r > g

People who save and invest grow wealthy, people who take advice from liberals who never ran a business or made a dollar from industry or investing don't.

Wow.

Fucking complete state of shock

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

"save and invest"? Are you kidding?.
What makes me laugh is these business' would be nowhere if it werent for the workers and how do the employers show their thanks? By looking down their noses at them and treating them like crap, making them work long hours or part time and paying them peanuts.

If you start from where you are today and make it a point to decide to put your money to work for you, your life will be different a year from now. If you make it a lifelong habit, you will affect your future generations.

Download and read any 5 random Berkshire Hathaway Chairman letters, it's an education worth at least a trillion times whatever Piketty or Krugman is selling
 
It really is not that difficult to understand.

I invest $100 and get a 5% return.

You invest nothing.

I now have $105.

I reinvest that $105 and make a 7% return..

You invest nothing.

I now have $112.35.

I reinvest that 112.35 and get back 15%...

You invest nothing....

I now have 129.20......

You have nothing.....


Our wealth gap is widening.....Eventually, I will be able to invest 100,000 dollars, and if I get a 10% return....I'll have 110,000 dollars.....

You'll still have nothing....

Now suppose I have made very wise choices in business and investments and I'm able to invest $55,000,000.

Now you decide to invest $500.

We both get back 10%....

I will have $60,500,000...That means I made $5,500,000 dollars...

You made 50 for a total of $550....

This is NOT unfair.......Don't you see that? There is nothing evil or wrong about getting a return on invested money. You want more money, invest or risk more capital.
 
the r>g formula (that is, the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth)

Why does the rate of return on capital have to exceed the rate of growth?

It doesn't. Picketty argues that it is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for growing income and wealth inequality. If the rate of return on financial capital were less than the rate of growth of output, it would not be possible for owners of financial wealth to simply invest and see their share of output increase.
 
the r>g formula (that is, the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth)

Why does the rate of return on capital have to exceed the rate of growth?

It doesn't. Picketty argues that it is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for growing income and wealth inequality. If the rate of return on financial capital were less than the rate of growth of output, it would not be possible for owners of financial wealth to simply invest and see their share of output increase.

If he assumes the rate of return on capital is always higher than the rate of growth, he's an idiot.

Also, he seems to think that investment somehow steals money from workers.
That there is a fixed pile of money produced every year and that somehow investing steals that money without making the size of the pile bigger.

Typical Commie thinking.
 
If I earn < a living wage I cannot invest.

If I earn > a living wage and save @ < 1% I maybe become rich in a thousand years.

If I inherit a large amount of capital, it is easy to 'earn' a larger amount of capital.

If I am a member of the 1% by birth, and do not use drugs, the old boy's network will ensure me a life of great wealth and an easy path to greater wealth. Hence the effort for a 'death tax' repeal.

If I am born poor and live in poverty it is unlikely I will earn a living wage, If I do and secure a union job the very wealthy will want my labor at a lesser rate and outlaw collective bargaining.

If I'm born poor and have poor health I'm out of luck.

The American Dream is dead; we live today in an Oligarchy of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.

Welcome to the United States of America. Where the
&#8220;Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.&#8221;

Where this fantasy of the American Dream's death began with the election of Ronald Reagan and fulminated under the ultra conservative hand of the callous conservatives in the 21st Century.
 
In your case, yes. There is certainly no hope. For the of us, there is the reality that one can succeed, coming from a poor background. There is no linear line between poor now, poor always, or rich now, rich always. Capital fluctuates in that regard. I would know, I came from a pretty poor background and have done just fine for myself. I've also seen "rich" friends lose their ass on investments. In the same way Pricketty makes dubious conclusions from skewed suppositions.
 
The payroll tax has shifted the tax burden to the workers & away from Wall-Street to subsidize the Rich. This caused all the wealth created by the workers to go to the Rich & the jobs to go overseas.

Get rid of the payroll tax & wealth & jobs will come back to the middle class.

revenue-by-source2.jpg
 
Last edited:
The payroll tax has shifted the tax burden to the workers & away from Wall-Street. This caused all the wealth created by the workers to go to Wall-Street & the jobs to go overseas.

Get rid of the payroll tax & wealth jobs will come back to the middle class.

Sounds good.

Let workers invest their payroll taxes in the market so they can accumulate their own wealth.
 
If I earn < a living wage I cannot invest.

If I earn > a living wage and save @ < 1% I maybe become rich in a thousand years.

If I inherit a large amount of capital, it is easy to 'earn' a larger amount of capital.

If I am a member of the 1% by birth, and do not use drugs, the old boy's network will ensure me a life of great wealth and an easy path to greater wealth. Hence the effort for a 'death tax' repeal.

If I am born poor and live in poverty it is unlikely I will earn a living wage, If I do and secure a union job the very wealthy will want my labor at a lesser rate and outlaw collective bargaining.

If I'm born poor and have poor health I'm out of luck.

The American Dream is dead; we live today in an Oligarchy of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.

Welcome to the United States of America. Where the
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

Where this fantasy of the American Dream's death began with the election of Ronald Reagan and fulminated under the ultra conservative hand of the callous conservatives in the 21st Century.

If I earn > a living wage and save @ < 1% I maybe become rich in a thousand years. Minimum skill set, minimum pay. Do something to improve your earnings.

If I inherit a large amount of capital, it is easy to 'earn' a larger amount of capital. Inheritance is a parent(s) providing for and taking care of their children. You are against I take it.

If I am a member of the 1% by birth, and do not use drugs, the old boy's network will ensure me a life of great wealth and an easy path to greater wealth. Hence the effort for a 'death tax' repeal. No money should be taxed more than once. If your parents or grandparents were smart enough to earn enough money to help their protege for generations, more power to them. I plan to do the same for Mine. Its called caring for your loved ones.

If I am born poor and live in poverty it is unlikely I will earn a living wage, If I do and secure a union job the very wealthy will want my labor at a lesser rate and outlaw collective bargaining. A bold faced lie. The number of examples and proof of poor and destitute climbing out of poverty can be found everywhere. The reason is they did not whine about a living wage, they went out and worked to better themselves and never looked back on a living wage because it would be a pay cut.

If I'm born poor and have poor health I'm out of luck. Another bold faced lie. Having poor health is not a detriment to improving life and health. Giving up means you are out of luck.

The American Dream is dead; we live today in an Oligarchy of the rich, by the rich and for the rich. Funny how you people always talk about the people voting for their own best interest (when you think your ideology is what they are voting for) but you don't seem to think that successful people have that same right.

Welcome to the United States of America. Where the
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”


Still exists. Your understanding of history and English is very poor. No where does that say the government will give you anything but an equal opportunity. We welcome ALL LEGAL immigrants. But come prepared to earn your way.

Where this fantasy of the American Dream's death began with the election of Ronald Reagan and fulminated under the ultra conservative hand of the callous conservatives in the 21st Century. Where your decoupling from reality began must have been at the First Grade. The American dream, as we all know it, is being slowly strangled by progressivism and Barak Obama.
 
If I earn < a living wage I cannot invest.

If I earn > a living wage and save @ < 1% I maybe become rich in a thousand years.

If I inherit a large amount of capital, it is easy to 'earn' a larger amount of capital.

If I am a member of the 1% by birth, and do not use drugs, the old boy's network will ensure me a life of great wealth and an easy path to greater wealth. Hence the effort for a 'death tax' repeal.

If I am born poor and live in poverty it is unlikely I will earn a living wage, If I do and secure a union job the very wealthy will want my labor at a lesser rate and outlaw collective bargaining.

If I'm born poor and have poor health I'm out of luck.

The American Dream is dead; we live today in an Oligarchy of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.

Welcome to the United States of America. Where the
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

Where this fantasy of the American Dream's death began with the election of Ronald Reagan and fulminated under the ultra conservative hand of the callous conservatives in the 21st Century.

If I earn > a living wage and save @ < 1% I maybe become rich in a thousand years. Minimum skill set, minimum pay. Do something to improve your earnings.

If I inherit a large amount of capital, it is easy to 'earn' a larger amount of capital. Inheritance is a parent(s) providing for and taking care of their children. You are against I take it.

If I am a member of the 1% by birth, and do not use drugs, the old boy's network will ensure me a life of great wealth and an easy path to greater wealth. Hence the effort for a 'death tax' repeal. No money should be taxed more than once. If your parents or grandparents were smart enough to earn enough money to help their protege for generations, more power to them. I plan to do the same for Mine. Its called caring for your loved ones.

If I am born poor and live in poverty it is unlikely I will earn a living wage, If I do and secure a union job the very wealthy will want my labor at a lesser rate and outlaw collective bargaining. A bold faced lie. The number of examples and proof of poor and destitute climbing out of poverty can be found everywhere. The reason is they did not whine about a living wage, they went out and worked to better themselves and never looked back on a living wage because it would be a pay cut.

If I'm born poor and have poor health I'm out of luck. Another bold faced lie. Having poor health is not a detriment to improving life and health. Giving up means you are out of luck.

The American Dream is dead; we live today in an Oligarchy of the rich, by the rich and for the rich. Funny how you people always talk about the people voting for their own best interest (when you think your ideology is what they are voting for) but you don't seem to think that successful people have that same right.

Welcome to the United States of America. Where the
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”


Still exists. Your understanding of history and English is very poor. No where does that say the government will give you anything but an equal opportunity. We welcome ALL LEGAL immigrants. But come prepared to earn your way.

Where this fantasy of the American Dream's death began with the election of Ronald Reagan and fulminated under the ultra conservative hand of the callous conservatives in the 21st Century. Where your decoupling from reality began must have been at the First Grade. The American dream, as we all know it, is being slowly strangled by progressivism and Barak Obama.

Thanks for sharing, would you like some more Kool-Aid?
 
If I earn < a living wage I cannot invest.

If I earn > a living wage and save @ < 1% I maybe become rich in a thousand years.

If I inherit a large amount of capital, it is easy to 'earn' a larger amount of capital.

If I am a member of the 1% by birth, and do not use drugs, the old boy's network will ensure me a life of great wealth and an easy path to greater wealth. Hence the effort for a 'death tax' repeal.

If I am born poor and live in poverty it is unlikely I will earn a living wage, If I do and secure a union job the very wealthy will want my labor at a lesser rate and outlaw collective bargaining.

If I'm born poor and have poor health I'm out of luck.

The American Dream is dead; we live today in an Oligarchy of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.

Welcome to the United States of America. Where the
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

Where this fantasy of the American Dream's death began with the election of Ronald Reagan and fulminated under the ultra conservative hand of the callous conservatives in the 21st Century.

If I earn > a living wage and save @ < 1% I maybe become rich in a thousand years. Minimum skill set, minimum pay. Do something to improve your earnings.

If I inherit a large amount of capital, it is easy to 'earn' a larger amount of capital. Inheritance is a parent(s) providing for and taking care of their children. You are against I take it.

If I am a member of the 1% by birth, and do not use drugs, the old boy's network will ensure me a life of great wealth and an easy path to greater wealth. Hence the effort for a 'death tax' repeal. No money should be taxed more than once. If your parents or grandparents were smart enough to earn enough money to help their protege for generations, more power to them. I plan to do the same for Mine. Its called caring for your loved ones.

If I am born poor and live in poverty it is unlikely I will earn a living wage, If I do and secure a union job the very wealthy will want my labor at a lesser rate and outlaw collective bargaining. A bold faced lie. The number of examples and proof of poor and destitute climbing out of poverty can be found everywhere. The reason is they did not whine about a living wage, they went out and worked to better themselves and never looked back on a living wage because it would be a pay cut.

If I'm born poor and have poor health I'm out of luck. Another bold faced lie. Having poor health is not a detriment to improving life and health. Giving up means you are out of luck.

The American Dream is dead; we live today in an Oligarchy of the rich, by the rich and for the rich. Funny how you people always talk about the people voting for their own best interest (when you think your ideology is what they are voting for) but you don't seem to think that successful people have that same right.

Welcome to the United States of America. Where the
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”


Still exists. Your understanding of history and English is very poor. No where does that say the government will give you anything but an equal opportunity. We welcome ALL LEGAL immigrants. But come prepared to earn your way.

Where this fantasy of the American Dream's death began with the election of Ronald Reagan and fulminated under the ultra conservative hand of the callous conservatives in the 21st Century. Where your decoupling from reality began must have been at the First Grade. The American dream, as we all know it, is being slowly strangled by progressivism and Barak Obama.

Thanks for sharing, would you like some more Kool-Aid?
No thanks. It interferes with reasoning. Perhaps you should cut back.
 
The payroll tax has shifted the tax burden to the workers & away from Wall-Street. This caused all the wealth created by the workers to go to Wall-Street & the jobs to go overseas.

Get rid of the payroll tax & wealth jobs will come back to the middle class.

Sounds good.

Let workers invest their payroll taxes in the market so they can accumulate their own wealth.

Exactly - That's why Obama CUT Payroll Taxes so workers could invest their own money. Bush & Reagan increased payroll taxes to subsidize tax cuts for billionaires.
 
The payroll tax has shifted the tax burden to the workers & away from Wall-Street. This caused all the wealth created by the workers to go to Wall-Street & the jobs to go overseas.

Get rid of the payroll tax & wealth jobs will come back to the middle class.

Sounds good.

Let workers invest their payroll taxes in the market so they can accumulate their own wealth.

Exactly - That's why Obama CUT Payroll Taxes so workers could invest their own money. Bush & Reagan increased payroll taxes to subsidize tax cuts for billionaires.

No. They should invest inside a retirement account. So we can eventually get rid of the Social Security program that makes it so much more difficult for people to accumulate wealth.
 
Sounds good.

Let workers invest their payroll taxes in the market so they can accumulate their own wealth.

Exactly - That's why Obama CUT Payroll Taxes so workers could invest their own money. Bush & Reagan increased payroll taxes to subsidize tax cuts for billionaires.

No. They should invest inside a retirement account. So we can eventually get rid of the Social Security program that makes it so much more difficult for people to accumulate wealth.

Well Comrade, Mr. Reagan's second tax increase was the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which was an increase in the payroll tax. For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan's income tax cuts for the workers. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent, but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden for workers was up, not down. Only the Rich got their taxes cut. The workers got a tax increase that made them cost more to employ than foreigners.
 
Exactly - That's why Obama CUT Payroll Taxes so workers could invest their own money. Bush & Reagan increased payroll taxes to subsidize tax cuts for billionaires.

No. They should invest inside a retirement account. So we can eventually get rid of the Social Security program that makes it so much more difficult for people to accumulate wealth.

Well Comrade, Mr. Reagan's second tax increase was the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which was an increase in the payroll tax. For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan's income tax cuts for the workers. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent, but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden for workers was up, not down. Only the Rich got their taxes cut. The workers got a tax increase that made them cost more to employ than foreigners.

Mr. Reagan's second tax increase was the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which was an increase in the payroll tax.

Imagine how much wealth those workers would have if all those SS taxes had been invested in the market since 1983.

Of course that would reduce the power of government, so I understand why you oppose it.
 
No. They should invest inside a retirement account. So we can eventually get rid of the Social Security program that makes it so much more difficult for people to accumulate wealth.

Well Comrade, Mr. Reagan's second tax increase was the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which was an increase in the payroll tax. For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan's income tax cuts for the workers. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent, but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden for workers was up, not down. Only the Rich got their taxes cut. The workers got a tax increase that made them cost more to employ than foreigners.

Mr. Reagan's second tax increase was the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which was an increase in the payroll tax.

Imagine how much wealth those workers would have if all those SS taxes had been invested in the market since 1983.

Of course that would reduce the power of government, so I understand why you oppose it.

I don't oppose having our own payroll investment or investing all that wealth stolen by payroll taxes. But Reagan/Bush did not invest it, they stole it & more & gave it away to the Rich. They did not buy stocks or bonds, they subsidized the Rich with it.
 
Sounds good.

Let workers invest their payroll taxes in the market so they can accumulate their own wealth.

Exactly - That's why Obama CUT Payroll Taxes so workers could invest their own money. Bush & Reagan increased payroll taxes to subsidize tax cuts for billionaires.

No. They should invest inside a retirement account. So we can eventually get rid of the Social Security program that makes it so much more difficult for people to accumulate wealth.

How does SS make it harder for us to accumulate wealth? Sure, FICA is regressive, so we should eliminate it, but funding SS out of the general revenue solves that problem. SS boils down the federal government crediting private bank accounts, an ability it will always have as a monetary sovereign. The question boils down to the availability of real resources for retirees, that could be the only problem going forward, although it shouldn't be if we keep our productive capacity intact.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top