Is it time to take from the rich to give to the poor?

[struth]

How about the housing crash. The rich bought up our foreclosed homes cheap. Talk about redistributing wealth. John had a $200K home. He lost the home and some rich person bought it from the bank for $100K. Now John rents the home from the new owner. John is now paying the rich person's mortgage. And today the house is worth $250K.

maybe he should of rented from the get go, if he can't afford a mortage on 200K....especially with the rates they were in 2008. No, way he can today in Xiden's America

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

No, Wall Street is greed, but it’s all about people making as much money as they can for themselves, government is about taking that money and giving it to other people.

Now, what harm does anyone do to anyone else if they play the market and win? Now, what harm does government do if they take people money and redistribute it to others?

If They Own a Man's Work, They Own That Man

Obscene profits and price-gouging are taxes on the employee and the consumer. Uncontrolled greed creates a contest over who can cheat his employees and customers the most.

Turning the market place into a casino is like sports gamblers making far more than athletes, who create the revenue. Also, before unionization, the owners made far more than any revenue they "created."

Saying that the investors create jobs is like saying that vampires create blood.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Progs had many chances to address this. They have not. Unfortunately the same Progs would low all the money on more programs that have marginal affect and then cost endless dollars as they never end. Look at the ghettos. They are Perma Ghettos now. They are separate nations within the United States. Endless fiscal resources spent on them and gentrifying them is a no no. Every huge city project they get their cut like Joe gets.

Diploma Dumbos Neglect to Change Both Sides of the Equation

First of all, the Preppy Progressives and Limousine Liberals would cease to exist, because without Daddy's Money they'd have no power whatsoever. If we abolished inheritance, favoritism would go neither to the feral-minority pets of the Left Wing of the prep school nor to the Enrons and outsourcers favored by the Preppies' Right Wing. All political decisions would favor the majority in the middle, which at present is silenced and excluded because of the snobbery of the hereditary political class.

 

[sealybobo]

maybe he should of rented from the get go, if he can't afford a mortage on 200K....especially with the rates they were in 2008. No, way he can today in Xiden's America

Well then don't ask why the rich keep getting richer and people who take your advice are getting poorer. In 30 years if he paid off his home, he'd have something worth $200,000. To sell and use the money to retire or reverse mortgage or leave to his kids.

Your way, he's going to pay rent for 30 years, just as much as a mortgage would be, and in 30 years he will have nothing. Great advice Struth.

My one buddy is an idiot. He was paying on a $70K condo on a lake. The Bush Great Recession happened suddenly our condos were selling for $20K. He panic'ed and walked. Didn't want to pay $70K for what was only worth $20K. Today his condo sells for $150K.

 

[Bezukhov]

To start we need to find out how people get rich in the first place . Somebody gets an idea for a new product or service, they market it, it's successful and, voila, they are rich. We need to ban ideas.

 

[Woodznutz]

Ghostocracy

Taking away the unearned money from just those born in the 1% would give us $3 trillion a year and eliminate the income tax for even the living 1%. But Americans have been reduced to serfs worshiping Prince Charming. Instead of the expected glass slipper, we get the jackboot.

I don't think we can seize inherited assets.

 

[Woodznutz]

Well then don't ask why the rich keep getting richer and people who take your advice are getting poorer. In 30 years if he paid off his home, he'd have something worth $200,000. To sell and use the money to retire or reverse mortgage or leave to his kids.

Your way, he's going to pay rent for 30 years, just as much as a mortgage would be, and in 30 years he will have nothing. Great advice Struth.

My one buddy is an idiot. He was paying on a $70K condo on a lake. The Bush Great Recession happened suddenly our condos were selling for $20K. He panic'ed and walked. Didn't want to pay $70K for what was only worth $20K. Today his condo sells for $150K.

You'll generally save more money by renting than by owning. Paying a mortgage is kind of forced saving, however the housing market determines how valuable a home is at the time you want to sell it. Historically, stock market returns are double what a house returns in appreciation, and then there are property taxes, insurance, and maintenance to deal with as well. Renters are also much more mobile, both with themselves and their financial assets.

 

[justoffal]

How about the housing crash. The rich bought up our foreclosed homes cheap. Talk about redistributing wealth. John had a $200K home. He lost the home and some rich person bought it from the bank for $100K. Now John rents the home from the new owner. John is now paying the rich person's mortgage. And today the house is worth $250K.

Truth

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Marxism Originated in the Heiristocracy

Your fairy tale has nothing to do with inheritance, so you're evading the issue and using a strawman anyway. It's also dishonest to pretend that this is a common attitude and even if it were, it doesn't apply to the unearned possessions of spoiled Daddy-moochers, which is ultimately stolen from the serfs. The fact is, for hundreds of years the Russians thought that inherited wealth was God's will and that the nobility must be more deserving for that superstitious and self-hating reason. Preppylove is as irrational as the Hindu justification of their nation-crushing caste system: that the upper class were good people in a previous life.

It has to do with making yourself feel better by taking something away from someone else, instead of making something for yourself.

I'm sorry your daddy never loved you. I'm sorry you're a failure.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How about the housing crash. The rich bought up our foreclosed homes cheap. Talk about redistributing wealth. John had a $200K home. He lost the home and some rich person bought it from the bank for $100K. Now John rents the home from the new owner. John is now paying the rich person's mortgage. And today the house is worth $250K.

So much for the government pushing unqualified buyers into a home.

 

[struth]

Well then don't ask why the rich keep getting richer and people who take your advice are getting poorer. In 30 years if he paid off his home, he'd have something worth $200,000. To sell and use the money to retire or reverse mortgage or leave to his kids.

Your way, he's going to pay rent for 30 years, just as much as a mortgage would be, and in 30 years he will have nothing. Great advice Struth.

My one buddy is an idiot. He was paying on a $70K condo on a lake. The Bush Great Recession happened suddenly our condos were selling for $20K. He panic'ed and walked. Didn't want to pay $70K for what was only worth $20K. Today his condo sells for $150K.

I am not asking why the rich and getting richer. How is renting to someone taking advantage of them?

The vast majority of the country is worse off today then they were before xiden was elected

If you cared about people getting poorer you’d stop supporting the admin that caused that

 

[ThisIsMe]

Every Inheritance and Trust Fund Comes From the Labor of Sperm Bingo

You mean rich mommy and daddy reproduced and gave an inheritance to their kids? What’s wrong with that? At least mommy and daddy made the money to leave to their kids.

 

[ThisIsMe]

If They Own a Man's Work, They Own That Man

Obscene profits and price-gouging are taxes on the employee and the consumer. Uncontrolled greed creates a contest over who can cheat his employees and customers the most.

Turning the market place into a casino is like sports gamblers making far more than athletes, who create the revenue. Also, before unionization, the owners made far more than any revenue they "created."

Saying that the investors create jobs is like saying that vampires create blood.

So raise the taxes on the wealthy. Do you really think it’s the wealthy that will pay those taxes?

 

[BluesLegend]

To start we need to find out how people get rich in the first place.

I stole it from Democrats while pointing and laughing.

 

[ScorpioRising007]

Is it time to take from the rich to give to the poor?

The hockey stick graph introduced to the climate issue startled enough to start the trend to deal with it.

That shape showed the gross indecency and immorality of our collective focus.

That same immoral shape is what most countries now suffer in their socio-economic demographic pyramids, with a relatively small poor sector when compared to the whole; and especially when compared to the rich.

Statistically and in the long run, the rich have done a good job of improving our collective good.

Going from good to excellent would, cost the rich so little. I have to wonder why their demographers are not recommending that the rich take just a wee bit off the shank of the stick and fix the tip.

It is loose change (a bit of butt tape to our hockey stick), and if the rich will not fix the economy on their own, perhaps we should take their loose change, fix things, --- and raise their grade to excellent.

I understand that there are already several billionaires eager to start such a fund.

Get together, rich benevolent bunch, and set things right.

That will show the world why the rich rule the world.

My rich friends. Boost the trickle down with a one time trickle up and end poverty.

Please hurry, before I must answer yes to my own question.

9 out of 10 Americans are completely wrong about this mind-blowing fact. - Upworthy

This is where I think socialism is so good. This is why I love reading material by Carl Marx and socialist thinkers. I love reading material by socialist economist. So many people think socialism is so bad. So many people think Communism is so bad, but they never really bother to learn what potential Communism and Socialism have. Sure there have been some shortcoming in past governments that implemented such types of governments, but people can learn from their mistakes and make a better system.

Even many European countries have more socialism then America does and look how much better off the average European citizen is then in the US.

Socialized medicine in so many countries: Austria, Armenia, Belgium, Russia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Georgia, Iceland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Portugal, Romania, China, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Japan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Tawain, Canada, Algeria, Botswana, Tunisa...

The list goes on and on, yet the USA is not on that list, why? Is the United States against progress?

Richard D. Wolff explains it so well, so brilliantly.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This is where I think socialism is so good. This is why I love reading material by Carl Marx and socialist thinkers. I love reading material by socialist economist. So many people think socialism is so bad. So many people think Communism is so bad, but they never really bother to learn what potential Communism and Socialism have. Sure there have been some shortcoming in past governments that implemented such types of governments, but people can learn from their mistakes and make a better system.

Even many European countries have more socialism then America does and look how much better off the average European citizen is then in the US.

Socialized medicine in so many countries: Austria, Armenia, Belgium, Russia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Georgia, Iceland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Portugal, Romania, China, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Japan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Tawain, Canada, Algeria, Botswana, Tunisa...

The list goes on and on, yet the USA is not on that list, why? Is the United States against progress?

Richard D. Wolff explains it so well, so brilliantly.

Marxist economists are hilarious.

 

[Invisibleflash]

Is it time to take from the rich to give to the poor?

The hockey stick graph introduced to the climate issue startled enough to start the trend to deal with it.

That shape showed the gross indecency and immorality of our collective focus.

That same immoral shape is what most countries now suffer in their socio-economic demographic pyramids, with a relatively small poor sector when compared to the whole; and especially when compared to the rich.

Statistically and in the long run, the rich have done a good job of improving our collective good.

Going from good to excellent would, cost the rich so little. I have to wonder why their demographers are not recommending that the rich take just a wee bit off the shank of the stick and fix the tip.

It is loose change (a bit of butt tape to our hockey stick), and if the rich will not fix the economy on their own, perhaps we should take their loose change, fix things, --- and raise their grade to excellent.

I understand that there are already several billionaires eager to start such a fund.

Get together, rich benevolent bunch, and set things right.

That will show the world why the rich rule the world.

My rich friends. Boost the trickle down with a one time trickle up and end poverty.

Please hurry, before I must answer yes to my own question.

9 out of 10 Americans are completely wrong about this mind-blowing fact. - Upworthy

Dont think so. But time is getting close to taking breath from the commies.

 

[ScorpioRising007]

Marxist economists are hilarious.

Capitalist economists are hilarious. The USA needs so badly to take from the rich and give to the poor. We need more socialism so badly in the USA. We are one of the richest countries, yet we have so many homeless people. So many poor people. So many people without any healthcare insurance. I have talked to many homeless people and it is very obvious that many are mentally retarded are suffering from some serious disability. No employer would hire them. They don't have the intelligence or ability to apply for government assistance and they don't have any family or friends to help them apply. It sickens me that we can have people living in 90 Million dollar homes who take trips to Hawaiii every year that don't give a rats ass about all the people starving to death on the streets who are eating out of garbage cans. I know one homeless man in my area who froze to death in the winter, I drove by the frozen body on the highway this January. This is the capitalist America that is so great.

 

[sealybobo]

You'll generally save more money by renting than by owning. Paying a mortgage is kind of forced saving, however the housing market determines how valuable a home is at the time you want to sell it. Historically, stock market returns are double what a house returns in appreciation, and then there are property taxes, insurance, and maintenance to deal with as well. Renters are also much more mobile, both with themselves and their financial assets.

Well that’s why I don’t sell my condo and move into a much bigger 30 year mortgage. I’ll give you that. I’m glad my mortgage is paid off. Took me 19 years. But now I have $150k condo on a lake I purchased for $58k.

And you got to live somewhere. So even when the market tanked, just keep paying your mortgage payments.

Yea the stock market is great but consider this. Whatever you pay in rent just goes away. Then after that whatever you got goes into the stock market. How much is that? What’s your rent? I’d rather pay my mortgage down not my landlord.

But I also feel ya. During the bush Great Recession I was stuck with my 15 year mortgage. How could I take a job somewhere else when I was saddle down?

But I could have just rented it to you. Lol

 

[Unkotare]

Diploma Dumbos Neglect to Change Both Sides of the Equation

First of all, the Preppy Progressives and Limousine Liberals would cease to exist, because without Daddy's Money they'd have no power whatsoever. If we abolished inheritance, favoritism would go neither to the feral-minority pets of the Left Wing of the prep school nor to the Enrons and outsourcers favored by the Preppies' Right Wing. All political decisions would favor the majority in the middle, which at present is silenced and excluded because of the snobbery of the hereditary political class.

The same nonsense over and over. That's all this headcase ever posts.