Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

[Votto]

Worked before

One thing we do know is that Supply Side Economics has been a failure

Are things better now? Nope.

Why not people have their economic freedom then?

 

[hadit]

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.

Those who clamor for higher taxes never tell us how that wealth will trickle down to the poor. Everyone just assumes that the money will magically wind up in their bank accounts when really the only thing that will happen is that the government will continue to spend about 10 times whatever they take in regarding revenue.

And to think that you can remove greed from society just by taking their wealth is absurd. Just the other day I heard some poor soul who delivered pizzas was shot for a free pizza.

Legislating morality is for tards.

The fact of the matter is, the money left in the hands of citizens is more likely to go to good use than it will in the hands of those in government.

They don't talk about it because that's not their real goal. They just want to punish the successful, and think the wealth is better off in government hands.

 

[thanatos144]

This eat the rich shit is stupid and ignorant. ... hey idiots who is gonna employ your stupid asses once the rich no long have money?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

This eat the rich shit is stupid and ignorant. ... hey idiots who is gonna employ your stupid asses once the rich no long have money?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

The government, that is who will employ you, at the point of a gun. You "WILL" work for the measly little sustenance that they give you, or you will be shot or sent to the gulag. I mean that was what the liberal in the USSR did, when you didn't do what the government said. Here we have had the Dumbocrats FORCING us to buy healthcare or be punished. Just another inch closer to the United Communist States of America.

 

[Andylusion]

"Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

Now that's funny!

The truth hurts.
Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality : A Global Perspective

"The causes of wealth inequality?" The idea that wealth could ever be equally distributed is absurd.

The study looks at many different economies and factors, and determines that income inequality is more harmful to economic growth then a more balanced system. No one is proposing complete equal distribution, except for you maybe, given you're a loon.

The determination was made entirely on bullshit. You can't prove economic theorems using statistical data.

Your "balanced system" can never exist in reality. The only means you propose of "balancing" is by looting the wealthy, which means a vast corrupt system of bribery, vote buying, crony capitalism and welfare leaching. Taking money from productive people and giving it to the government can never grow the economy. Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state.

Made entirely on bullshit? You have yet to even examine the study, and it looks at more then statistical data, of course, a willfully ignorant person like yourself has no interest in facts. Can never exist? Progressive taxation and strong labor participation in unions can help this, along with state regulations to benefit working people, like the minimum wage, labor laws, making sure workers can get back stolen pay, etc, etc.. Looting the wealthy? You see, this is the problem with you guys, you have this insane idea that taxation, which is allowed, is somehow looting. This is the 21st century, every country on earth conducts taxation, except somalia and other "free market" countries that lack an evil gubment to tell the rich what to do. Corrupt system of bribery? Yeah, you seem to be forgetting that american "democracy" is largely controlled by the candidates who manage to get the endorsements of the wealthy, we need public funding of elections and we need to end citizens united. Vote buying? Oh please, voters vote based on the party that has their interests in mind, that's how democracy works, you probably disagree with this, which is understandable, given you're a verified nut case. Crony capitalism? Ah, a classic phrase thrown out by "free market" worshipers who fail to understand that a "free market" can never exist, ever, it's impossible, everywhere it has had the chance to thrive, it has led to monopolies, horrid conditions, and, eventually, the formation of a strong government to control the "free market." Welfare leeching? Want to look at the facts of welfare? First, we have to determine how you define welfare, I'll go with this: "Welfare is the provision of a minimal level of well-being and social support for all citizens, sometimes referred to as public aid."
Now, you can put so many different things into this definition, but welfare is a necessity of any civilized society, especially in a country such as america where wages are stagnant, where the cost of living continually increases, the cost of child care... It doesn't help that education costs keep rising and the minimum wage isn't moving, although you nutjobs want to completely remove it, which is fucking hysterical, but that's another point entirely. Structural unemployment, children, the disabled, the elderly, people who don't make enough to feed their kids.. These are the majority who use welfare, and before you try to go into an incoherent rant on immigrants, illegal immigrants cannot vote, and they cannot get on welfare programs, unless you count hospital care and education, which I believe should continue, given that I consider myself a decent human being and want America to be seen as a great country in the eyes of the world. Let's go back to your productive point, when you define the "productivity" or worth of someone based on their wealth, that is a hilariously skewed worldview, is the walton family productive because they inherit money? Is the CEO of nestle productive when he relies on his employees to do all of the manual labor, and assigns tasks to his advisors and the like? Those at the bottom, the majority of workers within a business, they are the ones who are productive, not the CEO'S who continue to accumulate more and more wealth while the workers wages stay stagnant. You claim taxation on the rich can never grow the economy, I'm sure you realize that Reagan, conservative hero, realized he had to raise taxes. Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010
Just thought I'd throw that in there, given many conservatives, and people like yourself, worship Reagan as some god. You have yet to show any coorelation between high taxes on the rich and a failing economy, the IMF report shows otherwise, and before you yell out that they're a "communist" homo fascist neonazi propaganda organ, you should come to the conclusion that calling everything you can't understand propaganda is immature and dishonest, but this doesn't surprise me, people like yourself aren't really open to reason, although It's funny to play with you like you're a little toy for my cat.
"Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state"
"Passed by Congress on July 2, 1909, and ratified February 3, 1913, the 16th amendment established Congress's right to impose a Federal income tax."
You will need to somehow show a direct correlation, given that the economic growth has been all over the place.
How do you define a welfare state?

I don't any problem with the "facts". The "facts" are the "facts". My problem is that you take two unrelated "facts" and combine them into an assumed link, which is "Opinion".

Your OPINION, of the "facts" is not a "fact".

Now you said a ton of wrong things in that post, and so I can't answer them all, because that would be a 15 page post. So let's just talk about one aspect. Social Mobility and Income equality, as it relates to the most popular example: Sweden.

Yes, there are countries where the top people earn quite a bit less. And that is slowly going away. Sweden is not the egalitarian paradise that you people on the left, make it out to be.

In the 1980s, CEO pay in Sweden was relatively modest compared to the other western countries. But times have changed. Most of the articles still written today proclaiming the virtues of the Swedish low-pay CEO, are all based on outdated data.

Swedish CEO salaries 'unacceptable': union - The Local
Unions screaming about CEO pay, just like here. People earning $2 to $4 Million in pay per year, just like here.

Lower CEO Pay and Better Results in Europe?

This article explains it fairly well. CEOs in Sweden were fine earning what they did, as long as they remained isolated in Sweden.

But all that has changed over time. International Swedish corporations send people abroad to work in subsidiaries in other countries, and after getting used to the higher pay, refuse to return to Sweden.

Additionally, international head hunters, and companies looking for top quality talent, have no problem making a job offer to a executive at a Swedish corporation, where the offer could be for a less stressful job, and yet pay double their wage.

Worse, Swedish companies have no recourse. Sending a job offer for a fraction of the pay, to an employee abroad, is a difficult sell. Come to Sweden. You'll earn a fraction of what you are now, and lose more of what less you get, in taxes.

Now for the record, I have no problem if you can get a CEO to work for $150,000 a year.... great knock yourself out. Go make your own corporation, and try and pay the CEO that little. You realize that Jeffery Skillings, of Enron fame, was only paid a salary of $275,000 when he first came as CEO of Enron subsidiary.... What a bargain that was.

People on the left, like to pretend that the reason CEOs in Sweden and Japan work for a fraction of US wages, is because of their policies. And if we put in place the same policies, suddenly CEO will all work for $150K a year.

Not true. There are no laws that prevent CEOs in Sweden and Japan from earning more. They don't earn more by choice. As time goes on, and economic incentives push up wages, Sweden and Japan both, have seen a dramatic rise in CEO wages.

From the other side of the argument, I also have a problem with the claims that social mobility is higher in Sweden or Japan. That claim is just flat out not true.

The problem is that admittedly the high end of the income spectrum is lower in Sweden. What people seem to ignore, is that this inherently and mathematically, skews income mobility.

Think about it.... say country A has an income top end of $10 Million, and country B has an income top end of $300,000.

You have two people, one in each country. Both start off earning zero, and take an entry level position making $15,000 a year. The person in country A, moves up (over time) to a $200,000 a year position. The person in country B moves up to a $100,000 a year position.

Who has advanced up the Social Mobility ladder farther? The person in country B. Not because his income has progressed more than the similar person in country A.... but rather because the top is lower.

The person A is doing far better, by a wide margin, than person B, but simply because the ladder is smaller, person B is closer to the top than person A.

So the idea that income mobility is better in some of this countries is rather dubious.

Lastly, I have some fundamental doubts to the validity of the claims. I have no doubt that the numbers given are accurate to their source.... but is the source correct?

I'll give you an example. Stefan Parsson, is 'estimated' to be the most wealthy person in all of Sweden. 24th most wealthy man in the world today.

Tell me how much he makes? What's his income?

Do you know? You have a source? I'd love to know. I searched all the most reputable sources I knew of. I search Forbes. I search Bloomberg. I search FT, CNN Money. I checked some Swedish media sources, and even a couple (not many), printed in Swedish using Google translate.

Finally I checked Hennes & Mauritz company information. None of what I checked anywhere said how much he earns, or what his compensation or salary is.

Nor could I locate how much H&M pays any of their executive board.

So when you claim executives are paid a modest salary in Sweden..... how do you know? Based on what?

Do you think Mr Persson lives a life similar to that of ordinary Swedes? Persson owns 9,000 acers of land in the UK, is / has built a 9 bedroom mansion, with 12-car parking, and 9 full time employees. That's just the UK. He owns prime real-estate in Paris, and several other countries.

By the way, the entire reason H&M went public, was to avoid the inheritance tax in Sweden. So he still owns the company, but was able to avoid taxes. So even in Sweden, the proclaimed socialist paradise (not true at all), the rich still avoid taxes just like here.

But my point is, do you think that Persson with his three yachts, that float him around to his mansions around the world, or any of the other super wealthy live even remotely similar lives to the ordinary Swedes? You think that because their statistical CEO wages are lower than that of the rest of the western world, that they are living any less lavishly?

So while left-wing economists cook up a bunch of stats, that are interesting data to look at, it's far from proving the left-wing claims you suggest they do.

 

[dcraelin]

This eat the rich shit is stupid and ignorant. ... hey idiots who is gonna employ your stupid asses once the rich no long have money?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

some poor entrepreneur who has borrowed money to start the business hes always wanted to have

 

[Votto]

This eat the rich shit is stupid and ignorant. ... hey idiots who is gonna employ your stupid asses once the rich no long have money?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

The eat the rich rhetoric is actually smart. People love to covet.

It reminds me of how Hitler heavily taxed the top 4% in Germany. The average German loved it. Even though it did not bring in much revenue to speak of, people loved the fact that rich folk were being brought down to their level.

In fact, the Jewish population were financially more successful in Nazi Germany than the average citizen like they are in the US today and around the world. People continue to covet them and is a good explanation for the rampant anti-Semitism of years past and of today.

 

[GWV5903]

This thread proves liberals hate thier children

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

That is if the unborn baby got past the executioners knife on the abortion table. I heard that some parts have been sold for profit, but hey, liberals would sell their mothers if they could get away with it.

Fetuses aren't babies.

So you came here from an egg?

 

[Andylusion]

This eat the rich shit is stupid and ignorant. ... hey idiots who is gonna employ your stupid asses once the rich no long have money?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

some poor entrepreneur who has borrowed money to start the business hes always wanted to have

What are you smoking? Without the rich, the banks don't have any money to lend out. Try again.

 

[RKMBrown]

you left out the supply and demand factor in your explanation of wealth entirely.......

Hmmm, no I didn't. As I noted, the rich produce what people DEMAND. They acquire skills that employers DEMAND and that are in short SUPPLY. That's why heart surgeons get rich, but clerks at 7-11 remain poor. People with the skills needed to be a clerk are a dime a dozen.

and you over-hype I think the effect of "hard work intelligence and responsibility" how many millions did these corrupt bankers make in the run up to the housing bust.......

Politicians and government bureaucrats caused the housing bust, not bankers. The later did what the politicians and bureaucrats ordered them to do: give mortgages to people who couldn't make the payments. A lot of banks lost their asses and went bust because of the real estate bubble. Almost none made more money than they would have otherwise.

In a fully functioning, transparent market there would be a tendency towards less concentrated wealth creation.....large concentrations of wealth point to lack of competition...

Politicians, as Trump likes to point out, do the bidding of the rich and influential, so to say the politicians and the government bureaucrats caused the housing bust is seeing only half the picture....someone influential in our broken system...wanted the policies that were in place.....likely so they could get even wealthier trading in guaranteed mortgages etc.

There are many examples of the rich milking government....it is the main thing that needs to be gotten rid of to cut the cost of government.

Yeah well our Government's job is to break up the oligopolies and monopolies... so what does it do? It makes oligopolies and monopolies, at the expense of the tax payer no less. To big to fail!! ROFL.. the only group that's not too big to fail? The US taxpayer.... eff the tax payers all hail the Emperor.

Yet, the Right usually Only complains when bailing out the least wealthy with the (other) Peoples' tax monies.

Why should those who don't want to work, be rewarded? Go back to the 1800's, if you didn't work, you starved. So more people worked, but thanks to FDR, with a chicken in every pot, and pot in every libs hand, America is slowing killing itself, which has been the plan of the liberals. If it wasn't for the 2nd amendment, this country would be totally Communist and the "WORKERS" would be FORCED to work at the point of the gun, just like it was in the old USSR. Shame dipshit liberals are too dumb to study history, so America has to repeat it.

ok yeah agreed.

 

[danielpalos]

What ever happened to "FAMILY". At one time people would take care of the young, their wives, their parents, all under the same roof. Today, you would be lucky to find a father, who takes care of HIS kids and wife. Liberal government replaced Daddy with Uncle Sugar, so more young ones grow up mad as hell, and go out of their way to show their anger. Just look at the inner city and why social safety nets end up killing people. Such stupid people who vote Dumbocrat.

We got socialism to bailout capitalism; like usual for more developed economies.

Capitalism still doesn't have a profit motive to have a Moon Race.

 

[danielpalos]

We need the the equivalent to an oil pump that circulates liquidity in our economy.

 

[danielpalos]

Hmmm, no I didn't. As I noted, the rich produce what people DEMAND. They acquire skills that employers DEMAND and that are in short SUPPLY. That's why heart surgeons get rich, but clerks at 7-11 remain poor. People with the skills needed to be a clerk are a dime a dozen.

Politicians and government bureaucrats caused the housing bust, not bankers. The later did what the politicians and bureaucrats ordered them to do: give mortgages to people who couldn't make the payments. A lot of banks lost their asses and went bust because of the real estate bubble. Almost none made more money than they would have otherwise.

In a fully functioning, transparent market there would be a tendency towards less concentrated wealth creation.....large concentrations of wealth point to lack of competition...

Politicians, as Trump likes to point out, do the bidding of the rich and influential, so to say the politicians and the government bureaucrats caused the housing bust is seeing only half the picture....someone influential in our broken system...wanted the policies that were in place.....likely so they could get even wealthier trading in guaranteed mortgages etc.

There are many examples of the rich milking government....it is the main thing that needs to be gotten rid of to cut the cost of government.

Yeah well our Government's job is to break up the oligopolies and monopolies... so what does it do? It makes oligopolies and monopolies, at the expense of the tax payer no less. To big to fail!! ROFL.. the only group that's not too big to fail? The US taxpayer.... eff the tax payers all hail the Emperor.

Yet, the Right usually Only complains when bailing out the least wealthy with the (other) Peoples' tax monies.

Why should those who don't want to work, be rewarded? Go back to the 1800's, if you didn't work, you starved. So more people worked, but thanks to FDR, with a chicken in every pot, and pot in every libs hand, America is slowing killing itself, which has been the plan of the liberals. If it wasn't for the 2nd amendment, this country would be totally Communist and the "WORKERS" would be FORCED to work at the point of the gun, just like it was in the old USSR. Shame dipshit liberals are too dumb to study history, so America has to repeat it.

ok yeah agreed.

Yet, the Right usually Only complains when bailing out the least wealthy with the (other) Peoples' tax monies.

 

[bripat9643]

In a fully functioning, transparent market there would be a tendency towards less concentrated wealth creation.....large concentrations of wealth point to lack of competition...

Politicians, as Trump likes to point out, do the bidding of the rich and influential, so to say the politicians and the government bureaucrats caused the housing bust is seeing only half the picture....someone influential in our broken system...wanted the policies that were in place.....likely so they could get even wealthier trading in guaranteed mortgages etc.

There are many examples of the rich milking government....it is the main thing that needs to be gotten rid of to cut the cost of government.

Yeah well our Government's job is to break up the oligopolies and monopolies... so what does it do? It makes oligopolies and monopolies, at the expense of the tax payer no less. To big to fail!! ROFL.. the only group that's not too big to fail? The US taxpayer.... eff the tax payers all hail the Emperor.

Yet, the Right usually Only complains when bailing out the least wealthy with the (other) Peoples' tax monies.

Why should those who don't want to work, be rewarded? Go back to the 1800's, if you didn't work, you starved. So more people worked, but thanks to FDR, with a chicken in every pot, and pot in every libs hand, America is slowing killing itself, which has been the plan of the liberals. If it wasn't for the 2nd amendment, this country would be totally Communist and the "WORKERS" would be FORCED to work at the point of the gun, just like it was in the old USSR. Shame dipshit liberals are too dumb to study history, so America has to repeat it.

ok yeah agreed.

Yet, the Right usually Only complains when bailing out the least wealthy with the (other) Peoples' tax monies.

Bullshit. We complain about bailing anyone out. The right complained the loudest about Bush's TARP boondoggle. More Democrats than Republicans voted for it.

 

[David_42]

The truth hurts.
Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality : A Global Perspective

"The causes of wealth inequality?" The idea that wealth could ever be equally distributed is absurd.

The study looks at many different economies and factors, and determines that income inequality is more harmful to economic growth then a more balanced system. No one is proposing complete equal distribution, except for you maybe, given you're a loon.

The determination was made entirely on bullshit. You can't prove economic theorems using statistical data.

Your "balanced system" can never exist in reality. The only means you propose of "balancing" is by looting the wealthy, which means a vast corrupt system of bribery, vote buying, crony capitalism and welfare leaching. Taking money from productive people and giving it to the government can never grow the economy. Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state.

Made entirely on bullshit? You have yet to even examine the study, and it looks at more then statistical data, of course, a willfully ignorant person like yourself has no interest in facts. Can never exist? Progressive taxation and strong labor participation in unions can help this, along with state regulations to benefit working people, like the minimum wage, labor laws, making sure workers can get back stolen pay, etc, etc.. Looting the wealthy? You see, this is the problem with you guys, you have this insane idea that taxation, which is allowed, is somehow looting. This is the 21st century, every country on earth conducts taxation, except somalia and other "free market" countries that lack an evil gubment to tell the rich what to do. Corrupt system of bribery? Yeah, you seem to be forgetting that american "democracy" is largely controlled by the candidates who manage to get the endorsements of the wealthy, we need public funding of elections and we need to end citizens united. Vote buying? Oh please, voters vote based on the party that has their interests in mind, that's how democracy works, you probably disagree with this, which is understandable, given you're a verified nut case. Crony capitalism? Ah, a classic phrase thrown out by "free market" worshipers who fail to understand that a "free market" can never exist, ever, it's impossible, everywhere it has had the chance to thrive, it has led to monopolies, horrid conditions, and, eventually, the formation of a strong government to control the "free market." Welfare leeching? Want to look at the facts of welfare? First, we have to determine how you define welfare, I'll go with this: "Welfare is the provision of a minimal level of well-being and social support for all citizens, sometimes referred to as public aid."
Now, you can put so many different things into this definition, but welfare is a necessity of any civilized society, especially in a country such as america where wages are stagnant, where the cost of living continually increases, the cost of child care... It doesn't help that education costs keep rising and the minimum wage isn't moving, although you nutjobs want to completely remove it, which is fucking hysterical, but that's another point entirely. Structural unemployment, children, the disabled, the elderly, people who don't make enough to feed their kids.. These are the majority who use welfare, and before you try to go into an incoherent rant on immigrants, illegal immigrants cannot vote, and they cannot get on welfare programs, unless you count hospital care and education, which I believe should continue, given that I consider myself a decent human being and want America to be seen as a great country in the eyes of the world. Let's go back to your productive point, when you define the "productivity" or worth of someone based on their wealth, that is a hilariously skewed worldview, is the walton family productive because they inherit money? Is the CEO of nestle productive when he relies on his employees to do all of the manual labor, and assigns tasks to his advisors and the like? Those at the bottom, the majority of workers within a business, they are the ones who are productive, not the CEO'S who continue to accumulate more and more wealth while the workers wages stay stagnant. You claim taxation on the rich can never grow the economy, I'm sure you realize that Reagan, conservative hero, realized he had to raise taxes. Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010
Just thought I'd throw that in there, given many conservatives, and people like yourself, worship Reagan as some god. You have yet to show any coorelation between high taxes on the rich and a failing economy, the IMF report shows otherwise, and before you yell out that they're a "communist" homo fascist neonazi propaganda organ, you should come to the conclusion that calling everything you can't understand propaganda is immature and dishonest, but this doesn't surprise me, people like yourself aren't really open to reason, although It's funny to play with you like you're a little toy for my cat.
"Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state"
"Passed by Congress on July 2, 1909, and ratified February 3, 1913, the 16th amendment established Congress's right to impose a Federal income tax."
You will need to somehow show a direct correlation, given that the economic growth has been all over the place.
How do you define a welfare state?

I don't any problem with the "facts". The "facts" are the "facts". My problem is that you take two unrelated "facts" and combine them into an assumed link, which is "Opinion".

Your OPINION, of the "facts" is not a "fact".

Now you said a ton of wrong things in that post, and so I can't answer them all, because that would be a 15 page post. So let's just talk about one aspect. Social Mobility and Income equality, as it relates to the most popular example: Sweden.

Yes, there are countries where the top people earn quite a bit less. And that is slowly going away. Sweden is not the egalitarian paradise that you people on the left, make it out to be.

In the 1980s, CEO pay in Sweden was relatively modest compared to the other western countries. But times have changed. Most of the articles still written today proclaiming the virtues of the Swedish low-pay CEO, are all based on outdated data.

Swedish CEO salaries 'unacceptable': union - The Local
Unions screaming about CEO pay, just like here. People earning $2 to $4 Million in pay per year, just like here.

Lower CEO Pay and Better Results in Europe?

This article explains it fairly well. CEOs in Sweden were fine earning what they did, as long as they remained isolated in Sweden.

But all that has changed over time. International Swedish corporations send people abroad to work in subsidiaries in other countries, and after getting used to the higher pay, refuse to return to Sweden.

Additionally, international head hunters, and companies looking for top quality talent, have no problem making a job offer to a executive at a Swedish corporation, where the offer could be for a less stressful job, and yet pay double their wage.

Worse, Swedish companies have no recourse. Sending a job offer for a fraction of the pay, to an employee abroad, is a difficult sell. Come to Sweden. You'll earn a fraction of what you are now, and lose more of what less you get, in taxes.

Now for the record, I have no problem if you can get a CEO to work for $150,000 a year.... great knock yourself out. Go make your own corporation, and try and pay the CEO that little. You realize that Jeffery Skillings, of Enron fame, was only paid a salary of $275,000 when he first came as CEO of Enron subsidiary.... What a bargain that was.

People on the left, like to pretend that the reason CEOs in Sweden and Japan work for a fraction of US wages, is because of their policies. And if we put in place the same policies, suddenly CEO will all work for $150K a year.

Not true. There are no laws that prevent CEOs in Sweden and Japan from earning more. They don't earn more by choice. As time goes on, and economic incentives push up wages, Sweden and Japan both, have seen a dramatic rise in CEO wages.

From the other side of the argument, I also have a problem with the claims that social mobility is higher in Sweden or Japan. That claim is just flat out not true.

The problem is that admittedly the high end of the income spectrum is lower in Sweden. What people seem to ignore, is that this inherently and mathematically, skews income mobility.

Think about it.... say country A has an income top end of $10 Million, and country B has an income top end of $300,000.

You have two people, one in each country. Both start off earning zero, and take an entry level position making $15,000 a year. The person in country A, moves up (over time) to a $200,000 a year position. The person in country B moves up to a $100,000 a year position.

Who has advanced up the Social Mobility ladder farther? The person in country B. Not because his income has progressed more than the similar person in country A.... but rather because the top is lower.

The person A is doing far better, by a wide margin, than person B, but simply because the ladder is smaller, person B is closer to the top than person A.

So the idea that income mobility is better in some of this countries is rather dubious.

Lastly, I have some fundamental doubts to the validity of the claims. I have no doubt that the numbers given are accurate to their source.... but is the source correct?

I'll give you an example. Stefan Parsson, is 'estimated' to be the most wealthy person in all of Sweden. 24th most wealthy man in the world today.

Tell me how much he makes? What's his income?

Do you know? You have a source? I'd love to know. I searched all the most reputable sources I knew of. I search Forbes. I search Bloomberg. I search FT, CNN Money. I checked some Swedish media sources, and even a couple (not many), printed in Swedish using Google translate.

Finally I checked Hennes & Mauritz company information. None of what I checked anywhere said how much he earns, or what his compensation or salary is.

Nor could I locate how much H&M pays any of their executive board.

So when you claim executives are paid a modest salary in Sweden..... how do you know? Based on what?

Do you think Mr Persson lives a life similar to that of ordinary Swedes? Persson owns 9,000 acers of land in the UK, is / has built a 9 bedroom mansion, with 12-car parking, and 9 full time employees. That's just the UK. He owns prime real-estate in Paris, and several other countries.

By the way, the entire reason H&M went public, was to avoid the inheritance tax in Sweden. So he still owns the company, but was able to avoid taxes. So even in Sweden, the proclaimed socialist paradise (not true at all), the rich still avoid taxes just like here.

But my point is, do you think that Persson with his three yachts, that float him around to his mansions around the world, or any of the other super wealthy live even remotely similar lives to the ordinary Swedes? You think that because their statistical CEO wages are lower than that of the rest of the western world, that they are living any less lavishly?

So while left-wing economists cook up a bunch of stats, that are interesting data to look at, it's far from proving the left-wing claims you suggest they do.

When did I mention Sweden?

 

[Dad2three]

Yeah well our Government's job is to break up the oligopolies and monopolies... so what does it do? It makes oligopolies and monopolies, at the expense of the tax payer no less. To big to fail!! ROFL.. the only group that's not too big to fail? The US taxpayer.... eff the tax payers all hail the Emperor.

Yet, the Right usually Only complains when bailing out the least wealthy with the (other) Peoples' tax monies.

Why should those who don't want to work, be rewarded? Go back to the 1800's, if you didn't work, you starved. So more people worked, but thanks to FDR, with a chicken in every pot, and pot in every libs hand, America is slowing killing itself, which has been the plan of the liberals. If it wasn't for the 2nd amendment, this country would be totally Communist and the "WORKERS" would be FORCED to work at the point of the gun, just like it was in the old USSR. Shame dipshit liberals are too dumb to study history, so America has to repeat it.

ok yeah agreed.

Yet, the Right usually Only complains when bailing out the least wealthy with the (other) Peoples' tax monies.

Bullshit. We complain about bailing anyone out. The right complained the loudest about Bush's TARP boondoggle. More Democrats than Republicans voted for it.

Yep, the Dems care more about saving US than the ideological right wingers who CREATED the mess that needed a bailout, just like Ronnie's S&L bailout and Harding/Coolidge's great depression

 

[Dad2three]

Worked before

One thing we do know is that Supply Side Economics has been a failure

Are things better now? Nope.

Why not people have their economic freedom then?

Economic freedom? Oh you want US to look like the 3rd world nations your policy would turn US back into?

 

[Dad2three]

This eat the rich shit is stupid and ignorant. ... hey idiots who is gonna employ your stupid asses once the rich no long have money?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

The government, that is who will employ you, at the point of a gun. You "WILL" work for the measly little sustenance that they give you, or you will be shot or sent to the gulag. I mean that was what the liberal in the USSR did, when you didn't do what the government said. Here we have had the Dumbocrats FORCING us to buy healthcare or be punished. Just another inch closer to the United Communist States of America.

Too funny Bubba, jails huh? lol

 

[Dad2three]

This eat the rich shit is stupid and ignorant. ... hey idiots who is gonna employ your stupid asses once the rich no long have money?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Without false premises, distortions and lies, what would the right wing EVER have?


2/3RDS OF US economy is consumer driven, more hands in the bottom 90% of US, THE Larger the economy!


BUT LET'S JUST GO BACK TO THE GOOD OLD CALVINIST BS WHERE AT LEAST WE "WORK", LOL

 

[thanatos144]

This eat the rich shit is stupid and ignorant. ... hey idiots who is gonna employ your stupid asses once the rich no long have money?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Without false premises, distortions and lies, what would the right wing EVER have?


2/3RDS OF US economy is consumer driven, more hands in the bottom 90% of US, THE Larger the economy!


BUT LET'S JUST GO BACK TO THE GOOD OLD CALVINIST BS WHERE AT LEAST WE "WORK", LOL

You idiot they don't have unlimited money

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk