The Question Conservatives Can't Answer

[edthecynic]

Okay, stop the presses...this is the liberal person's flawed thinking in plain sight for all to see.

You seem to think if top earners made a trillion less, it somehow would go to other US taxpayers. You forget a small step, though - if the top earners made less, where would this trillion dollars come from? In truth, if top earners made a trillion less, our entire economy would be a trillion dollars smaller.

Of course, the rich would still get their percentage of this smaller pie - and so would you...but in point of fact, your slice would shrink too. it's not like there's money just floating around in search of a home. This is the sort of thinking that gets those on the left in trouble.

Truth is, you want more prosperity, you should be doing everything you possibly can to help those nasty rich people make every dime that they can, instead of opposing them at every turn.

That's not necessarily true.

What he is saying is if that 1 trillion in profit was not pocketed by the rich and paid out in wages, the economy would grow more by the spending of the 1 trillion by the wage earners than by the banking of the 1 trillion by the rich. Money spent by the wage earners stimulated demand and growth, but money banked by the wealthy stimulates almost nothing. They are not going to invest in increased production if the public does not have the money to buy the extra production.

Not true. Fact...Wealth is created. So in order for the economy to grow, i.e. wages to be earned, the originator( wealthy) must invest or expand business. Without business, there are no jobs.
The notion that all profits are pocketed or simply banked away is patently false.

Of course, "all" profits was never mentioned, and most jobs come from small business, not millionaires. Everyone I ever worked for told me they were poor!

 

[thereisnospoon]

My first choice would be the one with cost-plus contracts.

A WPA-II program would be administered like the original with the military assuming operational command. Do you think it's possible over the next generation (at least) to put military and civilians to work rebuilding US infrastructure instead of bombing infrastructure on the opposite side of the planet?

State banks like the one in North Dakota could provide some of the financing without any help from Wall Street.

My first choice would be that people wake up and recognize that intervening in free markets is not the role of the Government.

Governments can't help but make political decisions that favor one group over another. Look at the recent NASA cutbacks...does is not occur to folks that most of the tens of thousands of jobs lost are "red state" jobs?

Does it also not occur to you that Social Security is a scam designed to keep mostly poor people down?

If you pay into the program, you need to live to be about 72 to break even, and even if you live to be 80, your return is only about 2% on a lifetime of investing from you and your employers.

Compare that to nearly any other investment - on a broad scale, US investment return since 1900 is about 9.8%, and that includes the depression, two world wars and so on. The Government forces people to accept lower rates of return on their retirement savings than they deserve.

Social Security is also an inherently racist system, in that it penalizes minority groups because they have lower life expectancies. Imagine you're a black male in today's society...your life expectancy is only about 67. You pay into Social Security your whole life, and on average, you don't get to see a penny returned.

Worse, even if you put all that money - and don't forget, it's nearly 15% of all wages ever earned - under your mattress, at least you'd have a tidy sum to leave to your kids. Not so with Social Security - not only do you not benefit from it, neither do your heirs.

Now you want to go build a "WPA-II" or some other nonsensical infrastructure building company. No thanks - it's not the Government's role.

This is one of the most bizzare posts I have ever seen.

People won't save. You know they won't. It's human nature.

Therefore, it is better to have a government program that takes care of the old and the sick. The richest country in the world should be able to take care of its old and sick.

But modern day conservatism is the political codification of selfishness.

Yes yes yes. Never mind the fact that it those who identify themselves as conservatives far and away out donate to charities as those who identify themselves as liberal.
Look genius, you believe people won't save. Fine. Reality says different. Only the fiscally deficient and the undisciplined spend money they do not have. That is not the majority of society's problem.
Your notion presupposes the notion that because a few of us are unable to handle our money we ALL must be under the thumb of central planning. Nonsense.
I am incensed over the Left's efforts to sway government to remove our freedom and liberty.
Not in any part of the imagination does the idea that the disabled or elderly not receive any help based in reality.
The objection to taxation is not taxation in and of itself. The battle is being waged against government waste, fraud, abuse, red tape and bureaucracy.
If it were your way, everyone would be equal. Equally miserable while an elite ruling class made up of self appointed for life dictators lords over the population. If that's your bag, Venezuela is perfect for you. See ya!

 

[gslack]

It's you CON$ who are paying no income tax and the Libs who are more financially successful than you lazy CON$ervative slackers. get a fucking job and then you can afford a tractor like the Lib you envy!

That's it when caught being a moron turn into a bigger moron...

That is obviously your tactic, but the fact remains that Libs are more financially successful than CON$, and rather than work as hard as Libs to achieve the same success, CON$ just pretend to be more successful which for them is a lot less work.

LOL, I think I just found kornholeV's papa...

Way to ramble and show your inability to defend a position you make for yourself....

 

[Full-Auto]

Hey dumb ass, I didn't say the people who don't own the tractor pay for the tractor owned by someone else, I said the people who don't own the tractor pay to support the government that protects the right to privately own the tractor. The fact that you felt obligated to create a Straw Man proves even you know I'm right, but you are too dishonest to admit it.

And the people who benefit most from the government protecting their right to private ownership are the people who have accumulated the most private wealth!!! Nothing could be more obvious, but YOU can't see it at all!!!!

Okay shithead, you just had to go and be an ass didn't you... FIne..

1. You said "CON$ say the person with no tractor should pay more to support the government that protects your neighbors right to privately own that tractor."

I assumed the fact I mentioned "you pay for the right to be protected" that you would get the point i was making but you're obviously going to try and be a semantic little shithead to cover up your BS is retarded. You can try and bod face what you want in my posts and try to make all the semantic excuses for your ignorance you want but it won't change anything.

The fact is YOU do not pay anything at all. YOU most likely got a refund and thats IF you even paid in anything at all. SO again no one said "CON$ say the person with no tractor should pay more to support the government that protects your neighbors right to privately own that tractor." YOU said that fool.

YOU made that claim retard. And NO ONE here said or implied any such thing, and further I even told you that no one expects you to pay for their tractor, and if it makes you feel better or you are too slow to get it, that means right to own the tractor you imbecile...

Now want to try a reading comprehension class? IDIOT!

Bottom line here is you obviously feel the world owes you something. YOU feel that rich people got that way on your back, well thats a BS cop-out. Want to be rich? Then go make yourself rich but don't punish people for being successful cause then everybody suffers. Dude you are completely pathetic....

It's you CON$ who are paying no income tax and the Libs who are more financially successful than you lazy CON$ervative slackers. get a fucking job and then you can afford a tractor like the Lib you envy!

 

[georgephillip]

From Sunday 1/24/2010

"Dem genius strategerist David Axelrod:

"'If there's a political strategy not to cooperate, there's not a whole lot that you can do about it.'"

"Well, you could have indicted a boatload of Republican lawbreakers and sent them to jail for torture, warrantless surveillance, corruption in Iraq, and so forth.

"Then you could have indicted another boatload of banksters and sent them to jail for accounting control fraud. You could have cleaned house.

"That would have destroyed the Republican brand for a generation, and the conservative movement, too. And that would have been change that brought hope.

"But, really, it's just a lot easier to sell yourself out to the highest bidder. Which the Dems did.

"And here we are!"

Not with a bang but a whimper | Corrente

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

From Sunday 1/24/2010



"Then you could have indicted another boatload of banksters and sent them to jail for accounting control fraud. You could have cleaned house.

Excellent idea. Franklin Raines and all the rest of the Dem fraudsters at Fannie Mae would be a great first step.

 

[georgephillip]

Democrats AND Republicans serve the same 1% of the population.

 

[edthecynic]

That's it when caught being a moron turn into a bigger moron...

That is obviously your tactic, but the fact remains that Libs are more financially successful than CON$, and rather than work as hard as Libs to achieve the same success, CON$ just pretend to be more successful which for them is a lot less work.

LOL, I think I just found kornholeV's papa...

Way to ramble and show your inability to defend a position you make for yourself....

You can't deny that on the average Libs are more financially successful than CON$, and CON$ only pretend to be the achievers the Libs actually are. It's much easier for CON$ to simply declare themselves achievers than to actually successfully achieve anything.

 

[Mr.Nick]

That is obviously your tactic, but the fact remains that Libs are more financially successful than CON$, and rather than work as hard as Libs to achieve the same success, CON$ just pretend to be more successful which for them is a lot less work.

LOL, I think I just found kornholeV's papa...

Way to ramble and show your inability to defend a position you make for yourself....

You can't deny that on the average Libs are more financially successful than CON$, and CON$ only pretend to be the achievers the Libs actually are. It's much easier for CON$ to simply declare themselves achievers than to actually successfully achieve anything.

Do you actually believe that?

Then why the fuck are "cons" always being attacked for looking out for the rich and are generally labeled "rich bastards" by the left, not to mention are consistently accused of "hating the poor?"

I'd bet anything that 80%+ of those that make over 100k a year are conservative.

I'd bet 99% of the progressives that are rich would be downright pissed if their offspring was with an individual not of their class.

 

[edthecynic]

Yes yes yes. Never mind the fact that it those who identify themselves as conservatives far and away out donate to charities as those who identify themselves as liberal.

You can't deny that on the average Libs are more financially successful than CON$, and CON$ only pretend to be the achievers the Libs actually are. It's much easier for CON$ to simply declare themselves achievers than to actually successfully achieve anything.

Do you actually believe that?

Then why the fuck are "cons" always being attacked for looking out for the rich and are generally labeled "rich bastards" by the left, not to mention are consistently accused of "hating the poor?"

I'd bet anything that 80%+ of those that make over 100k a year are conservative.

I'd bet 99% of the progressives that are rich would be downright pissed if their offspring was with an individual not of their class.

How much can you afford to lose SUCKER!

Well, you might be wise to question it because the source is a CON$ervative. The same CON$ervative source that the "CON$ give more to charity" claim came from, but CON$ seem to never question that part of the claim.

In any case, assuming both claims are true, then when CON$ claim that the Libs are the 51% who are too poor to pay income taxes, then the wealthy have to be Libs for the Libs to average more income than CON$. If you claim that the wealthy are CON$ then the poor have to be CON$ in order to drag down the CON$ervative average down below the Lib average.

And as to why CON$ are labeled as "rich bastards" it's the Right who say the Left labels them that way, the same Right who label the Left as "Limousine Liberals."

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers
March 27, 2008
Conservatives More Liberal Givers
By George Will

Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

Democrats wake up to being the party of the rich
November 6, 2007
Democrats wake up to being the party of the rich
by Michael Franc

More and more Democrats represent areas with a high concentration of wealthy households. Using Internal Revenue Service data, the Heritage Foundation identified two categories of taxpayers - single filers with incomes of more than $100,000 and married filers with incomes of more than $200,000 - and combined them to discern where the wealthiest Americans live and who represents them.
Democrats now control the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions. More than half of the wealthiest households are concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats control both Senate seats.

 

[gslack]

Yes yes yes. Never mind the fact that it those who identify themselves as conservatives far and away out donate to charities as those who identify themselves as liberal.

Do you actually believe that?

Then why the fuck are "cons" always being attacked for looking out for the rich and are generally labeled "rich bastards" by the left, not to mention are consistently accused of "hating the poor?"

I'd bet anything that 80%+ of those that make over 100k a year are conservative.

I'd bet 99% of the progressives that are rich would be downright pissed if their offspring was with an individual not of their class.

How much can you afford to lose SUCKER!

Well, you might be wise to question it because the source is a CON$ervative. The same CON$ervative source that the "CON$ give more to charity" claim came from, but CON$ seem to never question that part of the claim.

In any case, assuming both claims are true, then when CON$ claim that the Libs are the 51% who are too poor to pay income taxes, then the wealthy have to be Libs for the Libs to average more income than CON$. If you claim that the wealthy are CON$ then the poor have to be CON$ in order to drag down the CON$ervative average down below the Lib average.

And as to why CON$ are labeled as "rich bastards" it's the Right who say the Left labels them that way, the same Right who label the Left as "Limousine Liberals."

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers
March 27, 2008
Conservatives More Liberal Givers
By George Will

Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

Democrats wake up to being the party of the rich
November 6, 2007
Democrats wake up to being the party of the rich
by Michael Franc

More and more Democrats represent areas with a high concentration of wealthy households. Using Internal Revenue Service data, the Heritage Foundation identified two categories of taxpayers - single filers with incomes of more than $100,000 and married filers with incomes of more than $200,000 - and combined them to discern where the wealthiest Americans live and who represents them.
Democrats now control the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions. More than half of the wealthiest households are concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats control both Senate seats.

Both your links aren't working try again tool... And BTW, your childish changing the argument to something that is an opinion is just plain asinine.. You are an idiot and your posting here shows this all too clearly. You have given no more thought to what you post than your boy kornhole does.... Thanks for the display of ignorant ramblings...

 

[edthecynic]

Yes yes yes. Never mind the fact that it those who identify themselves as conservatives far and away out donate to charities as those who identify themselves as liberal.

Quote: Originally Posted by Mr.Nick

Do you actually believe that?

Then why the fuck are "cons" always being attacked for looking out for the rich and are generally labeled "rich bastards" by the left, not to mention are consistently accused of "hating the poor?"

I'd bet anything that 80%+ of those that make over 100k a year are conservative.

I'd bet 99% of the progressives that are rich would be downright pissed if their offspring was with an individual not of their class.

How much can you afford to lose SUCKER!

Well, you might be wise to question it because the source is a CON$ervative. The same CON$ervative source that the "CON$ give more to charity" claim came from, but CON$ seem to never question that part of the claim.

In any case, assuming both claims are true, then when CON$ claim that the Libs are the 51% who are too poor to pay income taxes, then the wealthy have to be Libs for the Libs to average more income than CON$. If you claim that the wealthy are CON$ then the poor have to be CON$ in order to drag down the CON$ervative average down below the Lib average.

And as to why CON$ are labeled as "rich bastards" it's the Right who say the Left labels them that way, the same Right who label the Left as "Limousine Liberals."

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers
March 27, 2008
Conservatives More Liberal Givers
By George Will

Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

Democrats wake up to being the party of the rich
November 6, 2007
Democrats wake up to being the party of the rich
by Michael Franc

More and more Democrats represent areas with a high concentration of wealthy households. Using Internal Revenue Service data, the Heritage Foundation identified two categories of taxpayers - single filers with incomes of more than $100,000 and married filers with incomes of more than $200,000 - and combined them to discern where the wealthiest Americans live and who represents them.
Democrats now control the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions. More than half of the wealthiest households are concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats control both Senate seats.

Both your links aren't working try again tool... And BTW, your childish changing the argument to something that is an opinion is just plain asinine.. You are an idiot and your posting here shows this all too clearly. You have given no more thought to what you post than your boy kornhole does.... Thanks for the display of ignorant ramblings...

The links work perfectly, fool... That makes YOU the idiot!

 

[thereisnospoon]

That's not necessarily true.

What he is saying is if that 1 trillion in profit was not pocketed by the rich and paid out in wages, the economy would grow more by the spending of the 1 trillion by the wage earners than by the banking of the 1 trillion by the rich. Money spent by the wage earners stimulated demand and growth, but money banked by the wealthy stimulates almost nothing. They are not going to invest in increased production if the public does not have the money to buy the extra production.

Not true. Fact...Wealth is created. So in order for the economy to grow, i.e. wages to be earned, the originator( wealthy) must invest or expand business. Without business, there are no jobs.
The notion that all profits are pocketed or simply banked away is patently false.

Of course, "all" profits was never mentioned, and most jobs come from small business, not millionaires. Everyone I ever worked for told me they were poor!

Please..Just stop it now. You have reached the pinnacle of ridiculous.
You wrote "was not pocketed". You never quantified that remark. All the sudden it's "well I meant..."...
Let's not waste each other's time. We both know precisely what you implied.

 

[Missourian]

The question Georgephillips can't answer...

What does the top 1% have to do with households and small businesses making $250,000 a year?

You want to tax the top 1% at a higher rate...have at it man, I won't stand in your way.

 

[edthecynic]

Quote: Originally Posted by georgephillip
"Based on Tax Foundation figures, the richest 1% has TRIPLED its share of America's income over the past 30 years. Much of the gain came from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments.

"If their income had increased only at the pace of American productivity (80%), they would be taking about a TRILLION DOLLARS LESS out of our economy.

That trillion dollars would not be going to the government.
It would be going to the other 99% of US taxpayers.

Now... crawl back into Hillary's nose.
And die.

Okay, stop the presses...this is the liberal person's flawed thinking in plain sight for all to see.

You seem to think if top earners made a trillion less, it somehow would go to other US taxpayers. You forget a small step, though - if the top earners made less, where would this trillion dollars come from? In truth, if top earners made a trillion less, our entire economy would be a trillion dollars smaller.

Of course, the rich would still get their percentage of this smaller pie - and so would you...but in point of fact, your slice would shrink too. it's not like there's money just floating around in search of a home. This is the sort of thinking that gets those on the left in trouble.

Truth is, you want more prosperity, you should be doing everything you possibly can to help those nasty rich people make every dime that they can, instead of opposing them at every turn.

That's not necessarily true.

What he is saying is if that 1 trillion in profit was not pocketed by the rich and paid out in wages, the economy would grow more by the spending of the 1 trillion by the wage earners than by the banking of the 1 trillion by the rich. Money spent by the wage earners stimulated demand and growth, but money banked by the wealthy stimulates almost nothing. They are not going to invest in increased production if the public does not have the money to buy the extra production.

Not true. Fact...Wealth is created. So in order for the economy to grow, i.e. wages to be earned, the originator( wealthy) must invest or expand business. Without business, there are no jobs.
The notion that all profits are pocketed or simply banked away is patently false.

Of course, "all" profits was never mentioned, and most jobs come from small business, not millionaires. Everyone I ever worked for told me they were poor!

Please..Just stop it now. You have reached the pinnacle of ridiculous.
You wrote "was not pocketed". You never quantified that remark. All the sudden it's "well I meant..."...
Let's not waste each other's time. We both know precisely what you implied.

The remark was quantified by georgephillip, and he never said "ALL" profits. Learn to read. He said if the top 1%'s share had grown at 80% instead of 300%, so clearly he wasn't talking about "ALL" profit.

 

[cutter]

It was their money to begin with. They earned it.

When are you on the left going to realize that taxes burden the American people with labor they have to pay the government before they can take care of themselves? The money is theirs.

At what point have they paid their fair share?

where the jobs then? See implying thats its their money and agreeing they did in fact make more of it. You have to concede that trickle down does not work.
Instead what you see is Rich people keeping their money and not in fact expanding their work force.

But people like you cant admit this, because then your blaming of Obama and the current UE would look silly and just hateful.

The jobs were created. Your government has passed laws that ENCOURAGED companies to relocate in foreign countries. you don't remember ross periot telling you that sound you hear is American jobs going overseas? Thank your gov for NAFTA and all the other wonderful things that encourage companies to move, don't blame the companies for making smart business decisions. When the government encourages companies, with less regulation and friendlier business practices and incentives, they will come home. Less regulation is something you will never see with this president so don't hold your breath for more jobs any time soon.

 

[georgephillip]

The question Georgephillips can't answer...

What does the top 1% have to do with households and small businesses making $250,000 a year?

You want to tax the top 1% at a higher rate...have at it man, I won't stand in your way.

Elected Democrats AND Republicans have placed households and small businesses making $250,000 a year in the same tax bracket with those earning $250,000,000 each year. One way to counter this deception is to create a few new tax brackets.

Robert Reich suggests subjecting incomes between $500,000/year and $5 million/year to a 50% tax rate. Incomes between $5 million and $15 million/year would be taxed at 60%, and incomes over $15 million per year would pay at a 70% rate.

Reich also proposes a "substantial rate reduction for families with incomes under $100,000/year."

Robert Reich (The Growing Desperation of the Don't-Raise-Taxes-on-the-Rich Crowd)

I don't know how to crunch these numbers like Reich does; however, I would look long and hard at changing that 50% tax rate to incomes between $1 million/year and $5 million/year.

Finally, throughout my 45 years of working, most of the hardest workers I met were owners of small businesses. Their hiring drove the success of the US middle class, and when Wall Street wiped out $7.8 trillion worth of home values in 2008, it wiped out the nest eggs and collateral of much of America's middle class.

Yet the richest 1% of Americans have increased their share of US income and wealth since 2008.

'Think "Good Hair" cares?

 

[georgephillip]

The problem is 45% of the working American public pay no federal income tax what-so-ever and receive the same government benefits--off of other peoples backs. The top 10% in this country pay 70% of the entire tax base--and 45% of the public only pays 2.7%.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance,and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."Winston Churchill

The problem is 45% of working Americans don't earn enough to pay income taxes or drive 70% of US GDP:

"...the top 20% of the American populace holds roughly 93% of the country's financial wealth, and the top 1% of the country holds approximately 43% of the money in the U.S.

"Meanwhile, the middle 20% of the population -- what would, officially, be called the middle class -- holds only 6% of the country's total assets.

"While disturbing, even this minuscule share of the wealth pie dwarfs the bottom 40% of the country, who control less than 1%."

America has never been richer than it is today.
The distribution of that wealth has never been more unequal.
The solution does not require cutting Social Security.
It requires taxing the rich.

Disturbing Statistics on the Decline of America's Middle Class - DailyFinance

Punishing success to reward mediocrity. Yeah that's a good plan.

Just because my wife and I would be classified as the evil rich because of our AGI does not mean I should have to have a higher percentage of my income stolen from me by the fucking government.

Nothing I do in my business or personal life affects anyone's income but my own.

And did you ever think that the reason most of the so called middle class has no assets is that they spend more than they make just like the government does.

Unless you and your wife supply all the labor necessary to earn your AGI, your actions affect the income of others, i.e., your employees.

The middle class has been deliberately driven to debt because of the wage stagnation that's occurred in this country since the late 1970s.

Outsourcing of US jobs is one of the principle causes of middle class wage stagnation.

"When looking at the declining American middle class, a good number to start with is 42,400.

"That's the total number of factories that the U.S. lost between 2001 and the end of 2009.

"Put another way, this translates into the outsourcing of 32% of all manufacturing jobs in America.

Those whose AGI depends on outsourcing US jobs deserve to die homeless under a fucking bridge.

Disturbing Statistics on the Decline of America's Middle Class - DailyFinance

 

[georgephillip]

"The following fact was sent to numerous conservative pundits, politicians, and profit-seekers:

"Based on Tax Foundation figures, the richest 1% has TRIPLED its share of America's income over the past 30 years. Much of the gain came from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments.

"If their income had increased only at the pace of American productivity (80%), they would be taking about a TRILLION DOLLARS LESS out of our economy.

"And a question was posed:

"In what way do the richest 1% deserve these extraordinary gains?

"This question was not posed in sarcasm.

"A factual answer is genuinely sought.

"It seems unlikely that 1% of the population worked three times harder than the rest of us, or contributed three times as much to American productivity.

"Money earned from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments is not productive income."

Any takers, Cons?

The Question Conservatives Can't Answer | Common Dreams

This thread has most likely moved on from the OP now but I had to take a stab at it...

Your question is asking a generality but you said you wanted factual answers. Its like asking for a mathematical answer to why my kids leave their clothes in the bathroom floor..

You are forgetting one very important thing that your linked article and you overlooked. The 1% already were the richest 1% to begin with... Who do you think makes large corporations and companies which produce the products people buy and jobs they work? That 1%...

I find this kind of thing to be a hilarious bit of mathematical hucksterism. The richest 1% became richer... uh-huh... and thats a surprise how?

This world pretty much all of it anyway, runs on virtually the same kind of monetary/financial/banking structure. Even the world bank uses the same system we do (albeit on a broader scale). Now if you have people who manage to use this system to turn their billion dollars into 100 billion dollars, than why not ask the more pertinent questions about the system they used to do so?

Or even better if joe moneybags has 500 million and he uses half of it to start a new google and it becomes success. he has now become more wealthy. he had 500 mill and invested 250 mill, and say the company made his investment double he is now worth 750 mill. he takes that 750 mill and gets some good investments and bingo! hes now worth a billion. When he was worth 500 mill say he was taxed at standard rate. And then at 750 mill the same, and again at a billion standard rate. Now please explain to me at what point he deserved to be taxed at a higher rate? At what point did he go from being a guy with some money to invest and got lucky, to being a guy who was deserving a higher tax rate.. he made a company that made jobs for people to do, through the company paid taxes on all of his business dealings, paid licensing fees, paid for all the the usual things a large company would have to. Yet for all that you expect him to pay a higher rate than everyone else in addition to the taxes his company already pays...

When someone tells me the richest 1% made even more the last some odd number of years, its not a surprise nor is it relevant to a failing middle class or the plight of the lower classes. Its not like they are going to keep 500 billion in a mattress. Its gets invested, it gets put into the economy, or even used to create a business that will employ people. People that may be middle or lower class.

The actual separation of upper class vs the other classes is not just a left or right caused problem. Its a monetary/financial caused problem that is perpetuated on both extremes by those right and left political parties. Its an old problem, as old society. TO simply pretend a political party made it so is nonsense. There are rich and poor in every country and every age of advanced human. We used to have royalty and now we have banks that allow for the new royalty made from cash.

The system is designed to work for the wealthiest 1% the best. Who do you think made the investments to the banks in the first place? The more money you have to invest and risk the more you have to gain or lose.

The question, "(i)n what way do the richest 1% deserve these extraordinary gains"...seems pretty specific to me. Have they worked three times harder than the other 99% of Americans over the last four decades? Have they contributed three times as much to US productivity as other Americans?

Or have most of their gains come from tax shifts and minimally taxed financial instruments that contribute nothing to US productivity?

The richest 1% in the US were already the richest 1% because of a specific economic system that very deliberately rewards capital over labor in spite of the fact the former doesn't even exist without the latter.

Contrast that with Germany where the richest 1% of Germans control the same 11% of total annual income today that they controlled in 1980. While in this country, the richest 1% controlled 8% of total US income in 1980, and they control over 20% today.

The system is still designed to work for the richest 1%; however, the richest 1% no longer invest in productive enterprises. They invest in hedge funds which use the money to speculate on the cost of food and fuel. They "invest" in High Frequency Computer Trading where the underlying assets are held for fractions of a second.

And, most importantly, they don't lose anymore when their "investments" don't pan out.
They turn to taxpayers to bail them out.

 

[georgephillip]

"A state-owned bank on the BND model would not compete with community banks. Rather, it would partner with them and support them in making loans.

"The BND serves the role of a mini-Fed for the state. It provides correspondent banking services to virtually every financial institution in North Dakota and offers a Federal Funds program with daily volume of $330 million.

"It also provides check clearing, cash management services, and automated clearing house services.

"It leverages state funds into credit for local purposes, funds that would otherwise leave the state and be leveraged for investing abroad, drawing away jobs that could go to locals."

Any problem with state funds working for the benefit of state residents instead of Wall Street?

State-Owned Banks: A Win-Win for State Budgets and Local Economies by Ellen Brown

"It leverages state funds into credit for local purposes"

Maybe you can explain what Ellen means here?

Why don't you ask Ellen?

WEB OF DEBT BLOG

Maybe you will comprehend her answer?