough economy. Work more hours, expect fewer benefits and keep your mouth shut. While the wealthy have demanded more from their workers, they have pocketed the increased productivity rather than share it with the ones who are actually making the sacrifices

That may be correct for you. So long as you "choose" to be a part of the working class of a corporation that is focused on profits over your desire for an executive wage.. you will continue to be disappointed. Or are you merely wanting to reduce the executive wage to increase the profit margin of the owner? Why do you think the executive's wage is taking money out of your pocket? Are you the owner or are you working for the owner?

 

[Sallow]

So if I want to make my buddy a rich Executive in my company I should be stopped by the federal government? WOW What's next forcing me to hire Obama's buddies as rich Executives in my company? Or should we just have a law that makes companies pay everyone the same wage?

Here's one for you... If we all make the exact same paycheck what will the poverty rate be? 100%?

Check out history, ace.

When the gulf between rich and poor becomes to wide? The society collapses.

Almost every time.

All societies collapse almost every time.

Our "federal" government is constitutionally tasked with but a few things to do which are designed to eliminate societies collapse. Not to surprising that they have failed, in glaring fashion, to perform these activities. I put it to you it is this governments lack of focus on doing what they should be doing and instead focusing on issues of morality and wealth redistribution that are the cause of our recent societal downgrade.

1) Monopolies - Our government is tasked with ensuring the people have the opportunity to stand up against monopolies on the things we need and desire, such as food, transportation, health care, jobs, etc...

Here you appear to be focused on the result of monopolies, that of high pay of executives of said monopolies, vs. the failure of government to beat back said monopolies. At issue is the government's collusion in granting monopolies and ignoring others to the detriment of society.

2) copyright - is a right to copy after a reasonable time period, not a law that bans the people from ever copying that it has been changed to.

3) defense - is not occupying nearly every country on the planet

... should I go on?

Two wrongs do not make a right... we shouldn't force corporations to set a particular "high" or "low" salary, that should be done through the job, consumer, and investment markets where investors, customers, and workers can choose on their own. If however all corporations are monopolizing executive wages by colluding on executive salaries, then the investor market should be able to seek relief. Same with labor. If the corporations are colluding on wages for a particular type of employee then it is the job of our government to break them up.

First off..I think we are mostly in agreement about the role of government. Secondly, no where did I post the government should "force" companies to do anything. Changes to the way profit is "divided" could be as easy as changing the tax code. Wanna pay yourself 1000xs what everyone else makes? Fine. Then you get taxed at a 90% rate. That worked during the time of Eisenhower.

And there are other methods to assure good behavior. The government does business with a lot of these firms. There's no need to "force" anyone to do anything.

 

[RKMBrown]

Not at all.

That's quite a logical leap.

We live in reasonably well off society..and we got that way from the sweat of labor. It's not unreasonable to add some sort of parity into the mix.

As in, you should not ever go below a certain level in terms of poverty or above a certain level in terms of income.

It's not that hard a concept, and well within the keeping of both what the founders envisioned and what real capitalists advocate for..

So people should have a limit put on their success? Well until limits are put on the cost of education and hard work, have fun with that comrade.

Corporations should foot the bill for the education of their workforce....not society

Corporations are the ones who benefit the most

Who are these people named "corporations" in your mind? The investors and owners of corporations benefit from access to an educated workforce, but they have to "pay" for the privileged of hiring said workers. Parents are responsible for Educating their children, no one else.

 

[AmazonTania]

Its a common libertarian misdirection

An individual can quit and look for another job. That is not a solution for everyone in an economic class.

The problem is that the working class has made sacrifices during this tough economy. Work more hours, expect fewer benefits and keep your mouth shut. While the wealthy have demanded more from their workers, they have pocketed the increased productivity rather than share it with the ones who are actually making the sacrifices

Employees are actually working less hours, not more. But that is besides the point. How many sacrifices are you actually making when all you are doing is punching a clock? You are not doing anyone a favor (especially your boss) simply by showing up on time and doing your work.

Real sacrifices require much more.

 

[rightwinger]

So people should have a limit put on their success? Well until limits are put on the cost of education and hard work, have fun with that comrade.

Corporations should foot the bill for the education of their workforce....not society

Corporations are the ones who benefit the most

Who are these people named "corporations" in your mind? The investors and owners of corporations benefit from access to an educated workforce, but they have to "pay" for the privileged of hiring said workers. Parents are responsible for Educating their children, no one else.

A a society, we should educate students through the eighth grade. Build basic reading, writing and math skills. If companies demand workers with more skills than that.....they should foot the bill.

 

[AmazonTania]

First off..I think we are mostly in agreement about the role of government. Secondly, no where did I post the government should "force" companies to do anything. Changes to the way profit is "divided" could be as easy as changing the tax code. Wanna pay yourself 1000xs what everyone else makes? Fine. Then you get taxed at a 90% rate. That worked during the time of Eisenhower.

Only 352 individuals who filed their income taxes in 1954 paid a rate of 90%. Yeah, it worked just fine because a ton of wealthy individuals got to avoid a ton of income taxes.

It's not an exaggeration to say that I would prefer the 1950's tax code over the current one any-day.

 

[RKMBrown]

First off..I think we are mostly in agreement about the role of government. Secondly, no where did I post the government should "force" companies to do anything. Changes to the way profit is "divided" could be as easy as changing the tax code. Wanna pay yourself 1000xs what everyone else makes? Fine. Then you get taxed at a 90% rate. That worked during the time of Eisenhower.

And there are other methods to assure good behavior. The government does business with a lot of these firms. There's no need to "force" anyone to do anything.

If you want to make the top tax rate 90% (aka slavery) then no we don't have agreement about the role of government. IMO all income tax is a form a slavery.

And no, the 90% rate did not work during the time of Eisenhower. Look it up, and look up the number of tax shelters that existed at that time.

Progressive income taxes that punish success is not a remedy for anything, unless success is the thing you are trying to stop.

Example: I save up my money for retirement my whole life, then I find out I'm gonna die so I take it all in one lump sum. You want 90% of my retirement. Dude.. puleze.

 

[AmazonTania]

A a society, we should educate students through the eighth grade. Build basic reading, writing and math skills. If companies demand workers with more skills than that.....they should foot the bill.

That's really not how it works. An NBA franchise doesn't train all of it's highly paid athletes before drafting them into the league.

 

[rightwinger]

First off..I think we are mostly in agreement about the role of government. Secondly, no where did I post the government should "force" companies to do anything. Changes to the way profit is "divided" could be as easy as changing the tax code. Wanna pay yourself 1000xs what everyone else makes? Fine. Then you get taxed at a 90% rate. That worked during the time of Eisenhower.

Only 352 individuals who filed their income taxes in 1954 paid a rate of 90%. Yeah, it worked just fine because a ton of wealthy individuals got to avoid a ton of income taxes.

It's not an exaggeration to say that I would prefer the 1950's tax code over the current one any-day.

Do you realize how much wealth the richest 352 Americans have?

The wealthiest 400 Americans have more wealth than half the US population as a whole

http://rwer.wordpress.com/2011/11/0...the-lower-150-million-americans-put-together/

 

[RKMBrown]

A a society, we should educate students through the eighth grade. Build basic reading, writing and math skills.

Why? Why should I be responsible for educating your kids? You're kids don't even live in my state let alone my neighborhood. If you don't want to educate your own kids why did you have them? For the welfare?

If companies demand workers with more skills than that.....they should foot the bill.

You do realize companies pay more for college graduates over drop outs right? If that's not "footing" the bill then what is?

 

[Flopper]

How? Anyone can open an investment account on line at E trade, Scott's, Schwabb, Fidelity etc and start to save and accumulate wealth.

No one is stopping them or making it difficult. In fact it's easier than ever.


You might not need a million dollars and you certainly can increase your net worth anytime you want by paying down debt or increasing your income and saving.



The poor are poor because they want to be. As I said the only thing stopping anyone from saving more, spending less and improving their financial position is themselves.

Hate to bust your bubble, but people with billions don't bother with online brokerage accounts, they own the brokerages and the investment banks.

What does any of that have to do with your ability to increase your net worth?



IBID
.

Where did I ever say "make millions" The premise here is that rich people are somehow preventing others from increasing their net worth and you have yet to tell me how they do that exactly.

The poor are poor because they want to be. As I said the only thing stopping anyone from saving more, spending less and improving their financial position is themselves.

I know a lot of poor people that would disagree with you on this point.

And what are they doing to improve their situation other than blaming "rich" people?

I don't think we are on the same wavelength. I'm not arguing the rich are preventing the poor and lower middle class from increasing their net worth. Of course there is some increase, our economy has grown significantly over the last 30 year, however it is the wealthy that has got the lion's share of that growth. The result being the wealthy has increased their share of pie and that share is continuing to grow which is not healthy for the country.

Claiming that the situation exist because the poor like being poor is irrational.

 

[numan]

Check out history, ace.

When the gulf between rich and poor becomes to wide? The society collapses.

Almost every time.

Let them eat cake

The actual quote is : "Qu'ils mangent des brioches!" Let them eat dainty-buns.

In our over-militarized society, which wastes its resources for the benefit of war profiteers, it should be modernized to :

"Qu'ils mangent des cartouches!" -- "Let them eat bullets" !
.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You keep running down the same rathole that seems to think that a problem that can be resolved at an individual level can be resolved the same way for a population as a whole

Families are a rat hole? Individual responsibility is a rat hole?

You have it backwards. Solutions that work for individuals can't be scaled up to federal programs that are administrated in DC by replacing working solutions with checks, ebt cards, and free phones. That's not solving the problem that's punting the problem by throwing stale bread over the castle walls.

In a nutshell, an individual can increase his own ability to compete against the rest of the population. The entire population cannot obtain better jobs. The issue is with the entire class of working Americans and their stagnant wealth not the ability of a single individual

Any one or all of those individuals can increase their net worth if they want to.

The problem is they don't want to not that some mysterious shadowy phantasmagorical rich guy is actively holding them back. Talk about conspiracy theories.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Hate to bust your bubble, but people with billions don't bother with online brokerage accounts, they own the brokerages and the investment banks.

What does any of that have to do with your ability to increase your net worth?



IBID
.

Where did I ever say "make millions" The premise here is that rich people are somehow preventing others from increasing their net worth and you have yet to tell me how they do that exactly.

I know a lot of poor people that would disagree with you on this point.

And what are they doing to improve their situation other than blaming "rich" people?

I don't think we are on the same wavelength. I'm not arguing the rich are preventing the poor and lower middle class from increasing their net worth. Of course there is some increase, our economy has grown significantly over the last 30 year, however it is the wealthy that has got the lion's share of that growth. The result being the wealthy has increased their share of pie and that share is continuing to grow which is not healthy for the country.

Claiming that the situation exist because the poor like being poor is irrational.

There is no pie.

Wealth is not finite. Wealth is not a zero sum game.

 

[RKMBrown]

There is no pie.

Wealth is not finite. Wealth is not a zero sum game.

While what you say is correct... most entities have to live within budget constraints. Thus, once you choose to work for the "man" you are limited to the "man's" budget. Thus, envy can ensue if someone has a larger piece of that particular budget. Course, if you did something to increase the size of the man's pie you'd probably get paid a lot more.